Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Will Barack Get Out Of Iraq? Guess Again.
Will Barack Obama get out of Iraq in 2009? The answer turns out to be maybe.
In an interview with CBS that has been ignored by the MSN and the Progressive blogosphere, Obama told Steve Kroft that his timetable for withdrawing from Iraq will have to depend on events on the ground, and that the level of sectarian violence will determine whether he can end the occupation.
"At a time when American casualties are down, at a time when the violence is down, particularly affecting the Iraqi population, is that the right time to try and set time tables for withdrawing all American troops? I mean you talked about…the end of 2009," Kroft remarked.
"Yeah, absolutely. I think now is precisely the time. I think that it is very important for us to send a clear signal to the Iraqis that we are not gonna be here permanently. We're not gonna set up permanent bases. That they are going to have to resolve their differences and get their country functioning," Obama said.
"And you pull out according to that time table, regardless of the situation? Even if there’s serious sectarian violence?" Kroft asked.
"No, I always reserve as commander in chief, the right to assess the situation," Obama replied.
Well, for anyone who thinks ending the Iraq occupation is still the most important issue of this campaign, that is exactly the wrong answer.
The right answer, of course, is: Yes! Especially if there is serious sectarian violence. Because, if the sectarian violence increases and we stay, our soldiers and Marines will be caught in the crossfire of a civil war.
To suggest that you might stay to intervene in a civil war is just the surge redux. Incredibly, Mr. Obama seems to be saying that the worse the sectarian violence gets, the more likely he is to keep troops in Iraq. That, of course, is exactly the mindset that brought about the surge. And it's a mindset that gives the insurgents and the U.S. Military commanders on the ground too much power over our withdrawal strategy. The insurgents on either side can keep us in Iraq by ratcheting up the violence, and our commanders can prolong the fight by reporting to the Commander In Chief that sectarian violence is increasing and the situation on the ground is deteriorating.
Senator Clinton has the right solution. The Commander In Chief must direct the U.S. Military commanders to prepare a plan to exit Iraq, starting in 60 days, no matter what the situation on the ground is.
There are a lot of ways to do what we need to do in the Middle East. Leaving our troops in Iraq to contain sectarian violence is not one of them.
Comments (20)
I buy Obama's answer as being the most honest you will ever get on the situation at this time from any politician.
Do *you* know what the future in Jan 09 looks like?
As someone once said in a campaign, you can't wave a magic wand and have things happen.
By the way, it turns out that the Dem candidate who has raised the most money from people serving in Iraq is... Barack Obama.
For the record, I believe we need to disengage in a military sense from Iraq for national security (both in terms of geopolitics and our economy).
February 26, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I respectfully disagree. The Clinton answer is completely honest. The occupation is over. We're leaving, starting in 60 days and nothing can change that. It doesn't matter what the situation in Iraq is like in 2009. What in the world does who soldiers in Iraq donate money to have to do with whether Obama is committed to ending the occupation? I know I'm telling you things you don't want to hear, but the truth is he's not as committed to getting out as she is. He needs to make a commitment and keep it.
February 26, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I won't presume to speak for clearthinker, but I don't think it the reference to honesty was not an insinuation that Clinton is lying about her intentions, but rather that Obama's perspective more closely represent an honest effort at an objective assessment of where things are at and what it's going to take to get out.
February 26, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a pretty weak-kneed assertion. The most important part of that interview:
Kroft: At a time when casualties are down,...is this the right time to withdraw, you said by end of 2009?
Obama: Absolutely.
You wrote 11 paragraphs predicated on what is essentially a disclaimer--"in the event of unforeseen consequences".
February 26, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't agree. Anyone can leave if the violence is controlled. That's the Bush/McCain argument. The important thing to know is whether our new CIC is absolutely committed to getting out even if Shias and Sunnis are slaughtering one another all over the place. Obviously, Obama is not and Clinton is. Maybe you can still like his health care plan better or something. But if you absolutely want to get out of Iraq, either he has to change his tune, or you should vote for Hillary.
Or maybe you should share with us the kind of unforeseen circumstances that could make you stay in Iraq. What in the world could they be?
February 26, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Clinton has the right solution. The Commander In Chief must direct the U.S. Military commanders to prepare a plan to exit Iraq, starting in 60 days, no matter what the situation on the ground is.
Do you have a link to where she said this?
I looked up her web page, and her "plan to leave Iraq," and it says no such thing about "no matter what" the situation is.
February 26, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
She says it in every debate and public statement. Start planning immediately, start withdrawing in 60 days. No caveats at all.
February 26, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This makes the Clinton withdrawal plan to get out sound just like the Bush plan to get in.
Obama's explanation is thorough and nuanced. Clinton is just making promises she can't keep. 60 days, four point plan, ready on day one. Looks great on paper. Would look really good on a magazine cover right next to "10 ways to spice up your love life." Shouldn't Hillary be explaining where this magic number came from?
This conflict is our doing and it threatens to rip Iraq asunder. Even as an opponent of the war from day one, I can acknowledge that needs to be done with care and with a strategic eye towards minimizing the violence as we exit. We have an obligation to the citizens of Iraq to do everything we can to make this transition as peaceful as possible. Obama is right to reserve room to re-assess a volatile situation.
The only people who have truly made an accurate call on Iraq are people who said, "Don't go there." Nearly everything other call made on Iraq has to be wrong, with the exception of rare people like Juan Cole who told us that it would become a civil war. Makes me glad that Clinton is drifting ever further from the nomination. Anyone who doesn't understand that getting out of Iraq isn't as simple as just yanking the troops out in 60 days has no business in the big chair. Getting out properly is going to be far more challenging than getting in.
February 26, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards agreed that it would be wrong to promise that they could get all American forces out of Iraq by 2013". NYT
Only Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich had claimed absolute and complete withdrawal, regardless of circumstances. Hillary Clinton has said she would keep combat forces there. To protect
American diplomats, the embassy, etc.. from what? 90% of violence in Iraq is sectarian, Al Queda 10%.
But I think responding to you is futile.
You started out by saying "I can't agree." That's a general psychological predisposition you'll have to work out on your own.
I wish you and the candidate you support well.
February 26, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's exactly right. The argument that Obama is the anti-war candidate is, in the "racist" words of Bill Clinton, a "fairy tale". Obama voted same as Clinton on every Iraq vote, with the exception of Gen. Casey nomination (which he supported, she opposed--how's that for "judgment"?). Somehow I find it hard to believe that, once he becomes president, he'll suddenly release his hitherto repressed anti-war agenda.
Like it or not, the only genuinely anti-war candidate out there is Nader. Given how well Ron Paul has done in the GOP primaries, largely on the strength of his antiwar position, I would not count Nader out. There *is* a genuine anti-war vote out there (not to be found on this site, alas) that will not be satisfied by either of the two major party candidates.
February 26, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given how "well" Ron Paul has done in the GOP primaries, *I* would conclude that there is no strong antiwar position on the majority of the GOP side.
February 26, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not aware that Obama is running at the anti-war candidate. To quote his speech of October 2, 2002: "Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don’t oppose all wars."
Read on: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech
February 26, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Glad:
First: Don't assume you know what I do or don't want to hear. You don't even know me as a person.
Second: The soldiers in Iraq are voting with their dollars. Consider it an informal vote of confidence. That is the point.
Third: Politicians who make absolute promises are either naive (and therefore shouldn't be elected) or disingenuous. File it under a "do anything, say anything" stance.
In an election, one can decide only whether a candidate is dedicated or not to his vision. I believe Obama wants us out of Iraq, and wants us out quickly, but will reserve the right to the specifics until after he is given full information including classified reports he currently has no access to.
Your mileage may vary. That's fine. But don't be presumptuous in the future about what may or may not be in someone else's mind. It weakens your case tremendously.
February 26, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I respect your intention to think clearly as suggested my your nick and avatar, as someone once said, actions speak louder than words. I'm judging your actions. As far as knowing you goes, we pretty well know each other by now in the only way that matters in the blogosphere. If there is some "personal" side of yourself that's not represented in your posts, I'll have to take your word for the relevance of that. So now you can tell me.
What exactly is it that you imagine might happen that would make it undesirable to get out of Iraq now, no ifs ands or buts? Give me an example.
Obama gave his in answer to a simple question. He said that I sectarian violence increased he might stay. Deal with it.
February 26, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, you're using the false dilemma. You did it when called Obama immoral for his health care plan and health care and you're doing it here.
A good reason to pull out as rapidly as possible would be an extraordinary increase in violence. What if committing to a 60 day time frame excludes preferable options that could be completed in say, 70 days? The space between 100 years and 60 days is not, as you would portray it, bereft of options.
It's this space that Obama wants the option to use. Why? Because he's smart and he doesn't want to have his back against the wall. He wants the ability re-assess the situation as it comes. Unless you're completely divorced from the reality of what pulling 150,000 soldiers (to say nothing of the nearly 200,000 contractors) out of Iraq will entail you should realize that this is prudent. Obama wants to be able to use his judgment. It's something he's proven he's good at. I can't say the same for Clinton.
February 26, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm fine with it. It's a realistic point of view with a sense of responsibility for the situation we've created that doesn't come from the world of five point plans.
February 26, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, here is a list of promises WJC made in 1992 to get elected:
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/bill_clinton_promises.htm
Caveat:
Wear your Internet condom as I have not independently verified the specifics, but the general point is that candidates promise a lot and don't always deliver.
I prefer Obama's more realistic approach.
Kev
February 26, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Start planning immediately, start withdrawing in 60 days. No caveats at all.
You're an easy mark. She talks about "starting" withdrawal. Nowhere does she say that it would be a complete withdrawal, and in fact she's very clearly said the opposite. Her "phase two" is about "securing stability in Iraq." Do you imagine that a withdrawal tied to "securing stability in Iraq" is going to be a complete withdrawal?
Have some fun googling for her recent statements on it. The recent vagueness (intended to get people such as yourself to assume that she intends a complete withdrawal) is a thin layer of topsoil. Dig just a bit deeper and you find her talking about an ongoing military mission in Iraq, with no clear end point. Go back a bit further and you find her opposing calls for an immediate withdrawal, on the grounds that having Iraq slip into a state of civil war would be bad for our interests. Etc.
February 26, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or just take a reality check and remember that she's still voting for this kind of shit.
February 26, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for pointing that out. Clinton's 60 day plan specifies that she will begin pulling troops out after 60 days in office, beginning a gradual troop reduction. Obama promises to begin immediate withdrawal of troops, withdrawing all combat troops within 16 months. That neither candidate has promised categorical, universal withdrawal from Iraq is, of course, pragmatic. Permanent US military bases have already been constructed. We will always have some presence in Iraq, like it or not. Regardless, the military cannot continue to function if our troop levels there remain at current levels. Even the Pentagon has acknowledged that prolonged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have made the military dangerously unprepared for any future national crisis.
There is no reason to maintain or re-up troop levels in Iraq, from a National Security standpoint. Both candidates demonstrate an understanding of this with their proposed policy towards Iraq. Obama's policy is strong because it enumerates the future levels of US presence, and eliminates the presence of combat brigades. Clinton's plan is strong because because the token of the "60 day" promise will stick in the minds of all concerned parties, forcing a universal reevaluation.
February 27, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment