Obama on/in Iraq: Another rookie mistake?
CBS News’ Maria Gavrilovic is reporting that Sen. Barack Obama participated in a phone call with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari today and indicated that he planned a trip to Iraq prior to the November elections.
Barack Obama told Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari on the telephone this morning that he would end the U.S. occupation in Iraq and promised to visit the country before the general election in November.
“I told him that I look forward to seeing him in Baghdad,” Obama said to reporters.
When asked when that meeting would take place, Obama said his campaign will make an announcement soon but that he is interested in visiting Iraq and Afghanistan before the election.
Obama previously dodged an obvious political trap set by his opponent in refusing to take a joint trip to the region with Senator McCain which would have been rife with political overtones and short on solid international diplomatic effectiveness. I find myself reading this article and wondering if Obama has not managed to avoid one pitfall only to wander blindly into the next.
Speaking as a veteran, I will say that it is only natural for large numbers of our military to give their full throated and heartfelt support to the mission to which they are assigned. As such, it is no surprise that PR opportunities involving the troops will often show up favoring the party supporting the war and casting stones at the party opposing it. (For reference, see the now famous “Halp us Jon Carry” photo from the 2004 election, which the military did nothing to tamp down.)
Had Obama shown up alongside John McCain in Iraq, it would have been an obvious opportunity to muster large numbers of the troops supporting McCain to cheer him wildly and show cold disdain, if not outright scorn, for Senator Obama when they appeared together. But even going alone, Obama might find himself greeted with – at best – coldly indifferent crowds, or possibly even a hostile reception. Such a conflict will be immediately picked up by the media and broadcast by his opponent’s team to maximum effect on what is arguably his best issue.
The argument in favor of Obama visiting Iraq in person during a political campaign is weak tea at best. George W. Bush – the Commander In Chief of this operation – has spent only a handful of hours there over the entire course of the war. Each of these visits was conducted under blackout level security in the dead of night, guarded by massive troop support and restricted to only the safest areas of the country. None of this lends much credence to the theory that one needs to physically supervise the conflict to lead it.
How many of our seated Senators and House members travel regularly to Iraq? It’s not a requirement of the job in our era of modern communications. Those who constantly cry for our leaders to “put their faith in the troops on the ground” should also trust them to report accurately on activities in country. If Obama is goaded into a trip to Iraq, opening the door to untold political opportunities for his opponent while gaining virtually nothing for his own efforts or understanding, it would be yet another stumble of an inexperienced campaigner. If there is nobody at the wheel of Team Obama to point this out to him, he may well deserve to lose this one.
Share This
Related Posts
-
Not the Worst and Not the Best U.S. President
Posted on Apr 26, 2013
-
Stains on a Legacy
Posted on Apr 26, 2013
-
George W. Bush’s Legacy: The Debate Continues
Posted on Apr 23, 2013
-
Saudi Arabia: Coddled Terrorist State or Victim of Libel?
Posted on Apr 23, 2013
The Democrats have to get over this scourge of cowardice on national defense issues if they do indeed want to win and set a different course for our country.
What has McCain done to show his support for the troops? He's come out in favor of an endless military presence and he has voted against better compensation for the troops.
If I were a soldier, I don't see what would be so attractive about his candidacy. And that's exactly the case that Obama can and should make.
Jazz, I think Sen. Obama has more than earned the right not to be called a “rookie campaigner” by bloggers. He is, in fact, masterful at it.
I'd hold off on your criticism while this story develops. Obama may indeed do a Bush-style trip, with photo ops limited to a few top officials and an orchestrated meeting with Obama-supporting troops. You underestimate the man if you think he'll have booing Marines at his photo op. And I agree with Chris that there are likely many serving (multiple tours) in Iraq who will cheer the candidate who wants to say, “you're coming home, and we're going to let Maliki know he has to step up sooner rather than later.”
GreenDreams, I always enjoy and respect your comments, but on this you and I will have to disagree. I have watched with horror as the Obama campaign has made one totally preventable gaffe after another just lobbing softballs at the McCain team to knock out of the park. Prior to this none of his campaigns aside from the House run (which he lost) were even contested. This was the hard one and the lack of experience is showing, even given the experience of his team.
In some areas they have been brilliant. The strategy for calculating primary states, not just on the STATE level, but hitting the right districts with the right language to pull off mathematical wins was very well done. But the day to day training of the candidate (and his wife.. more on that later) has been woefully lacking, IMHO.
From the “bitter guns and God” comment to the inexcusable way that the Trinity church matter was handled, it's been almost painful to watch. And it's not just Obama. If that team has a lick of sense, somebody needs to get a muzzle on his wife until she can learn some of the hard nuts and bolts of the campaign trail. Observe Cindy McCain. Such a promising target with her background! Yet on the rare occasions you see her speak, it's always short, well scripted comments that support her husband's campaign and leave no damage behind.
A lot of this is being handled in an amateur fashion, and what should (in my opinion) be such a promising and positive campaign is being handed to wolves as red meat on far too many occasions. It's going to be a tough slog no matter how you look at it, but the Obama team isn't making it any easier on themselves.
“The Democrats have to get over this scourge of cowardice on national defense issues if they do indeed want to win and set a different course for our country.”
Some in the Dems' left wing and to the left of _them_ actually believe the “answer” is to be even more cowardly and weak toward our enemies. (Some of them also seem to believe that we can actually buy the goodwill of everyone who hates us out of envy or for worse reasons.)
“A lot of this is being handled in an amateur fashion”
It's as if Obama is relying on having more Teflon than Reagan or even Bush could have been claimed to have, aided by a lapdog liberal media, and counting on the widespread dissatisfaction with the GOP (as demonstrated in the 2006 elections) to get him past anything. Oh, that, and a well-timed sound bite or smile. That's what really matters to his biggest fans, it seems.
I do not believe he is overconfident (a fatal mistake) or reckless. He still looks set to win (if not greatly, then at least he will prevail) over “survivor” McCain.
“A lot of this is being handled in an amateur fashion”
And after he would be in the White House?
DLS, I fear I must second most of your sentiments. Then again, I'm leaning toward Bob Barr, so I may not have a dog in this fight, but yes. I have my concerns about several key sections of the Dems agenda items. (McCain's also.) But in this piece I was more attempting to address what could have been a truly briliantly run campaign in a season with many “political winds” blowing in the Democrats' favor, and it's kind of painful to see it put to waste this way.
Jazz, I'm not sure what softballs Obama has served up for McCain to “hit out of the park”–indeed, the Arizona senator has been unable to capitalize on the alleged Obama missteps even to the unsuccessful degree that Clinton did. As for never having had to run in a competitive campaign, well when was the last time McCain did? The 2000 presidential nomination, I suppose. Didn't turn out so well.
As to the original post, I doubt there's much there there. I don't know if I've seen polls of active military, but I seem to recall reading that military families and vets are currently favoring Obama.
I do disagree, but mildly. Obama is learning how each word of his, his wife's or his supporters will be parsed relentlessly with the intention of sliming him. But it isn't working. His quick response to McCain (or Hillary) attacks and his slime debunking website gets his side in the same news cycle, and often in the same hour. His response to McCain's economic speech was out virtually the minute McCain stopped talking. I'm not happy with the current atmosphere in which no one can be candid, but rather must speak in sound bites, talking points and policy papers. Still, it is McCain who has the greater problem with his mouth, his emotions, his anger and his waffling. McCain doesn't get the YouTube age, and steps in it repeatedly. Watch the clip. Now that is amateur campaigning from one who should know better. What would McCain do in the White House? No one knows, because he has literally espoused both sides of nearly every position.
Ok, some of these points are well taken. Now, going back to one of the chief arguments of the column, let me ask the following: Speaking as someone who has spent a fair amount of time on military bases in different countries, I'd like to know who exactly is going to be on the ground ahead of time setting up these proposed “Obama friendly” events in Baghdad and Basra? Such things are organized by the Powers That Be who report to the current commander in chief and know full well that they may *still* have to report to John McCain next January? (The outcome of this election is far from certain in my opinion.) What troops show up at which mess tent or what public speaking photo-op are in the control of a small group of the leadership who report to the highest levels. They are keenly aware of politics and PR by now, which we've seen over and over. Even if we were to assume that lots of the troops support Obama (which I would say is arguable) the troops themselves do not set their own schedules. When we see PR appearances by politicians in Iraq, they are not in any way spontaneous. Nothing is spontaneous over there or a lot more visitors would be dead. How will Obama pull that off? He's not even on the armed services committee, say nothing of being in a position to dictate the day to day activities of the individual troops on the ground. Sounds a bit optimistic to me, sorry.
This is almost set up as a lose/lose argument: if Obama goes to Iraq, he could end up being criticized for his opinions; if he doesn't, he will be criticized by the Republicans later in the general campaign. The third option is that his campaign staff will arrange it to look positive for the cameras, but the above barely mentions this.
Jazz, I agree with you, in that today's technology allows for multiple video conferences to occur. These do not receive the same media attention – nor do they have the same weight in average Americans' minds – as those meetings conducted in person. Some Americans have come to believe that the President hasn't been as involved in the process as they would prefer; by having a candidate portray themselves as willing to go to lengths further than the President, said Americans might come out with a more positive outlook for that candidate.
I also respect your viewpoint as a veteran, as you have more experience in those shoes than I most likely will for my lifetime. If Obama is able to surround himself with representatives from the armed forces who give him the strong, open, support in his stated decision to leave Iraq, then I will also be (pleasantly) surprised. I don't discount it as a possibility, however.
As an aside, I will be glad when the role of President isn't kept on such a high pedestal that we expect perfection from our candidates. I imagine that, due to the last seven years, Americans are wanting someone of a higher caliber than our current administration has to offer. The extent which both remaining candidates are being hounded for the most minute actual or hypothetical errors, however, is a wee bit much for my taste. The country's image and strengths have so much more contributing to them than just one human being.
Edit: My reference to “the above” meant the original opinion, not the comment that Jazz posted while I was typing
.
I don't get why the “Powers That Be” at the bases are savvy enough to bear in mind that they may be serving McCain next January aren't equally savvy enough to recognize the more likely alternative result.
I've spent absolutely no amount of time on military bases, though, so let me ask this: are you really saying that an audience of active-duty troops is likely to act in such a way as to embarrass a visiting US Senator running for president? Because, you know what; THAT really would be a shame.
<blockqoute>I'd like to know who exactly is going to be on the ground ahead of time setting up these proposed “Obama friendly” events in Baghdad and Basra?
No advance team is required Jazz. Have you read the polls on the military's attitude toward the ongoing war?
Just ensure that the army knows attendance at any Obama rally is voluntary. He'll draw crowds. Trust me.
I've got five years active duty behind me and I can tell you, not in my day.
oops, sorry for the tag typo. Where's preview when you need it.
I gotta agree with Davebo and aba23. Top brass may be less than thrilled with Obama (though maybe not), but rank and file being anything less than thrilled by a visit by a celebrity of Obama's stature? I think not.
In fact after the visit I anticipate Obama ads featuring him addressing throngs of wildly cheering soldiers.
I'm sorry, Jazz, but I don't see this as anyhting more than the latest directive to Obma as to what someone else decides he HAS TO DO.
Prime example: He HAS TO make Hillary his VP.
I always found Bush's fly in-fly out trips to be more poltical than morale building.
I also rememeber McCain telling CNN from Baghdad how safe it was, just as a rocket whizzed by.
What do congressional groups learn in Iraq's Green Zone that they can't learn by other means?
These are more in the nature of photo-ops than real fact finding missions.
Now, if they spend time speaking to soldiers off-camera, I give them gold stars.
Otherwise, not so much.
By goading Obama, McCain is making it pretty impossible to suddenly make such a trip without seeming to validate McCain's initial charges or jumping when McCain ays jump/.
it's not the first or only trap McCain has tried to set for him.
Obama has been smart, so far, to avoid the traps, and that's what he is doing in this case, as well.
He has to be his own man and not walk on a leash controlled by others.
I would call that presidential behavior.
BTW, It someone is leaning to voting for Barr, I don't understand what he would find alluring about Obama in the rirst plac.e Obama is proactive about every domestic issue. Libertarians are largely the opposite, concentrating on personal freeddoms without much care for conditions in the nation as a whole. Except for the war, I don't see anything much in common as to a world view or governmental responsibilities.
I realize that, much to our discredit, politics is played by the rules of charades.
If McCian flies to Baghdad and the Green Zone ten times, that still doesn't amount to supporitng the troops as much as his vote on the GI bill would. do.
I guess if we want to know when Obama will visit Iraq we'll just have to watch for Bush and/or McCain to make some big pro-troop announcement (a “big” withdrawal due to improving conditions in Iraq, perhaps?) a week or two before Obama announces his trip….
DLS said:
DLS, let us know when you're done bleating.
just two cent's worth as a military wife to a hubby 21 years USAF, ret., now processing prostheses for veterans… please, I pray NO photo op campaigning on the backs of the soldiers; they risk their lives so politicans can dress in kevlar and helmets and parade around in tanks. Please, have decency enough. I pray that Barack does not go there and make promises to bring the troops home, or even to say “I cant promise you I can bring you home now, but if I am elected President, I will succeed in every way possible to bring you home and leave Iraq at peace….” or other campaignspeak.
No one, at this point, can or ought make campaign promises on the souls of these soldiers' children and mates who are additional ones who have suffered so much already. Most people, including candidates, have no idea. No idea.
The military way, as those of you who have served or had family members serve, is to keep it all among the initiated and say Yes Sir or Yes Ma'am to whatever one is ordered to do, including endangering oneself to squire/ protect civilian politicos or even old soldiers' crass exploitation of working soldiers who are in a life and death war.
Perhaps the time comes for us to speak out and say to the pols, Stay home and let the soldiers do their work they've been egregious sent into, voted into by some, and by some who were not yet Senators, voted for funds to sustain the war… but not enough money to properly outfit the soldiers, nor care for them during or after. There's a huge difference between the two. All I ask is have some mercy. Some decency on how others must live in Iraq, while pols come back home to live like Croesus before Cyrus
dr.e.
You should make an enemy's list on which you include the name of the country, it's GPD per Capita, the size of it's military and most importantly the reason why it's an enemy
Ron Paul and Obamama were supported by the troops, with their very own cash. I doubt if troops, outside of a dog and pony show, would boo Obamama.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?i…
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02…
I also believe troops on a military base re-elected Walter Jones after he became a vocal critic of the war.