I caught Obama's Iraq press conference, and I have to say that the media really earned itself an invitation to John McCain's next BBQ with their performance. Basically, unless Obama comes out and says something like "I'm a totally unreasonable person whose views on Iraq will in no way be influenced by anyone's advice or any possible factual developments" he's now a flip-flopper. Meanwhile, John McCain's views on Iraq receive no scrutiny whatsoever.
« Some Broder Perspective | Main | A Bridge Too Far »
The Catch-22
03 Jul 2008 05:57 pm
Comments (30)
I just spent the last **four hours** compiling a list of all the times that MattY has encouraged his readers to circumvent the MSM by going out and asking real questions themselves, combined with a list of all the real questions that MattY has developed to be asked of newsmakers, combined with a list of all the times that MattY has himself asked a newsmaker a real question.
However, the file was well over ***10 Megabytes*** so I'll have to post it somewhere else. Don't worry though, I'll do that just as soon as I have a chance. Stay tuned.
It's a bummer, right? He's losing control of his language. I was fine with the use of "refine" to signal reasonableness, in fact I thought it made a lot of sense, given the big swing to the middle was well underway. But then why come out and try to undo it? It seemed well done, but apparently it really was an error.
He's way off his game.
As an old community & union & "other" organiser, I sometimes think that Obama's "newness" lies in applying that model to the national/political scene (hardly a unique insight on my part, but it bears repeating). My job was to help us THINK about who we are, THINK about what we need (and dream!), and THINK about how we can work together to effect that. His newness lies in THINKING and in encourage us to do the same with him. Now, if only we could find a "new" Press to cover this....
Obama needs to get a sense of reality and simply say, "Look, we're going to get kicked out sooner or later, let's leave before that so we can do so carefully. There's no chance we can stay for more than another two years at best."
Or as Scott Ritter likes to put, "Leave today, because today is the best day you'll ever have in Iraq." Which remains true despite the alleged "success" of the "teh surge".
Right, but this isn't a new development for either Obama or the Dems. Obama has to get better at dealing with this nonsense, esp the McCain team's daily incoherent responses to every word Obama says. Clinton did the same thing, so they know what they're up against, but there is less time to recover if they don't deal with it immediately.
There is nothing remotely inconsistent with his position today -- nothing. So they have to figure out how to turn McCain's "memos to the press" around to their benefit. He's the one who's flipped on a half a dozen issues and -- like you said -- has absolutely no plan (NO PLAN) for Iraq at all. But Obama's people need to push this fact.
To be fair, if flip-flops are what the media is out for today, it's little surprise John McCain's Iraq views on Iraq haven't received much scrutiny. They've been consistently foolish, unreasonable, and incorrect. He has not wavered from wanting us to commit us to a long-term military presence in Iraq to no clear purpose.
Right, but this isn't a new development for either Obama or the Dems. Obama has to get better at dealing with this nonsense, esp the McCain team's daily incoherent responses to every word Obama says. Clinton did the same thing, so they know what they're up against, but there is less time to recover if they don't deal with it immediately.
Obama did deal with it immediately - by coming out and giving a second press conference. That's exactly what he needed to do, and there's not much else he could have done.
I'm willing to criticize Obama when he deserves it, but let's be clear: the media screwed this one up, not Obama.
OBAMA HAS CONSISTENTLY SAID HE WILL LISTEN TO COMMANDERS ON THE GROUND IN IMPLEMENTING HIS POLICY
June 2008: Obama: I’ve Consistently Said That I Will Consult With Military Commanders On The Ground And Be Open To The Possibility Of Tactical Adjustments. Obama said, “I’ve also consistently said that I will consult with military commanders on the ground and that we will always be open to the possibility of tactical adjustments. The important thing is to send a clear signal to the Iraqi people and most importantly to the Iraqi leadership that the U.S. occupation in Iraq is finite, it is gonna be coming to a foreseeable end.” [MSNBC, 6/16/08]
March 2008: Obama Said He Would Give Senior Military Leaders Opinions Great Weight In Implementing His Iraq Plan But As Commander In Chief Would Make His Own Assessment Of The Situation. Obama was asked “what weight will you give to the counsel of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command] commander, the combatant commander on the ground in Iraq and current intelligence chiefs on the ground in Iraq regarding an immediate phased withdrawal?” Obama said, “I will give their counsel great weight. But, as commander in chief, it is my responsibility to make my own assessment of the situation. We must send a clear signal to the Iraqi political leadership that we are leaving Iraq on a timeline. Doing so will put pressure on those leaders to begin to resolve the political impasse at the heart of this civil war. But I also want to be clear about another thing. I am worried our Army is overstretched and that we have asked an awful lot from our military families. Many in our senior military leadership are worried about a plan that will keep 130,000 troops on the ground in Iraq for the foreseeable future. So, as commander in chief, I will also have to take into consideration the counsel of other senior military leaders who may be concerned that Iraq is undercutting our ability to confront other security challenges.” [Washington Post, 3/2/08]
March 2008: Obama Said The Size Of The Residual Force Will Depend On Consultation With Military Commanders And “Will Depend On The Circumstances On The Ground.” Obama said, “The precise size of the residual force will depend on consultations with our military commanders and will depend on the circumstances on the ground, including the willingness of the Iraqi government to move toward political accommodation. But let me be clear on one thing: I will end this war, and there will be far fewer Americans in Iraq conducting a much more limited set of missions that include counterterrorism and protection of our embassy and U.S. civilians.” [Washington Post, 3/2/08]
November 2007: Obama Said He Would Leave Residual Troops In Iraq Based On The Levels Of Violence, “It’s Not My Job To Specify Troop Levels.” Obama said, “If we see a serious effort by the Iraqi leadership to arrive at an agreement and an accommodation and you’ve seen continued reductions of violence, then you need one level of troop protection for the embassy…If things have gone to hell in a hand basket then you need another … It’s not my job to specify troop levels. My job is to tell our commanders on the ground, ‘Here’s your mission. Protect our embassy, protect our diplomats and our humanitarian workers in the area and make sure al Qaeda in Iraq, or other terrorist organizations inside of Iraq are not re-establishing bases there.” [Fosters, 11/28/07]
November 2007: Obama Said U.S. Has To Make Sure “We Are Not Just Willy-Nilly Removing Troops” And That It May “Take A Little Bit Longer” In Some Areas Where There Is Less Stability. “According to all the reports, we should have been well along our way in getting the Iraqi security forces to be more functional. We then have another 16 months after that to adjust the withdrawal and make sure that we are withdrawing from those areas, based on advice from the military officers in the field, those places where we are secured, made progress and we’re not just willy-nilly removing troops, but we’re making a determination – in this region we see some stability. We’ve had cooperation from local tribal leaders and local officials, so we can afford to remove troops here. Here, we’ve still got problems, it’s going to take a little bit longer. Maybe those are the last areas to pull out.” [New York Times, 11/1/07]
November 2007: Obama: “If The Commanders Tell Me They Need X, Y And Z, In Order To Accomplish The Very Narrow Mission That I’ve Laid Out, Than I Will Take That Into Consideration.” “You raise a series of legitimate questions. As commander in chief, I’m not going to leave trainers unprotected. In our counterterrorism efforts, I’m not going to have a situation where our efforts can’t be successful. We will structure those forces so they can be successful. We would still have human intelligence capabilities on the ground. Some of them would be civilian, as opposed to military, some would be operating out of our bases as well as our signal intelligence…But listen, I am not going to set up our troops for failure and I’m going to do something half-baked. If the commanders tell me that they need X, Y and Z, in order to accomplish the very narrow mission that I’ve laid out, than I will take that into consideration.” [New York Times, 11/1/07]
My understanding was that Obama considered the Iraq war to be a mistake and that he would bring the troops home starting immediately. He never, as far as I'm aware of, previously mentioned "the need to maintain stability" in Iraq as one of his guiding principles before today.
WaPo article: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/03/obama_softens_on_iraq_withdraw.html?hpid=topnews
I'll bet the press brings donuts with sprinkles again.
Right, but this isn't a new development for either Obama or the Dems. Obama has to get better at dealing with this nonsense
This is logically inconsistent, in my opinion. You can't say, "The press is being unfair and twisting what Obama says in a way they would never do to McCain," and then put the onus on Obama to somehow "deal with" that. You can't win a game where the rules are rigged against you. What he needs to do is figure out how to marginalize the press, shut them up, work around them. Fuck them, they're useless. There is no "dealing with" them.
I really don't see the press as the bad guys here. Obama's position seems to have changed, yet he says his stance has not changed.
His website shows the surge as "the problem":
- The Problem
- The Surge: The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq's civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war.
But now he's talking about the need to "maintain stability" in Iraq as a potential reason for keeping residual troops there? Does this mean he no longer thinks Iraq is in a civil war even though his web site states otherwise? He originally said a "strike force" would stay only to protect our embassy and diplomats, as well as to pursue Al Qaeda.
Perhaps someone here can help clarify my understanding. Thanks.
Here's the link to the referenced Obama web site for your reference: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
I really don't see the press as the bad guys here. Obama's position seems to have changed, yet he says his stance has not changed.
His website shows the surge as "the problem":
- The Problem
- The Surge: The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq's civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war.
But now he's talking about the need to "maintain stability" in Iraq as a potential reason for keeping residual troops there? Does this mean he no longer thinks Iraq is in a civil war even though his web site states otherwise? He originally said a "strike force" would stay only to protect our embassy and diplomats, as well as to pursue Al Qaeda.
Perhaps someone here can help clarify my understanding. Thanks.
Here's the link to the referenced Obama web site for your reference: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
Obama says he wants to withdraw from Iraq "as soon as possible". That's ostensibly what Bush says, too.
This was a poorly-worded statement on Obama's part.
He should have said, "My plan is to withdraw within 16 months, but I have learned that wisdom dictates that all plans must be flexible".
At least he hasn't backed away from saying Iraq was a mistake. If he does that, the whole thing comes down to whose definition of "as soon as possible" do you trust the most. Weak tea.
I guess this is Tim Russert's legacy. A whole generation of journalists schooled that the ultimate game of political journalism is finding out that you changed your mind about something. Well, not even that. That you might *someday* change your mind about something. That's what makes you a cool political watcher. Telling the folks that no one really believes in anything and if someone decides something is stupid in retrospect it isn't because it looks stupid in retrospect it's because they are cynical manipulators of the public (who you are presumably chasing because they they found something stupid in retrospect).
This is an incredibly horrible way to serve the public and whatever schools or institutions generated these people have a hell of alot to answer for.
Don't worry about this. Americans aren't insisting that the war be ended tomorrow. They know that, thanks to the rank stupidity of the Bush administration, there are no good options at this point.
What Americans want is someone with enough sense to know that the last war was a really stupid idea, and some assurance that their President won't start another one. Bizarrely, Obama is the only of the contenders able to vouchsafe such an assurance.
Ed Marshall, I don't think we should blame this on the late Tim Russert. Why shouldn't politicians offer explanations when they've changed their positions? I admire that the McCain camp is at least trying to explain his change in stance on offshore drilling (now that gas is over $4):
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/OpEds/9D5DB286-ECF6-493D-88F6-A52B8D06BA18.htm
In this instance, Barack Obama is insisting that he has not changed his mind at all.
Obama's now a flip-flopper. Meanwhile, John McCain's views on Iraq receive no scrutiny whatsoever.
This is true, but it's true because we know that McCain will not consider withdrawal. McCain is committed to a "victory" strategy that cannot conceive of any other possibility, even if it means a permanent occupation of Iraq. It is one of many faith-based policies the GOP intends to stick with no matter what.
Plus, Obama is expected to win. So naturally he gets all the scrutiny.
We've all heard ad nauseum *We need to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.*
Obama has not changed his mind or his stance. The press, once again, has been captivated by some new, shiny object McCain's new Rove clone is dangling in front of their noses.
This will go the way of *national outrage* at General Clark's remarks. No where.
One problem Obama has is that semi-crypto pro war Democrats (Brookings - Packer-types etc) constantly tell reporters that Obama will eventually be Serious and Grown-Up and then STFU about withdrawl.
Obama is being undermined from within the Dem party on this issue.
Halperin and others in the media elite also have a vested psychological and emotional interest in conveying a cynical Obama line.
I'm disgusted with Obama. What a weaselly little pussy. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the media continues to kiss McCain's ass and McCain finds a way to bludgeon Obama with Iraq and national security. And since Obama is playing it more and more like a triangulator, he will have no ammunition with which to fire back. If he had any sense he'd have been laying the ground to create a big contrast with McCain on this incredibly unpopular war and other examples of Republican extremism, but instead he's moving toward McCain! What a pussy. And he may turn out to be a loser as well.
Several posters have supplied useful evidence of what seems to me an obvious fact--Obama hasn't changed his position on Iraq. There's no way I would have supported Obama as I have from before Iowa if I thought there was any evidence that he would abandon our interests, allies, and honor in Iraq to please the tiny minority of isolationists and peace-at-any-price crypto passivists on the left wing of the party. A majority of Americans, including this one, are sick and tired of the flailing incompetence that won the war but lost the peace in Iraq, but that doesn't mean we imagine that we can just switch the channel and make it go away.
We went to war in Iraq pursuant to a Chapter VII UN Security Council Resolution that called for the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait, and the "return of the area to peace and stability". We have tried everything under the sun in the interim attempting to complete this mission because it is in our, and the entire civilized world's vital interest that we do so. Anyone who's actually seen Iraq knows how much progress has been made recently. Throwing away an opportunity to stabilize the Greater Persian Gulf, which in my view is now looking possible for the first time since 2004, would be an unforgivable crime, and I'm confident Obama knows it.
SP Glass,
I don't see much of a position change at all. The prime difference between Obama and McCain is strategic more than tactical. As a matter of long-term strategy, McCain wants to stay in Iraq permanently. Obama wants to move troops out of Iraq and refocus them on Afghanistan. That's the main difference and it has never changed.
As far as tactics, sure, both McCain and Obama have wiggled around a bit. And both candidates are less than perfect in their assessment of the tactical situation on the ground. Obama is right that the political settlements have not been made yet, but he has up to now ignored the fact that the Iraqi army has significantly strengthened itself the last several months. McCain is right that Petraeus's counterinusrgency strategy helped turn the tide in Iraq. But McCain ignores more important forces operating independent of Petraeus - namely the Anbar Awakening. As a result, McCain is clueless about the internal political dynamics in Iraq. So nobody can claim "the surge was right" or "the surge was wrong" because so many other factors influenced things.
As for future tactics, the strategic differences will color any troop changes. A McCain Presidency simply will not ask commanders when troops can safely leave Iraq. Instead, McCain will ask where the permanent bases can go and how they can help with an attack on Iran. An Obama Presidency will request the safest and most sensible way to remove troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan. If the commanders say X number of troops can be sent today, but Y number must stay beyond 16 months because the situation is too fragile, then Obama will listen to them. Ultimately, Obama believes the Iraqis must know that we are on our way out and the solutions to Iraq's problems with come from Iraqis.
This is all bullshit.
The US is going out on its ass within three months if Iran is attacked and within two years after the nationalists win the parliamentary elections next year.
So it doesn't matter what Obama or McCain thinks is going to happen. Either Bush starts an Iran war or the Iraqis force the US out without one. There's absolutely no way the Iraqis are going to accept another four years of US troops shooting their relatives and bombing their neighborhoods. And there's no way Iran is going to continue to accept the presence of 100,000 or more US troops on their borders.
I agree that "there's no way Iraqis are going to accept another four years of US troops shooting their relatives and bombing their neighborhoods." But the fact is we're not doing much of that now and are going to be even less likely to do so going forward. People are going to realize at some point that Obama's promise to "end the war" may be redundant--for all practical purposes, the war is over. There will be the occasional violent outburst in which some particular area may approach the violence levels of the US/Mexican border, or the slums of Sao Paolo, but a good case can be made that "the war" as such ended some time ago.
Sending lots of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan would be a stupid idea on several levels, and I doubt Obama will do very much of that. Afghanistan is largely peripheral to American interests for one thing, and replicating Soviet tactics there with lots of heavy infantry and armor is likely to achieve about the same results. Moreover, this is the one place everybody agreed to support. If we're ever going to have a realistic ongoing security relationship with our allies, this is where they have to step up.
Iraq, on the other hand, is crucial to our vital interests, and supporting the evolution of a stable government or governments there will be a long-term project, if with different tactics than before. Recent polling shows that large numbers of Iraqis see the utility of some kinds of US military support even if they don't like it, and the more well-informed and consequential they are, the more they see this. Some want us to be a club with which to beat their enemies, others as a measure of protection from theirs, but almost everyone can see the value of having a strong ally in the world's toughest neighborhood. Look for re-deployment to airfield-centered cantons from which we can support our friends and punish our enemies without daily interaction with rank-and-file Iraqis.
Throwing away an opportunity to stabilize the Greater Persian Gulf, which in my view is now looking possible for the first time since 2004, would be an unforgivable crime, and I'm confident Obama knows it.
Yes, creating another mildly theocratic, superficially democratic state in the ME will totally stabilize the entire region.
Seriously, its fine to make the claim that Iraq dissolution would destabilize the ME -- however, this is a far cry from saying creation of a viable Iraqi state would stabilize the region. That's a false dichotomy if I've ever seen one.
Thanks for the responses. I see now that Obama had previously mentioned the stability of Iraq as a factor.
However, it's also true that Obama introduced a plan to withdraw forces in 11 months (beginning 5/1/07 to complete by 3/31/08). Had his plan been implemented, what do you think Iraq would look like today?
Now Obama's language seems to suggest that the increase in troops advocated by McCain has brought about an increase in stability, which may not just be temporary.
"In a civil war where no military solution exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability."
vs.
"we've got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable."
(Shrugs)
Those of us in the DFH hippie brigade saw this coming and said so. It was clear that Obama was going to get very nice coverage when he was fighting another Democrat. Once he was the nominee the media would return to its "Democrats have to answer all questions, no matter how stupid or wrong we are, and the GOP gets a pass" preferences which have governed the elections since 2000. One could also safely predict that this would be exponentially more likely with McCain, who has countless fluffers in the mainstream media.
The only way that Obama can counter this is to not attack the press but highlight their inconsistencies, a la Media Matters. That is a fraught tactic, though, because if there's one thing the American media HAAAAATES is being called out on their biases and stupidities and rampant favouritism.
I haven't read the transcripts from his two press conferences yesterday, but did anyone ask him about whether he believes the surge has brought stability to Iraq? I was wondering if he thought so, and if so, how he reconciles that with his opposition to the policy.
Anyone know? Thanks.
Comments closed July 17, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It's looking more and more like Barack Obama doesn't really have an opponent in this race, he's just getting put up there for us to look over and if we end up not liking what we see the Presidency will simply default to that other guy, what's-his-face.
Posted by Dave | July 3, 2008 6:20 PM