Washington Post Hammers Obama on Iraq

Wow.  This is from a Washington Post editorial. 

“What’s missing in our debate,” Mr. Obama said yesterday, “is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq.” Indeed: The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war’s outcome—that Iraq “distracts us from every threat we face” and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That’s an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world’s largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq’s future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality.

1. There’s a bit of straw man in their argument above.  Nobody is saying that we need to leave Iraq “regardless of consequences.” It’s simply Obama’s opinion that, all things considered, we’re going to be better off leaving within 18 months than any other plan that’s been proposed--including staying on an open-ended basis.

   I’m not just splitting hairs, here, either.  They seize upon their own invented “regardless of consequences” idea and go on to say that such a cavalier attitude about an important middle east nation is irresponsible. 

   I think Obama has a good point, though.  The debate about Iraq has gotten very small recently.  It would be nice to hear how Iraq fits into our global foreign policy aims.  And I agree with his answer to that question: it’s a net loser for America, and we need to refocus on Afghanistan and other initiatives.

   Posted by scott on July 16, 2008 at 1129 hrs




2. Iraq “distracts us from every threat we face”

   Well, Obama’s revisiting of the topic of Iraq certainly distracts some of us from noticing how little foreign policy experience he has—or how he formulated his policy without having seen for himself what’s going on there—and yet feels “competent” to announce what he’ll do if he takes office.

   Posted by Venomous Kate on July 16, 2008 at 1141 hrs




3. And maybe some others of us are so distracted that we fail to realize that McCain’s so-called foreign policy experience doesn’t seem to stopped him from authorizing or continuing what will certainly be remembered as the worst foreign policy blunder in American history: the Iraq war.

   Posted by scott on July 16, 2008 at 1144 hrs




4. The Iraq war will be seen in history 50 years from now as the beginning of democracy in the Middle East and the beginning of the end of terrorism.

   Posted by on July 16, 2008 at 1149 hrs




5. Funny, I thought World War 2 might be remembered as a worse foreign policy blunder, but I guess I’m wrong.

   Posted by on July 16, 2008 at 1227 hrs




6. All this stupid talk about “we must get out of Iraq” by a certain date.
   Tells our enemies that if they wait awhile we will give up & go home
   Tells our friends that they cannot count on us.
   We still have troops stationed in Germany & Japan 63 years after World War 2
   We have troops stationed at the de-militarized zone, in “harms way” 55 years after the Korean police Action Truce.

   the Union had Federal troops in the former Confederacy until at least 1877, 12 years after Appomattox.

   OB now wants to take troops from Iraq and move them into Afganistan and maybe bomb Pakistan as he said once before.
   Also remember some people keep taking about Darfur

   So what is the rush to leave now except for political posturing!!!

   Posted by on July 16, 2008 at 1230 hrs




7. Just a bit of historical context: the Washington Post editorial page has been, for the most part, a supporter of the Iraq war from the very beginning, rarely criticizing either its strategy or its conduct.

   Posted by on July 16, 2008 at 1233 hrs




8. Bill: Dude, don’t do that when I have coffee in my mouth!  Christ! 

   Ralph: having our troops out by a known date doesn’t do any of the things you mentioned.  What it does do is tell the Iraqi government that they had better step up now or be faced with handling the chaos themselves two years hence.

   We tried using our military to help them step up before--it’s called the surge.  It didn’t work.  It was supposed to create an opportunity for political progress on the part of the Iraqi government.  That opportunity was mostly squandered to no lasting effect.  It. Didn’t. Work.

   So I think it’s time for a new angle: Pick your shit up and fly right because we’re outta here shortly. 

   As far as what our enemies will do or think, Iraq war architects and apologists have zero weight with me.  Half of you folks can’t even clearly understand who attacked us on 9/11 or who is attacking us in the streets of Faluja.  I’m now supposed to believe that you have your finger on the pulse this time, really and truly?  Shyeah. 

   Here’s a wake up call for you: our enemies are going to “lay low” now and try to make a comeback when we leave--regardless of whether the dates are known or unknown, and regardless of whether the dates are next year or five years from now.

   Posted by scott on July 16, 2008 at 1329 hrs




9. Please read your above post, Scott.  In paragraph 2 you ask the Iraqi government to step up now, so plainly you believe they are capable of stepping up.  In paragraph 3 you declare that the opportunity to step up has been squandered, so plainly you believe the Iraqi government is not capable of stepping up now.  Please pick only one.  I know the short term success of the surge has created some tortured logic to deny it, but this seems a bit extreme.

   Posted by on July 16, 2008 at 1340 hrs




10. Nice try, Mr. Wizard, but there’s nothing illogical about what I’m saying.  The purpose of the surge was to provide opportunity for Iraq to get its political shit together.  The Iraqi government failed--or was unable-- to capitalize on that opportunity.  One purpose of telling them that we’re gonna be gone in, say, two years, is that it might motivate them to get more serious about it.

    And maybe it won’t.  Or maybe they’re unable.  But if they can’t pull it together, there’s still little point for us to stay there with our finger in the dike to the tune of a couple hundred million dollars a day, and a few dozen lives a month.

    Posted by scott on July 16, 2008 at 1427 hrs




11. Well then at least you now acknowledge that the surge worked, Scott.

    Posted by on July 16, 2008 at 1438 hrs




12. Sure it worked--and gained us nothing.

    Can you admit that?

    Posted by scott on July 16, 2008 at 1520 hrs




13. The opportunity for progress in Iraq clearly exists.  That opportunity exists in part because of the surge.  The opportunity may be acted upon or it may be squandered, but that has not happened yet beyond the squandering that you propose by declaring a failure something that is not finished.

    Posted by on July 16, 2008 at 1539 hrs




14. My understanding was that the surge was always meant to have a discrete end--this Summer.  McCain clearly thinks we’re already down to pre-surge levels, even though we’re not. 

    It can’t be maintained forever.  It wasn’t designed to.  The plan all along was to reduce to pre-surge levels around...oh, now.  So saying it could all just start working any day now if you just give it a chance is kind of BS. 

    It’s been tried.  Time to move on.

    Posted by scott on July 16, 2008 at 1623 hrs




15. The last of the five brigades deployed for the surge left last week.

    Posted by Owen on July 16, 2008 at 1638 hrs




16. Well, I guess it’s okay to stop giving it a chance after all.

    Posted by scott on July 16, 2008 at 1645 hrs




17. We tried using our military to help them step up before--it’s called the surge.  It didn’t work.  It was supposed to create an opportunity for political progress on the part of the Iraqi government.  That opportunity was mostly squandered to no lasting effect.  It. Didn’t. Work.

    scott, you’d better notify the Post; they may have missed that angle when they reported this recently.

    Posted by on July 16, 2008 at 1730 hrs