Obama the Eccentric in Wonderland

A great editorial on the confusing absurdity and Alice-in-Wonderland quality of Obama's attempts to explain his position on Iraq. Here is the link (and, amazingly, the editorial is from the Washington Post).

Below is an excerpt:

THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy.

. . . .

Yet Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.

Source link (emphasis added by blogger).

Political Heresy: Bush Won the Iraq War (With a Strategic Push from McCain)

That's at least the conclusion I draw from a recent report by well-regarded Iraq blogger/correspondent Michael Yon at this link. Here is the crucial excerpt:

The war continues to abate in Iraq. Violence is still present, but, of course, Iraq was a relatively violent place long before Coalition forces moved in. I would go so far as to say that barring any major and unexpected developments (like an Israeli air strike on Iran and the retaliations that would follow), a fair-minded person could say with reasonable certainty that the war has ended. A new and better nation is growing legs. What's left is messy politics that likely will be punctuated by low-level violence and the occasional spectacular attack. Yet, the will of the Iraqi people has changed, and the Iraqi military has dramatically improved, so those spectacular attacks are diminishing along with the regular violence. Now it's time to rebuild the country, and create a pluralistic, stable and peaceful Iraq. That will be long, hard work. But by my estimation, the Iraq War is over. We won. Which means the Iraqi people won.

Source link (July 14, 2008, post by Michael Yon; emphasis added).

The only way we can pull defeat out of apparent victory is to elect Barack Obama whose weak rhetoric and nonsensical, arbitrary mantra of "withdrawal, withdrawal, withdrawal" in 16 months will simply embolden our enemies to persist and try to overturn the progress made in Iraq. The job remains to be finished, consolidated, and secured. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory would be catastrophic for the United States. McCain is the only candidate we can rely on to finish the job, wisely and responsibly--especially since McCain almost singlehandedly pushed for the winning surge strategy in Iraq. In addition, as Michael Yon also reports in the same post, there is serious trouble in Afghanistan. McCain is the Commander-in-Chief to take charge and turn that situation around also. Obama is the last, best hope of our enemies in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Catholics should be very, very concerned when they see Obama, the new Neville Chamberlain, seeking to snatch defeat out the jaws of victory won against the forces of terror--a victory won in spite of Obama's outspoken opposition to McCain's winning surge strategy in Iraq. Obama is "a dog that won't hunt" as Commander-in-Chief, especially in wartime.

Pro-Obama N.Y. Times Rejects McCain Op-Ed on Iraq

I guess the truth is dangerous to Obama's campaign of deception (another in a multitude of reasons for Catholics to reject this deeply flawed candidate): how to disguise his true beliefs as a doctrinaire leftist until after the November election. Here is the rejected McCain piece, courtesy of the Drudge Report and of the internet's technological ability to outflank the mainstream media. You can also go to Fox News to get the text of McCain's rejected op-ed. Below is what John McCain wrote and the N.Y. Times rejected (red emphasis added by blogger):

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.



Blogger Note:

The Washington Post political blog chimes in and astutely asks at this link:

"Who needs the Times when you've got a big online megaphone?"

Camp Victory, Baghdad: Happy Fourth

Caption from N.Y. Times:

About 1,200 American service members from all branches of the military attended a re-enlistment ceremony at Camp Victory in Baghdad.

Photo: Michael Kamber for The New York Times

Blogger Comment:

They are helping to consolidate democracy and religious freedom in the very geographic heart of the Moslem Middle East after accomplishing their mission of removing a genocidal, bloodthirsty dictator. They are keeping us safe from extremist attacks at home by taking the battle to the enemy. May God protect our military today and always.