Obama Recalibrates

It feels a little absurd to me to need to be parsing speeches this closely to figure out where candidates actually stand on the most pressing issue of the day, but I think Obama's Iraq speech yesterday contained a small-but-significant shift in his stance on residual forces:

We will need to retain some forces in Iraq and the region. We'll continue to strike at al Qaeda in Iraq. We'll protect our forces as they leave, and we will continue to protect U.S. diplomats and facilities. If--but only if--Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we should continue to train and equip those forces. But we will set our own direction and our own pace, and our direction must be out of Iraq. The future of our military, our foreign policy, and our national purpose cannot be hostage to the inaction of the Iraqi government.

The key shift here being that the training mission should continue "if -- but only if -- Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian." In other words, in the real world, the training and equipping mission will not continue but if a miraculous pony happens to emerge then that's a different story. This is correct and General Petraeus' testimony and the renewed evidence on the centrality of political progress is as good a time as any for Democrats to follow the Center for American Progress' lead and reject unconditional training of Iraqi forces. This is different from my best understanding of what Hillary Clinton's proposing.

Meanwhile, this idea about the need to keep American forces in Iraq to fight AQI seems misguided to me, but I don't think it's nearly as significant as the training issue since it's the difference between a limited involvement in a specific mission in Iraq and a deep entanglement with all of that country's political problems.

Comments

If we stop training and equipping the Iraqi Army -- i.e. cease to be its patrons -- how exactly do we expect to keep thousands of US troops in the country without coming into conflict with the government's lawful armed forces? The minute we cease to be the military patron and defender of the Iraqi government, we become a foreign army on Iraqi soil. They will tell us to leave, and unless I'm mistaken we will have to go -- unless we attempt to stay on in Kurdistan alone at the request of the Kurdish regional government, which would mean a de facto partition of the country.

I don't think we can both stay in Iraq and stop training and equipping its military. The threat you're perceiving here is empty.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 13, 2007 10:13 AM

It's an interesting hedge. Since most liberals believe there is probably a .0001% chance of a shiny new non-sectarian security force being formed in the next eighteen months, we could read it that he has no intention of taking on the training mission. However, there are many US military types who claim that the Iraqi Army is "largely" non-sectarian and there is quite a bit of wiggle room in there for political "progress." So, I woudn't get too comfortable reading anything definitive into this.

Posted by AJ | September 13, 2007 10:19 AM

The most troubling thing about Obama is that he has been relentlessly demonizing Iran. The most important thing in the next election is somebody who can take a rational stance toward that country.

Posted by mq | September 13, 2007 11:42 AM

In this very address Obama made the point that we are not and should not be going to war with Iran. He's pushed for sanctions on Iran, and did so again in this speech.

Why do you think that's a bad idea?

Posted by er | September 13, 2007 1:32 PM

What brooksfoe said. This is pure smoke and mirrors.

As of right now, Obama's commitment to keeping US forces to Iraq is no less open-ended than the President's. But parse away, Matthew, if it makes you feel better.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | September 13, 2007 1:35 PM

In this very address Obama made the point that we are not and should not be going to war with Iran. He's pushed for sanctions on Iran, and did so again in this speech.

Ah, well that's OK then. He didn't advocate war--all he said was "Iran has emerged as the greatest strategic challenge to America in the Middle East in a generation" and "Iran poses a grave challenge. It builds a nuclear program, supports terrorism, and threatens Israel with destruction."

So, the terms of reasonable, rational, mainstream, serious debate have been set. On one side: "Iran is a great threat, and military action will probably be necessary." On the other: "Iran is a grave threat, but sanctions are sufficient." Anyone who dares to suggest that Iran isn't really a "threat" to the US at all is beyond the pale, a wacko, a DFH.

Honestly, er: this doesn't seem the tiniest bit familiar to you?

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | September 13, 2007 1:41 PM

The issue is basing. ANY force level in Iraq other than zero means permanent military bases. And that means additional warfare in the future, as well as a new cause for terrorists to fight for.

So the number must be zero. Zero for training, zero for fighting Al Qaeda, zero for Kurdistan.

Posted by Dilan Esper | September 13, 2007 3:03 PM

Correct.

You can NOT keep ANY US troops in Iraq for ANY purpose whatsoever - with the possible exception of some based up in Kurdish territory who could conceivably attack Al Qaeda cells elsewhere - IF they could find them from up there, which is doubtful. Probably should say the hell with that as well.

If you put US troops in Iraq in ANY number, they will be attacked. Then you need to do force protection which means more troops.

Next thing you know, you're back to 150,000.

You can NOT do ANY mission in Iraq with the US military at this point. The Iraqi people want ALL US troops out - NOW.

ALL US troops AND US personnel have to be removed from Iraq until Iraq stabilizes. No Embassy until stabilization. No training until stabilization. No humanitarian assistance involving US personnel on the ground until stabilization.

Contractors can stay if they take full responsibility - which means "if you get in trouble, it's your goddamn problem. Don't call the US military for help."

As for Obama's stand on Iran, as I've pointed out elsewhere, he just doesn't get it. While he is to be commended for specifically stating to Bush that Bush does not have authorization to start a war with Iran - face it, Obama doesn't have that authority to say that. The Congress does - and the Democrats have already said that they are on board with a military option against Iran "if diplomacy fails".

And according to reports in the last couple days, the neocons are now TELLING Condi Rice that it HAS failed and the military option is now the ONLY option.

In addition, all the Pentagon talk up about how Iran is behind the Iraqi insurgency has made it feasible for Bush to attack Iran as part of the Iraq war which he already has authorization for. Therefore the "nuclear issue" is not even relevant any longer.

So unless Obama explicitly presses the Democrats in Congress to explicitly DENY Bush the option to attack Iran absent a clear and imminent Iranian attack on US forces in Iraq or elsewhere, or some similar event such as unilaterally closing the Straits of Hormuz to international shipping, Bush doesn't need Obama's permission to attack Iran.

The real problem is that Obama doesn't get it. He doesn't get that Iran HAS NO "nuclear weapons program", that their nuclear ENERGY program is totally legal, and that it is in US interest to be ASSISTING Iran in developing their program as a means of keeping it under control rather than threatening the regime.

But what is worse, Obama doesn't get that the Iranian energy program has NOTHING TO DO with the Bush program. It's just a front for the real Bush -Cheney, neocon and Zionist motivations - which are regime change for the benefit of the US and Israel, and seizing the Iranian oil.

And if he can't talk about that, what good is he?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 13, 2007 8:26 PM