« How America Chooses its Leaders: What Brazilians Need to Know
Starbucks fumbles »



Obama starts to “un-nuance” Iraq (Updated)

July 3rd, 2008
By POLIMOM

Print Print

Update: The anticipated overreaction is happening, but it seems to be most flagrant in the MSM. As a result, Barack Obama has given another press conference, and has issued an email confirming that he has, in fact, been very consistent. Some reaction from the blogosphere has been added after original post.

A question: Why would the MSM be spinning this up so baldly?

–

For months now, I’ve been writing that Obama was not the hard-core liberal the far left wanted (and the far-right hoped for). This was true on nearly everything from NAFTA to the death penalty, and it’s only on FISA that I’ve been surprised.

As the general election campaign has gotten underway, and various issues have become more fleshed out, there have been gasps of horror from various corners. Imagine (I’ve thought and discussed) what will happen when Obama’s carefully nuanced Iraq position finally moved into the light. Here it comes:

FARGO, N.D. – Senator Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot sustain a long-term military presence in Iraq, but added that he would be open to “refine my policies” about a timeline for withdrawing troops after meeting with American military commanders during a trip to Iraq later this month.

Mr. Obama, whose popularity in the Democratic primary was built upon a sharp opposition to the war and an often-touted 16-month gradual timetable for removing combat troops, dismissed suggestions that he was changing positions in the wake of reductions in violence in Iraq and a general election fight with Senator John McCain.

“I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed,” he said. “And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

It’s true. He’s said this all along, and as I wrote earlier today, he’s also said that he’d listen to commanders on the ground.

But I’m absolutely sure that a large portion of his supporters weren’t listening. So what will they do with this, I wonder? Will it blow up as big as FISA has? I hope not, but there’s certain to be an uproar.

For me, though, bringing some light to this subject is a relief. I’ve wondered when he’d start to clarify for those many folks who’ve not read past the headlines and soundbites.

FWIW, I agree completely with his approach, and I always have. Had I thought Obama was going to completely ignore current conditions in Iraq when he took office; that he would simply start pulling troops in complete disregard for their safety, or the safety of the Iraqis, I would not have been able to support him.

That would have been incredibly irresponsible, perhaps even criminally so. More than that, though, it would have indicated a rigid mind, and there’s nothing I want less in a president.

But I never thought Obama suffered from rigidity, or even ideological purity.

Once folks who missed the nuance recover from the shock of a responsible approach to withdrawing from Iraq, I hope they’ll agree with me.

And I hope they recover before November.

* * * * *

Some reactions from various parts of the blogosphere:

Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central writes that the news organizations are “getting it wrong”, and says:

All Obama is doing here is defusing the GOP argument that he’d withdraw recklessly and preserving flexibility for himself as commander in chief. These journalistic errors are matters of nuance. But nuance is hugely important here.

AllahPundit at HotAir agrees that Obama’s consistently left some wiggle room. However:

I’m not going to rub his face in it. The important thing is to make the right decision and he’s nearer to that now than he’s ever been. Yeah, it’s almost certainly for cynical political reasons, but so long as the progress continues and public opinion improves, those cynical political reasons will continue to steer him right.

Tom Bevan at Real Clear Politics:

This may not be a flip-flop by the technical definition of the term, but it certainly is a substantial walk back on perhaps the defining issue of the election that will draw fire from both the right and the left.

I suspect the ruckus is just getting going. Many more opinions at memeorandum, here.



This entry was posted on Thursday, July 3rd, 2008 at 3:21 pm and is filed under Iraq War, Withdrawal, Barack Obama, 2008 Elections, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 36 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    My understanding from a few months ago is that Obama would look to withdraw troops and the likely draw down would take about a year and a half (I believe 16 months is the number?). That's still the basic idea, correct? He's also always said that he'd leave some contingent there for training, but the exact size of this contingent has been unclear. What I don't know is his position on the permanent bases. Assumingly, some 10-20 thousand training and stability troops would need a place to be, but my impression has been that the size of the bases would be much less than the current administration has been arguing for. Can anyone fill in more details for me?

    All of this doesn't make a difference in the next 5 days, though, politically. I am sure I can write comments for various people about how this will be seen right now.
    • ^
    • v
    Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
    • ^
    • v
    * In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail;
    * In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;
    * In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors;
    * In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.
    * In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.

    Oh my lord is the antiwar going to be upset with this one. I can imagine right now they are on the phones asking the superdelegates to change their minds. This to them will be the ultimate betrayal.
    • ^
    • v
    I am very antiwar but not upset. As the post said he was pretty clear to anyone who listened that he was not going to withdraw the troops in a dangerous fashion. This is sensible. I'm just happy someone will be in the White House who has the default set to "not war" as opposed to "sure, why not war"

    I am still pissed off at his seeming turn-around on FISA.
    • ^
    • v
    Doesn't it bother you just a little bit that he keeps changing his mind and his policies with regard to almost everything? NAFTA, Iraq, public financing...all examples of Obama's waffling. What can we really trust about him? He will say one thing and change his mind next week. I wonder if his supporters knew this is what he meant when he talked about "Change"!
    • ^
    • v
    I don't think Obama is changing his mind. He's always said he'd consider actual conditions in Iraq if he were elected before settling on a course of action.

    I'm sure he'll be called a flip-flopper, though!
    • ^
    • v
    And people who want to call Obama a flip-flopper ought to look at the links in this post for evidence to the contrary.

    If evidence matters to you.
    • ^
    • v
    So he may not announce "firm milestones" for withdrawal, or remove enough troops fast enough for a few. That will make those hard-core anti-war, anti-US-and-western-success nuts and their comrades in principle, the terrorists, upset, but there's no reason why they should be so assisted or even rewarded. Obviously we cannot have our current troop levels maintained in Iraq forever, or even merely a hundred years. Some troops on some long-term bases in Iraq, that's another issue, obviously. But not the current situation. The money is not there, in addition to the desire and the will not being there. Already there is talk of shifting funding for Iraq in a way that increases the overall official outlays for the military (good luck, President Obama, making larger reductions in future military spending than you originally anticipated) as well as at least one grand future military project being made cheaper by -- ahem -- omitting demonstrations and other shows of feasibility of the military assets in question. (I consider this project an object of dimunition or even termination by even a Republican administration in the future.)
    • ^
    • v
    I agree DLS that we cannot maintain this committment and that we should get out of there and the sooner the better.

    However not only has Barak Obama now changed his mind on Iraq he also in his works proposal pdf format indicates he is going to increase our military by nearly 100,000 troops so that their is more time between deployments.

    Sounds like he has plans for being in Afghanistan for a long time and wants to drag his feet now getting out of Iraq and he has no plans for reducing the size of our military but rather increasing it.

    The cable news outlets are getting the rounds where they are all pointing to the shifting troop levels to Afghanistan and I even heard CNN talking heads discussing Iran as a possible target. From the candidate who was supposed to be antiwar this guy is sounding more and more like GWB then Hillary Clinton.

    Everyone has been harping about Bush and his spending habits but here we just signed into law a 61 billion dollar GI bill program now Barak Obama wants to increase our military by 100k and seems content with staying in Iraq while increasing our presence in Afghanistan. The money is not there but With Bush as an example why not......what the hey.....lets spend till were like the former USSR.
    • ^