Get PJ Media on your Apple

Pinning Down Obama on Iraq

Responding to these four questions would let us know exactly where he stands on the war.

by
Abe Greenwald

Bio

July 8, 2008 - 12:00 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

While a monumental transformation has occurred on the ground in Iraq, Barack Obama has been given a free pass to hide behind outdated anti-Bush slogans and unsubstantiated generalizations. Violence is at record lows, the enemies of Iraqi statehood are suffering defeat after defeat, and the U.S. and Iraq are currently negotiating something that bears a striking resemblance to a peacetime treaty. Iraq is the most important issue of this campaign, and Senator Obama owes American voters candor and specificity on the matter. Here are four questions requiring four non-poetic, fact-based, unqualified answers from the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

1. Senator Obama, President Bush has been criticized, fiercely and repeatedly, for his strategic and tactical intransigence on Iraq. The charge that George Bush has been unwilling to admit his mistakes and to redress such mistakes as needed has served as a mantra for the Democrats. Indeed, you yourself, speaking to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations in 2005 had this to say on the matter:

The President could take the politics out of Iraq once and for all if he would simply go on television and say to the American people ‘Yes, we made mistakes. Yes, there are things I would have done differently. But now that we’re here, I am willing to work with both Republicans and Democrats to find the most responsible way out.

Mr. Obama, since then the President has acknowledged the failings of the original Rumsfeld plan and revamped the U.S. strategy, most obviously by supporting the so-called troop surge in 2007 that has led to unprecedented military progress in Iraq and made room for political reconciliation there as well. You were outspokenly opposed to the surge from the start and remained opposed for the majority of the time post-surge operations have been underway. In September 2007, you stated plainly:

The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year – now.

Senator, given that violence in Iraq is at it’s lowest since the inception of the war, given that Al-Qaeda is on the run, given that Shiite militia have been significantly neutralized, and given the continued reconciliation taking place within the Maliki government, will you now state that you were wrong about the potential benefits of the troop surge? And if not, is this an example of your refusal to “take the politics out of Iraq”?

2. Senator, U.S. and Iraqi officials are currently hammering out the details of a status of forces agreement (SOFA). The agreement would define the future role of U.S. troops in Iraq in regard to troop levels, number of bases, and troop autonomy in relation to Iraqi sovereignty. Here is your account of a recent conversation you had with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari about SOFA:

I emphasized to him how encouraged I was by the reductions in violence in Iraq but also insisted that it is important for us to begin the process of withdrawing U.S. troops, making it clear that we have no interest in permanent bases in Iraq.

Let’s keep that mind while we consider what Iraqi President Jalal Talabani had so say about SOFA during his current trip to Washington. Here’s the Wall Street Journal’s account:

We have good success and achievements in training our Army and our police forces,” Talabani said in heavily-accented English. We still “need to have [an] American presence in Iraq… We need to have some – at least some – military bases as a symbol for preventing others [from] interfering [in the] internal affairs of Iraq.

President Talabani is specifically requesting a continued American military presence, and citing regional threats as the reason. We currently see Iran flexing its muscles, threatening our allies, and ratcheting up proxy terrorist connections everywhere from Iraq, to Lebanon, to Gaza. Considering that the U.S. already maintains long-term military bases around the globe, including in Middle East locations such as the UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar, what do you see as the downside of maintaining bases in a more peaceful Iraq in order to ensure the continued progress that’s been made in that country?

Click here to view the 22 legacy comments

Comments are closed.

One Trackback to “Pinning Down Obama on Iraq”