« Obama-McCain: Manhood Now and Then
Obama Gets “The” Endorsement: The Lousy Timing of Al Gore »



Obama on/in Iraq: Another rookie mistake?

June 16th, 2008
By JAZZ SHAW, Assistant Editor

Print Print

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.



This entry was posted on Monday, June 16th, 2008 at 2:37 pm and is filed under John McCain, Newsweek Blogitics, Iraq War, Barack Obama, Iraq, 2008 Elections, War, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 21 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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."
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    "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.)
    • ^
    • v
    "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.
    • ^
    • v
    "A lot of this is being handled in an amateur fashion"

    And after he would be in the White House?
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v