By Request: Obama on Iraq

Jeff says "I really want you, as critically thinking journalist, to address the reality that Barack Obama is not committed to a real 'troop withdrawal' at all." From Iraq, that is. The tone of the rest of his comment suggests that he thinks I'm part of some kind of conspiracy to cover up for Obama on this. But I'm not. For a while during the primaries I was writing about this a lot, hoping that either Clinton or Obama would join Bill Richardson in really committing to end the war. But neither did.

As best I can tell, it's wrong to assume that there's a real fact of the matter as to what it is Obama is planning to do about Iraq when he becomes president. At the moment, he's running for president and would like as wide a swathe as possible of people to believe that he agrees with them. All indications are that Obama wants some kind of substantial reduction in the number of U.S. forces in Iraq, and some of the people who I'd expect to be serving in an Obama administration favor a complete withdrawal. But other people who I'd expect to be serving in an Obama administration favor various kinds of schemes for a reduced long-term presence. Obama's rhetoric is compatible with either of those alternatives.

To me, the middle ground option doesn't sound viable. My hope would be that when Obama's sitting in the Oval Office talking to people, he'll reach that conclusion, too. But maybe he won't. Presumably the attitude of congress will make a difference. I'd guess that the more Responsible Plan candidates who win, the more likely we are to see an Obama administration leave Iraq expeditiously. But of course in addition to events in congress and events in Obama's mind, events in the world -- including what, if anything, comes of Obama's proposed regional diplomatic initiatives -- are going to make a difference. Fundamentally, presidential campaign season is a bad moment to get a sense of what people are "really" thinking. It is a good moment to try to pin people down to make unambiguous commitments, and during the primary season, the period when liberals had maximum leverage, neither Obama nor Clinton was willing to make such a commitment.

Comments

If Obama is committed to negotiating with Iran, then won't he want to keep the troops in place as a bargaining chip? (He'll be glad to remove them, but he wants something from Iran in return). Mightn't a bit of a _surge_ be useful as well? Just a thought...

Posted by JimB | June 17, 2008 12:55 PM

As much as I would like an immediate and permanent withdrawal of all troops from Iraq, I don't think advocating for that as a Presidential candidate politically smart or reality based.

For one thing, the ground situation can change radically from now until 1/09. For another, I'd like to think that the President would (unlike the current resident) take intelligence and military assessments into account, which would not be fully accessible to him until, oh, yes, 1/09.

I mean, I'm still not banking on getting all our soldiers out by next July, but it's a little weird to expect a Ten Point Plan for Getting Out of Iraq from any candidate.

Posted by Persia | June 17, 2008 1:01 PM

The new Harper's roundtable on the state of the two-party system had one (and really, only one) interesting idea, which was that there is the potential for the GOP to turn Iraq into a Democratic millstone should Obama fail to end the Iraq war (all of this supposing an Obama win, of course) just as Nixon was forced to accept responsibility for Vietnam from '69 on.

The worst thing an Obama administration could do in terms of Iraq is hedge. Hedging is essentially what Bush has been doing and it's the surest way to lose. I keep thinking about The Best and the Brightest and the repeated insistence by Halberstam that once you start down a military path, the only response to failure is escalation. The next administration needs to shift the politics of the war to the civilian side -- and increasingly, this is such a nationalistic/sectarian war, thus entirely political -- and the logistics for actualizing those plans to the military. The military will always choose to fight. It's the civilians' job to decide when that is appropriate.

Posted by Yancey | June 17, 2008 1:02 PM

Ugh. I can't think of anything dumber than forcing candidates to make "unambiguous commitments" about situations that are fluid and require a high degree of pragmatism and flexibility to manage optimally. With foreign policy questions, and the Iraq issue in particular, you really need to go with someone who shares your general principles (or comes closest to) and hopefully has the judgment and competence to pursue those principles effectively.

Posted by Led | June 17, 2008 1:02 PM

What I want to know, and what I've never heard anyone address, is why we'd want permanent bases in Iraq just based on the kind of violence that is likely to occur there over the next several years. The kind of guerrila/terrorist activities that have plagued us throughout this war would only continue were we to establish permanent bases. They would become instant targets for anyone looking to make a splash. They certainly wouldn't be ideal for the kind of mobile, reactionary tactics that we'd need in our endless "pacification" role the bases would make us perform since bases are, by definition, static. I just don't see how a military commander would be happy with the set up as the neocons propose it. I'm sure I'm about to be enlightened on that topic by my fellow commenters, but there it is...

Posted by Opiwan | June 17, 2008 1:20 PM

And now the meme is spreading that Obama said the Nazis had access to US courts, even though he didn't.

So, it doesn't matter what Obama says. There are critics and there are detractors.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | June 17, 2008 1:27 PM

My read on the situation is basically this: I have utterly no interest in the specifics of Obama's plan to withdraw troops, or whether he has one other than "tell the Joint Chiefs to tell me how to get out." The critical point is that Obama recognizes a continuation of the occupation of Iraq as fundamentally incompatible with, rather than complementary to, America's overall strategic goals in the world. That is the overarching principle that will guide his individual navigations through issues of troop logistics, regional consequences, etc. That's not a guarantee that troops are going to be on a plane tomorrow, but it's an attitude that I'm more than comfortable with in our next Commander-in-Chief.

McCain, by contrast, has made it pretty clear that he thinks that continuing the occupation is both complementary to our overall strategic interests AND the most important of that set of interests. Basically, leaving is losing. That's the overarching principle that will guide him, and that's scary as fuck.

Posted by Daniel Munz | June 17, 2008 1:27 PM

It's interesting because Iraq really HAS improved since the Basra offensive for a variety of factors, including the surge. Improved does not mean "all better!" though, not by a long shot. However with things more calm than they've been in a while, and the Iraqis clearly happy to see us go--now is the PERFECT time to leave.

Posted by MNPundit | June 17, 2008 1:50 PM

I'd guess that the more Responsible Plan candidates who win, the more likely we are to see an Obama administration leave Iraq expeditiously. I agree with this. And with Munz's comment above--Obama's position is that this is not helping our national security goals and (crucially for his dealing with future threats) that it was a bad idea back in 2003. That coincides with my own beliefs. This summer is not the time to make grand promises with detailed plans when we don't know what Iraq, the surrounding area, or our own Congress will look like January 21st.

McCain in contrast seems to want to "win the war" which we won in 2003--the issue is the occupation going badly and being counter to our interests. You don't announce a "win" in an occupation; you just go home.

Posted by Deborah | June 17, 2008 2:45 PM

There are permanent bases in Iraq right now and the US is all set to stay there forever. Even if Obama really wanted US troops to leave Iraq, he would be up against very powerful interests, since this whole war was about establishing permanent bases.

Posted by novakant | June 17, 2008 3:00 PM

So don't listen to what he says or promises, he's just trying to win an election. Those are some principles. Here's a novel approach, tell the frickn' truth.

Posted by Judd | June 17, 2008 3:25 PM

"There are permanent bases in Iraq right now and the US is all set to stay there forever. Even if Obama really wanted US troops to leave Iraq, he would be up against very powerful interests, since this whole war was about establishing permanent bases."

Correct, and Obama's recent AIPAC groveling isn't very encouraging either. The real wild card is what I think is an inevitable attack on Iran by Israel unless Iran halts its nuclear program, which is unlikely. Then the fur's really going to fly, and Obama may find himself even deeper in the M.E. wars.

Posted by kafka | June 17, 2008 3:27 PM

Well, as it so happens I am at work, and my response may be a bit lacking, for now. Thanks for the response though.

While I hope I did not hurt any feelings with the conspiring tone of my post, I think you largely did not address my point. Rather, you answered the question as if I asked you to be a mind reader of an Obama administration. I did not.

I wanted you to shed some light on:

1)Why Obama is calling for only "combat troops" to be removed from Iraq? What that means, and, if as I understand, that means leaving a large number of U.S. troops in Iraq, how does that end the occupation?

2) Why the Obama campaign is hesitant on removing "contractors" and potentially willing to use them to fill the vacuum of drawn down U.S. troops. Is this not a complicating (potentially negating) factor to any withdrawal?

3) Why the Obama camp continues to support the idea of using U.S. troops to "train" Iraqi soldiers that, as is manifest, have no legitimacy amongst the people or allegiance to the iraqi state? Is this strategy of Iraqization not yet intellectually bankrupt by now as well as also proven entirely ineffective?

4) Why he insists on supporting the development and protection of a U.S. embassy (the world's largest) that will only provoke and anger Iraqis? Think folks, if you live in a world of shit, might you find it disconcerting that a $592 million embassy replete with gyms, pools, and--get this--a power generator and water treatment facility (most iraqis have little power and poor water)?

I understand electoral politics and the need to placate and please as a many people as possible. What I merely asked is for a substantive review of these troubling signs.

While no one can outline Obama's exact plan for "leaving" Iraq, might the above be cause for pause? To me it seems very troubling. And I think we ought to be able to look beyond the mere scope of electoral politics occasionally to examine such things.

Again, I appreciate the response and mean no ill will in the last post nor in this one. I just think if we want to really end this war--which it seems we both do--might it be time to ask some tough questions. That is all

Posted by jeff | June 17, 2008 3:29 PM

http://apshort.blogspot.com/2008/06/obama-iraq-and-left.html

When Iraq comes up in the campaign, remember that it is primarily these right-leaning war opponents Obama will be speaking to. We lefties have every right to demand our red meat in this campaign, but we need to be realistic about the fact that it's going to come primarily in the context of other issues.

APS

Posted by Ape Man | June 17, 2008 7:15 PM

Matt: "It is a good moment to try to pin people down to make unambiguous commitments, and during the primary season, the period when liberals had maximum leverage, neither Obama nor Clinton was willing to make such a commitment."

And of course, since you're not running for office, trying to get an "unambiguous commitment" from you on anything related to the Middle East is also impossible.

You are without doubt one of the LAMEST wannabe pundits out there - and that includes nitwits like Goldberg, Kristol and the rest. Absolutely no balls.

It's a complete fucking no brainer to be against the war in Iran. It's the preferred position of the US public, and virtually the entire rest of the world (except scumbag Israel) - and you can't pull it off.

Jeff: Matt can't address any of your issues because he doesn't have anything intelligent to say about them, because he's clueless about the options. And he has no connections in the Obama camp, so he can't even ask someone.

And this is a "pundit"? I can do better than that. So could you - and you have, by simply asking the questions Matt can't even ask.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 17, 2008 7:15 PM

Nobody knows what's really going on in Iraq. The country is too dangerous for reporters to report. Given Bush's record of dishonesty, White House statements are completely untrustworthy. McCain doesn't know Sunni from Shia, without Joe Lieberman whispering in his ear.

It's pretty unrealistic to put much stock in any plan based, as it must be, on the limited intelligence that a manifestly dishonest White House chooses to share. So I'd say be careful not to project your hopes onto a candidate who never really said such a thing.

Posted by aatos | June 18, 2008 7:38 AM

Susan Rice was on BBC America last night, explicitly speaking for the Obama campaign. I expect her to have a high position in his administration; under Clinton she was Assistant Secretary for African Affairs.

She said: Highest priority "to end the war/conflict [can't remember exact term; it wasn't 'occupation'] as carefully as current administration entered it carelessly": negotiations with the Iraqi government to withdraw troops on a "responsible timeline, not a deadline", that the best estimate of such a timeline was 16 months, that they would leave a residual force to defend the embassy (which, in the absence of any word to the contrary, I'd assume to be the new monstrosity rather than the current location) and to do "counterterrorism against al Qaeda elements". She repeatedly declined to give any estimate of the size of the residual force.

She also envisioned using the withdrawal negotiations to push for political agreements among the Iraqi parties/factions, with the usual furrowed-brow expression of sorrowful regret that "they have not used this recent period of reduced violence to reach those agreements, or the years of the American presence" -- as if the American presence had been designed to do that, rather than conducted in a manner to maximize sectarian division, killing, and forced relocation.

If Richardson's commitment to complete withdrawal was serious, and not just a campaign ploy to create a distinction, I'd guess that's one big reason he does not appear to be under serious consideration for VP.

My prediction: In an Obama administration, there will be 100,000 troops in Iraq in December 2010, and 60,000 in November 2012.

Posted by Nell | June 18, 2008 1:05 PM

Thank you Nell and Mr. Hack for grasping the point of my posts. It's quite troubling that while everyone seems interested in leaving Iraq they seem unwilling to address such glaring issues.

My concern is that the plans, rhetoric and hedging that we see coming from Obama are very troubling. History tells us that keeping a strong residual force in a chaos strewn country that abhors our very presence (Vietnam but worse) is not only disastrous but likely to keep us (and Iraq) mired in said conflict.

While I think Obama is a very good candidate, I fear he may be falling prey to the disaster of the American polity. No matter how great his intentions, charisma or smarts may be, our political environment is built on timidity. Everyone here seems to agree we need to leave Iraq, but it seems we have to wait for the "right" time or situation or general to tell us it is ok. Until that person, variable or situation arises,we must stay patient it seems. My point here is that there is no "right" time, there will always be potential dangers to leaving, or on the flip side, new, promising reasons to stay. But at the end of the day, nothing significant has been gained from our presence in Iraq, and we have nothing to gain from staying. And as long as we do, we will always be seen as occupiers and held in contempt.

Others on this board have suggested that we have insufficient information to form adequate opinions on Iraq, and as such, talk of withdrawal is premature. That is nonsense. While our politicized military and lap-dog punditocracy may be of no use, the basic facts of Iraq are rather uncontroversial: Iraq has dissolved into a chaotic internecine battle along religious, ethnic, tribal, and community lines. The government of Iraq, its security forces, and the United States government that supports them are all considered illegitimate to Iraqis caught in its midst. As a result, the country has devolved into an amalgam of ethnoreligous groups and mini city states that swear no allegiance to the current government or its American overlord. Our presence there does not change this nor will it.

Instead of some recognition of this brutal reality to which there is no "right" time or solution, the Democrats and their nominee are engaging in the same sort of talk as the bush administration. Suggesting that we maintain a large permanent force in Iraq and that we will leave when the security or political situation is "right."

As a suggestion, if I may, I implore folks on this board to read any of Patrick Cockburn's three books on Iraq. Unlike your favorite pundit or general, he bases much of his work on the Iraqi citizenry and their feelings. Aside from the generally insular nature of pundits, looking to generals to determine the mood of a populace works in wars where there is significant interaction and mutual respect among the two. This war features no such thing. And thus the idea that the right general can deliver us to salvation is painfully flawed. Equally dubious is the notion that if Obama can somehow penetrate and change the military establishment then,and only then can we extricate ourselves from Iraq. The sad reality is that Iraq is way beyond the control, or job description for that matter, of the American military. Do realize that the American occupation is not relevant to Iraq.

Posted by jeff | June 18, 2008 7:26 PM

What Nell said.

Rice didn't use "occupation" because there isn't one. We are in Iraq at the express request of its freely elected government, the most representative and legitimate in the Arab world. I have a great deal more faith in its views on Iraqi "feelings" than those of folks like Cockburn.

It's insulting to be subjected to abuse for resisting "benchmarks" written in Washington and more reflective of domestic American politics than those of Iraq, but the Iraqis have demonstrated independence from early on. They insisted on elections rather than a slate of exiles favorable to us; risked their lives to vote in huge numbers; pulled the plug on Fallujah I, then rejected some officials favored by us and replaced them with some we didn't like at all; defined their own relationship with Iran; and are currently demonstrating real progress against militias operating outside the government.

I have no doubt that Obama will honor our obligations to the Iraqi people, which may involve bases that while not "permanent" could well last as long as those we have in places like Turkey, Germany, and South Korea. I expect that we will continue to support stability, train and equip security forces, and function effectively as Iraq's air force, for many years to come. Those who imagine that electing Obama will make it possible for us to abandon our interests, allies, and honor in Iraq are misinformed.

Posted by robert powell | June 19, 2008 12:04 PM

Lots of comments have gotten it right: there is no reason to expect Obama, if elected, to withdraw our troops. A lot of his fans are going to be disappointed, and wonder why they ever thought he was so wonderful, or different from Bush. At least he will replace the Texas gang with a South Side Chicago gang: I know both well, and which is worse is a matter of taste.

Oil - this occupation (or protectorate, which is more genteel) is all about oil. It's not about terrorism or insurgents, it's about the fact that most of the world's oil is in the Near East. It's about the fact that the Russian army could walk right in, and if they did that could lead to nuclear war: how else would we get them out?

One can argue that Bush acted rashly or prematurely, but the secret White House meeting in 2001 was all about peak oil - previous supply/demand estimates were way off, and soon the price would take off (as it has). The solution Bush chose - putting our Army in Iraq before the Russians did - is very ugly, but after all it's not Vietnam (a worthless piece of real estate to anyone except those who live there).

So that's why we're building 14, or 50, or whatever, permanent bases there. There are problems: our Army is falling apart, and Americans want cheap oil, but they don't want a draft. As the oil price keeps going up, pretty soon you will hear people saying maybe a draft wouldn't be so bad.

As for scientists discovering alternative energy sources - there really aren't any, but there is a lot of coal (very polluting), and coal production is way up everywhere.

Posted by Jim Phillips | June 21, 2008 1:57 PM

"We are in Iraq at the express request of its freely elected government, the most representative and legitimate in the Arab world."

Nobody in Iraq respects the "Iraqi" government. Im not sure where you discern that they--or we--are viewed as legitimate. We decided when the elections were, who the best candidates are and when those victors need to be let go.

The Iraqi do not swear allegiance to this government. They are supportive of local leaders/warlords or folks who operate outside of the sphere of pure political means. Mehdi army, Al-Sistani and others.

Your opening salvo here betrays a simple understanding of what is transpiring on the ground. Sad.

Posted by jeff | June 21, 2008 9:42 PM