Obama and Iraq agree on troop withdrawal

[Kelly the Dog]

I agree all of the above are factors. Now, let's try and do this without the "a-f are all equal contributors" distortion. Here's the amount each factor actually contributed:

 

a = 60%

b = 10% and this mostly has to do with a, because they were tired of getting smoked by us

c = wtf? I hardly think business loans = payoffs. If that is true then we better take a long hard look at the Equal Opportunity and Women Owned Business grants/loans in this country. Anyway, 1%

d = 4%

e = 5% and this remains to be seen. I guarantee that if things improve economically, there's no way you see the same level of BS form Sadr, because nobody will care.

f = 10% there might be something to this, but let's also not forget that many, many, many Al Qaeda didn't retreat anywhere. Most were cut off and destroyed.

By far the most important factor IMO was the Sunni's changing their attitude toward Al Qaeda. Had zero to do with the surge and started well before it. Would have happened without the surge because it already did. If anything deserves 60%, it's that. But I wouldn't call it 60% because there were SO many factors. Together with the million dollar a day payments it may make 60% if you had to put numbers on it.

 

I would say the surge had about a 25-30% impact. By thata I mean the extra troops and military aspects, which is what most people attribute as "the surge". People can say that it had a bigger impact if they want to say that the violence is down because of Sadr and others laying low. And the surge is responsible for that, I would agree. But the fact they are just sitting on the sidelines postpones violence it doesn't eliminate it. It really didn't solve the political problem of Sadr and other smaller groups like him. It just delayed the inevitable. Just because they are not killing people now doesn't mean this worked. It means it put a short timeout or freeze on it.

 

Al Qaeda stopping and leaving had more to do with the Sunnis than the surge. But it has a huge effect on the overall perception of the country, the threat of violence (which is of course the purpose of terrorism), and the prospects for the average Iraqi. But they were never really the big problem. I would say 10% having Al Qaeda all but gone is about right, a lot of which is a psychological factor. But again, that happened only partly due to the surge and mostly to do with the Sunnis, which had nothing to do with the surge.

Sure. The problem is: the other factors are directly CAUSED by the surge and would not have happened or had any effect otherwise. In all cases, it is beyond reasonable(I know that's tough for some here) dispute that the surge worked as designed. It's also beyond dispute that McCain was the first to call for it, and that the Obama was against it and refuses to admit he was wrong about it. Hmmm. Never admitting to a mistake, don't we already have a President who does that?

 

Apparently you haven't been trained in warfare. Let me help you out. The first rule is: all warfare is deception. Normally you kinda don't want to tell your enemy what your war plans are. See, that way he gets to prepare for them, and that means he knows your next move and can bring fire down on you and your people when you are in the open. It usually isn't the best idea, most of the time it's pretty bad, so let's learn not to do it and move on.

 

So yeah the timetable is, was, and will always be WRONG!. Getting the Iraqis to do more wasn't Obama's idea, it's everybody's friggin idea. Who doesn't want that? I do not believe that the Obama would ever say he might not be right, especially after all the soaring speeches he has given demanding that we accept his omnipotence when it comes to warfare. How could we not with all his extensive training and experience in the art? Hell his demand for a timetable is proof enough of his military genius.

The timetable is never a hardfast date. And it won't be. It has been and always will be a goal. Things will change on the ground. It may not be reached for a year or two later. We do need to get the hell out of there, IMO. But we will still have some people and troops there anyway, like Obama has always said. It's far better than the open ended commitment, IMO. Bush and McCain would always find ways and reasons to extend the stay because their goals are not the goals they state.

Most American's? Hehehee. RCP has him up 4 points. Rassmusen has them tied and Obama is only up 2 points in Michigan right now. Most indeed. I love it when far-left Democrats start speaking for "most Americans agree", when they should be saying "20% or less of the country agree".

Most Americans agree we should get the hell out of Iraq as soon as is feasibly possible. That is what I obviously meant. I wasn't talking about the election. It's not even most, it's the vast majority, probably still 70-80%.

[GG]

By far the most important factor IMO was the Sunni's changing their attitude toward Al Qaeda. Had zero to do with the surge and started well before it. Would have happened without the surge because it already did. If anything deserves 60%, it's that. But I wouldn't call it 60% because there were SO many factors. Together with the million dollar a day payments it may make 60% if you had to put numbers on it.

 

I would say the surge had about a 25-30% impact. By thata I mean the extra troops and military aspects, which is what most people attribute as "the surge".

 

I seem to recall someone who had a few million of walk around money sitting in a locked chest in the barracks a few years ago - all to no avail. The payola game has been in effect for years, so please don't pretend that US got religion a few months ago that they need to pay the locals off. If money was the solution, the issue would have been solved years ago.

 

A big part of the surge was targeting Shiite militias, which also had the positive reinforcement to Sunnis that US actions aren't one sided. Again, not a 100% cure, but adding to the case of fixing past mistakes - which would not have been implemented without the surge.

 

 

Al Qaeda stopping and leaving had more to do with the Sunnis than the surge. But it has a huge effect on the overall perception of the country, the threat of violence (which is of course the purpose of terrorism), and the prospects for the average Iraqi. But they were never really the big problem. I would say 10% having Al Qaeda all but gone is about right, a lot of which is a psychological factor. But again, that happened only partly due to the surge and mostly to do with the Sunnis, which had nothing to do with the surge.

 

While the vast number of all insurgent attacks were being led by locals, the vast number of serious attacks were orchestrated by AQ. With them increasingly out of the picture, the remaining population can resume their fights over natural order of things, like business taxes & oil rights.

 

The timetable is never a hardfast date. And it won't be. It has been and always will be a goal. Things will change on the ground. It may not be reached for a year or two later. We do need to get the hell out of there, IMO. But we will still have some people and troops there anyway, like Obama has always said.

 

No, until a week ago his public pronouncement has been an immediate staged withdrawal. You're providing an opinion of what he would likely do as POTUS. However, those were not the words on the official campaign website.

[Kelly the Dog]

No, until a week ago his public pronouncement has been an immediate staged withdrawal. You're providing an opinion of what he would likely do as POTUS. However, those were not the words on the official campaign website.

It's not his fault people don't listen to what he says. he has said repeatedly that he will listen to people on the ground and it will have an effect on the timetable, which is almost always referred to as a "goal".

 

At a July 3 press availability in Fargo, North Dakota, Sen. Barack Obama told reporters: "When I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies." In covering Obama's comments, the media have reported Republican claims that Obama reversed himself. For example, in a post on The New York Times blog, The Caucus, reporter Jeff Zeleny quoted Republican National Committee spokesman Alex Conant stating: "There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience. ... Obama's Iraq problem undermines the central premise of his candidacy and shows him to be a typical politician." Zeleny quoted Obama saying: "My position has not changed, but keep in mind what that original position was. I've always said that I would listen to commanders on the ground." But Zeleny did not note that Obama has in fact said on multiple occasions that he would set Iraq war policy in consultation with military commanders.

 

Here are some examples:

 

* In a March 19 speech, Obama said: "Let me be clear: Ending this war is not going to be easy. There will be dangers involved -- just as there would be dangers involved with staying indefinitely. We will have to make tactical adjustments, listening to our commanders on the ground, to ensure that our interests in a stable Iraq are met, and to make sure that our troops are secure."

 

* During a March 2 Washington Post foreign policy "Q&A," when asked what size his proposed "over-the-horizon" force in Iraq would be, Obama responded: "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."

 

* During an interview on the February 5 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, when asked, "s there anything that would change your position about pulling out troops ... if he [Gen. David Petraeus] convinces you that we're on the right track?" Obama began his response by saying, "Well, what I've been very clear about is that I will always listen to commanders on the ground":

 

BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): Right behind you is the word "change." When General Petraeus comes back in a month, if he talks to Barack Obama privately and shows you what we're doing over there, is there anything that would change your position about pulling out troops if he's convinced -- if he convinces you that we're on the right track?

 

OBAMA: Well, what I've been very clear about is that I will always listen to commanders on the ground, but ultimately the commander in chief sets the mission. And my strong belief is that we have to send a signal to the Iraqis that we are not going to be in Iraq permanently. I mean, I have a fundamental disagreement with John McCain on this.

 

* Obama also said during an interview on the February 4 edition of CBS' The Early Show that he would "consult with commanders":

 

HARRY SMITH (co-host): If you were to be elected president --

 

OBAMA: Mm-hmm.

 

SMITH: -- and your commanders on the ground there and your secretary of defense said, "Hold back" --

 

OBAMA: Right.

 

SMITH: -- "you can't be pulling these people out. We're going to create a civil war and a blood bath." What would you do?

 

OBAMA: My job as commander in chief is to keep the American people safe. But I firmly believe that we have to send a signal to the Iraqis that it is time to withdraw. We will not have a permanent base there. We will not have a permanent occupation there.

 

SMITH: Even if it --

 

OBAMA: Within those constraints --

 

SMITH: Even if it meant the beginning of civil war?

 

OBAMA: No, no, no, no. Within those constraints, I think there is going to be some flexibility and, obviously, I would consult with commanders. We have to be mindful of the situation on the ground and what the commanders say. Having said that, what we can't do is simply say we are going to leave it open-ended, the way John McCain, for example, suggested. We might be there 50 years or 100 years. That is not going to make the American people safe over the long term, not only because of the loss of life, not only because of the anti-American sentiment that it fans and the constraints it places on our diplomacy, but also because we can't afford it. It's costing us $9 billion per month.

 

* During a November 1, 2007, New York Times interview, Obama was asked: "You've argued that the United States should leave behind residual force in Iraq and the region. How large would the force be and how much would be inside Iraq versus the Persian Gulf Region?" Obama replied:

 

I have not ascribed particular numbers to that and I won't for precisely the reason I was just talking to Michael about. I want to talk to military folks on the ground, No. 1. No. 2, a lot of it depends on what's happened on the political front and the diplomatic front. Even something as simple as protecting our embassy is going to be dependent on what is the security environment in Baghdad. If there is some sense of security, then that means one level of force. If you continue to have significant sectarian conflict, that means another, but this is an area where Senator [Hillary] Clinton and I do have a significant contrast.

 

* During the September 12, 2007, broadcast of National Public Radio's All Things Considered, Obama said: "If commanders came to me and said, 'We are making progress in reducing violence,' and I see continuing political progress taking place, then obviously that's going to be weighed against the need to, I believe, have some additional troops in Afghanistan." From the interview:

 

MICHELE NORRIS (host): So, in trying to determine what the U.S. footprint in Iraq would look like -- say you're in office, and your commanders, your military commanders, are telling you that progress is being made. If they're saying, "We can win this," are you still going to draw down forces? As a commander in chief, who does not have personal military experience, are you willing to look someone like David Petraeus in the eye and say, "You're wrong. We're going to do it my way"?

 

OBAMA: If commanders came to me and said, "We are making progress in reducing violence," and I see continuing political progress taking place, then obviously that's going to be weighed against the need to, I believe, have some additional troops in Afghanistan. That's going to be weighed against our homeland security needs in the United States. I think that the overarching question is: What is going to be needed to make the United States more secure, meet our strategic interests around the world, and make sure that we are meeting the obligations that we have towards the Iraqi people?

 

But that is all part of a decision that the president makes in consultation with his generals, but not in deference to them. And I think one of the unfortunate aspects of the last several days and General Petraeus' testimony is the illusion that, somehow, General Petraeus has been setting policy and the president has simply been accepting those recommendations. That is not what has been taking place. The president has been laying out a mission of continuing this failed course in Iraq and General Petraeus and Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker have been trying to carry out that mission as best they could.

 

TPM Media's Greg Sargent wrote in a July 3 TPM Election Central entry, "[T]he big news orgs are already getting this wrong":

 

Here's the Associated Press headline and lede:

 

Obama opens door to altering his Iraq policy

 

Democrat Barack Obama opened the door Thursday to altering his plan to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq in 16 months based on what he hears from military commanders during his upcoming trip there.

 

That's a reckless distortion. "Alter" is a far stronger word than "refine" is. And worse, when you take the stronger word "alter" and put it next to "plan to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq in 16 months," it makes a far, far stronger suggestion than Obama did. Obama merely said he would "continue to refine his policies." The tone of this lede makes it sound like Obama is preparing a wholesale junking of his withdrawal plan.

 

Here's The Washington Post's headline:

 

Obama Softens on Iraq Withdrawal Timeline

 

This is way overstated. It states as outright fact that Obama signaled that he'd backtrack on the time-line. But that didn't happen at all. The Los Angeles Times used this formulation, too, but it at least had the decency to pose it as a question, and not state this as established fact.

 

From Zeleny's July 3 blog post on The Caucus:

 

Senator Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot sustain a long-term military presence in Iraq, but added that he would be open to "refine my policies" about a timeline for withdrawing troops after meeting with American military commanders during a trip to Iraq later this month.

 

Mr. Obama, whose popularity in the Democratic primary was built upon a sharp opposition to the war and an often-touted 16-month gradual timetable for removing combat troops, dismissed suggestions that he was changing positions in the wake of reductions in violence in Iraq and a general election fight with Senator John McCain.

 

"I've always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed," he said. "And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."

 

[...]

 

Republicans seized on Mr. Obama's remarks, saying he was stepping away from the position he took in the Democratic primary campaign.

 

"There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience," said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. "Obama's Iraq problem undermines the central premise of his candidacy and shows him to be a typical politician."

 

Mr. Obama said such criticism was misguided, saying: "My position has not changed, but keep in mind what that original position was. I've always said that I would listen to commanders on the ground."

 

—K.H., S.S.M., S.P., & R.S.K.

[Chilly]

o so he's mcbama

[/dev/null]

o so he's mcbama

Barak W McBama

[GG]

It's not his fault people don't listen to what he says. he has said repeatedly that he will listen to people on the ground and it will have an effect on the timetable.

 

Yet, why did he take down the language from his website last week? Why was the deadline even in there, if his sole, only, single condition was to listen to the commanders on the ground?

 

Surely, you must find some humor in this passage (especilaly since you're accusing others of distorting what Obama really means, when he says something else):

OBAMA: Well, what I've been very clear about is that I will always listen to commanders on the ground, but ultimately the commander in chief sets the mission. And my strong belief is that we have to send a signal to the Iraqis that we are not going to be in Iraq permanently. I mean, I have a fundamental disagreement with John McCain on this.

 

Where did McCain unequivocally say that US will be a permanent fixture in Iraq?

[Kelly the Dog]

Yet, why did he take down the language from his website last week? Why was the deadline even in there, if his sole, only, single condition was to listen to the commanders on the ground?

 

Surely, you must find some humor in this passage (especilaly since you're accusing others of distorting what Obama really means, when he says something else):

 

 

Where did McCain unequivocally say that US will be a permanent fixture in Iraq?

I have no idea, i didn't see what it said. I assume he did it because his opponents have been doing a fairly decent job of trying to distort his viewpoint, into what he spoke about today: That he is either immovable, or he's a flipflopper, even though he has always been saying basically the same thing.

 

He wants us out in 16 months. He thinks we can do it in that time. He will tell his generals that is the mission and the goal. Then he will listen to what they say about accomplishing that mission as well as what is going on and try as best he can to implement it. Getting out as soon as feasibly possible, but as he likes to say "as carefully as we were careless going in" That alone implies without question he is going to be flexible. Of course he is not going to say that full scenario every single time he speaks about it, and yet people just use those times when he only says we want to be out in 16 months as that is the date no matter what when that simply isn't and has never been true. It's foolish to think he even believes that in any way.

 

I think in the statement he was simply making the distinction of him wanting out as soon as possible and McCain wanting to stay there. I don't know, however. I assume that it was a political statement trying to play on the 100 years comment (which I personally think is wrong and disingenuous for Obama and the left to use).

[OCinBuffalo]

By far the most important factor IMO was the Sunni's changing their attitude toward Al Qaeda. Had zero to do with the surge and started well before it. Would have happened without the surge because it already did. If anything deserves 60%, it's that. But I wouldn't call it 60% because there were SO many factors. Together with the million dollar a day payments it may make 60% if you had to put numbers on it.

I'm not saying my numbers are perfect. I am saying that they are reasonable. I agree that the Sunni "rebellion" against Al Qaeda was happening before the surge. IIRC, I was the one who posted it first around here and was told I was delusional for doing so. The point I am making is that if you take the thing on the whole, without the surge, none of anything else was likely to be sustainable or anywhere near as effective as it has been. That's the reason for my 60% ranking.

I would say the surge had about a 25-30% impact. By thata I mean the extra troops and military aspects, which is what most people attribute as "the surge". People can say that it had a bigger impact if they want to say that the violence is down because of Sadr and others laying low. And the surge is responsible for that, I would agree. But the fact they are just sitting on the sidelines postpones violence it doesn't eliminate it. It really didn't solve the political problem of Sadr and other smaller groups like him. It just delayed the inevitable. Just because they are not killing people now doesn't mean this worked. It means it put a short timeout or freeze on it.

I think your are placing way, way too much value on the Sadr laying low thing. The simple fact is that the concrete is hardening on this situation as all indications are that it will stabilize soon. The more structure and legitimacy the Iraqi government is perceived to have, the less power Sadr has. His guys aren't gonna quit their jobs and pick up an AK again unless all hell is breaking loose on their street. The same is true for most people, wherever in the world they are. If they can feed their families, do a reasonable day's work and have a little fun now and again, Sadr's megalomania isn't going to have much of an effect.

Al Qaeda stopping and leaving had more to do with the Sunnis than the surge. But it has a huge effect on the overall perception of the country, the threat of violence (which is of course the purpose of terrorism), and the prospects for the average Iraqi. But they were never really the big problem. I would say 10% having Al Qaeda all but gone is about right, a lot of which is a psychological factor. But again, that happened only partly due to the surge and mostly to do with the Sunnis, which had nothing to do with the surge.

Again, the Sunnis "rebellion" wouldn't have gotten anywhere unless we had the shooters on hand, everywhere, to help them out. It's like calling 911. Your faith in that system is directly tied to how fast they respond and what they do when they get there. Sure they flipped on Al Qaeda, but if nothing happened, or worse, they got caught ratting them out, this "rebellion" would have failed rapidly. Instead, every time they made the call, the guy they dropped the dime on got smoked. So, they had no problem doing it again and again. Sooner or later, we killed all the Al Qaeda.

 

Btw, while we are busy giving credit here: it's high time we credited the officers and men that went out there every day and killed/captured those bastards, with hardly any collateral damage.

The timetable is never a hardfast date. And it won't be. It has been and always will be a goal. Things will change on the ground. It may not be reached for a year or two later. We do need to get the hell out of there, IMO. But we will still have some people and troops there anyway, like Obama has always said. It's far better than the open ended commitment, IMO. Bush and McCain would always find ways and reasons to extend the stay because their goals are not the goals they state.

IF you say "When I am President I will get all of our troops out of Iraq within 16 months" at a speech today, it's pretty easy to set a date for withdrawal, and not victory: you just add 16 months to today's date. Right?

 

Please enlighten me on the goals that are not the goals, that are not the goals that are stated. While you are at it, let me know how in heck you know that what Bush wants = what McCain wants. As I recall, McCain wanted the surge and Bush was slow to accept it. Bush <> McCain, but keep trying to make apples into oranges. It entertains me. Let's agree that you won't continue to assume that I am dumb enough to buy that lame politicking as a reasonable argument.

McCain is not Bush, never was, never will be.

Most Americans agree we should get the hell out of Iraq as soon as is feasibly possible. That is what I obviously meant. I wasn't talking about the election. It's not even most, it's the vast majority, probably still 70-80%.

Most Americans agree we should get the hell out of any war as soon as is feasibly possible. It's war, nobody enjoys it, and the objective of it is to end asap. You end it by winning it with honor, that's all there is to it. Unless you want to be right back fighting it all over again in the future.

Most Americans agree that we hate losing a war and we are going to be pissed any time we think we are, and we are going to demand that whoever is responsible for losing it for us gets the boot.

 

Have you ever eaten "3 lies in a bag", had no shower for a month and been stung/bit by every damn thing that knows how? Have you ever worn the same clothes(except your socks which you have to keep changing constantly) and slept outside for weeks at a time? Do you like being in a dirty, muddy hole in the rain whose smell is only surpassed by the B.O. of your radio guy? Ever have to give orders to move out over and over knowing some day, or this time, you're going to say that and somebody is going to die because of it? I haven't experienced the various hot bits of lead and other things that are trying to kill you while all this fun is going on, but the rest sucked a lot.

 

Believe me, nobody wants to prolong a war. But, I'd rather go back and endure all of those things again than lose a war.

 

Somehow you seem to think that war = an On/Off switch and that there are actually people out there who like the On, while you like the Off. No such thing.

That's a false perception you'd do well to free yourself from.

 

What also seems to have happened here is that somehow you think that people who want to win the war = people who like war = Bush supporters. And people that don't like war = Democrats/worshipers of the Obama. WTF is that?

[GG]

I think in the statement he was simply making the distinction of him wanting out as soon as possible and McCain wanting to stay there. I don't know, however. I assume that it was a political statement trying to play on the 100 years comment (which I personally think is wrong and disingenuous for Obama and the left to use).

 

But that's the whole point & mightily comical that you still insist that his views are being distorted.

 

From McCain, it's "We need to be there as long as necessary to ensure the place is stable, and then we'll get out."

From Obama, it's "We need to be out ASAP, unless the generals tell me that we need to stay to ensure the place is stable."

 

So please don't tell me that he's not getting & eating his cake. In the primaries, he emphasized the first part. In the general election, it's as if the first part was never uttered and he's shocked that people would ask him to clarify the first part.

[Kelly the Dog]

But that's the whole point & mightily comical that you still insist that his views are being distorted.

 

From McCain, it's "We need to be there as long as necessary to ensure the place is stable, and then we'll get out."

From Obama, it's "We need to be out ASAP, unless the generals tell me that we need to stay to ensure the place is stable."

 

So please don't tell me that he's not getting & eating his cake. In the primaries, he emphasized the first part. In the general election, it's as if the first part was never uttered and he's shocked that people would ask him to clarify the first part.

No, that's untrue. He made it clear yesterday. Again.

 

First, if the generals say they can't leave that fast because it's not stable, but that the fastest they can leave is 20 months or 24 months, THAT IS leaving ASAP. As soon as possible. That is what he's saying and has been saying. And in addition, if they say something like WE WANT to stay, we think we can do A and B and C and then get out, Obama is going to consider that into his equation, Afghanistan, other issues impossible to predict at this time, and then make a decision, give them orders and expect them to carry them out. Perhaps allow them time for A or B but not C. But not let them dictate the terms of the pullout, as he is Commander in Chief. It's a pretty easy thing to understand, and what basically all Presidents do.

 

People like yourself are just not willing to let him say "This is what I want, expect, and plan on. I will try to carry it out day one. If I can't carry it out to the letter, I will do it as best and as fast and as feasible as I can with input from my generals and advisers."

 

That is what I want in a President, and that's pretty much the exact same thing that McCain would do, except his plans and timetable and orders to the generals would be different.

[Adam]

The Iraq we set up will probably never be stable. No matter when we leave, they will have to stand or fail on their own under the same pressure. Therefore, the forces that push us to stay will be perpetual.

[finknottle]

I seem to recall someone who had a few million of walk around money sitting in a locked chest in the barracks a few years ago - all to no avail. The payola game has been in effect for years, so please don't pretend that US got religion a few months ago that they need to pay the locals off. If money was the solution, the issue would have been solved years ago.

 

People are more willing to take your money if they think they'll live to keep it.

 

Without the surge you couldn't buy the support of anybody not already comfortably ensconced in the Green Zone.

[finknottle]

I think this puts it well:

 

But back on Sept. 12, 2007, he called for an immediate start to the withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq. Obama's plan called for the complete pullout of troops by the end of 2008 by bringing home one or two brigades each month.

 

"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq. There never was," he said. "'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."

 

For him, now that the surge he opposed is working and victory may be around the corner, to claim that he was always right is like someone in America in 1944 opposed to the Allied D-Day invasion of Normandy claiming there is no military solution to World War II and we should bring our troops home; then once our troops were on the beach, warning that our troops can accomplish nothing on the beaches -- get them out; then when they broke out, warning Americans that they never will get through the hedgerows; then when they broke through the hedgerows, warning that they never will get through the Siegfried line; then the following spring, when Hitler blew his brains out, Germany surrendered and President Truman ordered our troops to be brought home systematically, bragging: "You see? I was always right. Even the president now agrees it is time to bring the troops home."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/..._statesman.html

[GG]

No, that's untrue. He made it clear yesterday. Again.

 

What's not true?

 

Let's walk down memory lane:

 

Nove 2006

Sept 2007

 

Again, from Obama's website:

Barack Obama believes we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

 

People like yourself are just not willing to let him say "This is what I want, expect, and plan on. I will try to carry it out day one. If I can't carry it out to the letter, I will do it as best and as fast and as feasible as I can with input from my generals and advisers."

 

That is what I want in a President, and that's pretty much the exact same thing that McCain would do, except his plans and timetable and orders to the generals would be different.

 

I think people like me want to understand what the hell he's talking about, and can see through the veneer of campaigning in the primaries vs campaigning in the general election. If he's willing to alter his views based on what he's hearing from the commanders on the ground, what's his take to Petraus's position that :

withdrawing too many forces too quickly could jeopardize the progress of the past year;

and ...

 

After weighing these factors, I recommended to my chain of command that we continue the drawdown of the surge combat forces and that, upon the withdrawal of the last surge brigade combat team in July, we undertake a 45-day period of consolidation and evaluation. At the end of that period, we will commence a process of assessment to examine the conditions on the ground and, over time, determine when we can make recommendations for further reductions. This process will be continuous, with recommendations for further reductions made as conditions permit. This approach does not allow establishment of a set withdrawal timetable; however, it does provide the flexibility those of us on the ground need to preserve the still fragile security gains our troopers have fought so hard and sacrificed so much to achieve.

[SilverNRed]

I think people like me want to understand what the hell he's talking about, and can see through the veneer of campaigning in the primaries vs campaigning in the general election. If he's willing to alter his views based on what he's hearing from the commanders on the ground, what's his take to Petraus's position that :

 

His take is that Petraeus is wrong and Obama knows better.

 

Link

 

Petraeus Disagrees With Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Timeline

 

A description of the report on NBC's Today Show: "recapped Obama’s 'picture-perfect' trip to Iraq, said he and Petraeus 'agreed to disagree' about a withdrawal timeline in an 'animated' conversation."

 

I'm glad that they were all smiles on the helicopter tour of Baghdad. But lost in the photo ops is the pretty darn important point that Petraeus disagrees with Obama's withdrawal timeline.

Weren't liberals all up in arms about Bush supposedly not listening to his generals or the troops on the ground when making decisions? I expect those same people to be very upset that Obama has decided to overrule whatever strategic advice he's received from the most successful general our military has had in the last few decades.

 

[Wacka]

Q: What do Obama and Osama have in common?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A: They both have friends that bombed the Pentagon.

[Fastback]

Don't confuse KTFABLefty with facts...He's looked into his eyes! Now there's no turning back! Once you go Barak, you never go Back!

[Fastback]

Q: What do Obama and Osama have in common?

 

A: They both have friends that bombed the Pentagon.

 

Um, excuse me...that's NOT one of the five authorized jokes about the Messiah. There are operatives monitoring the interweb and you may be paid a visit soon. I'd be careful if I were you.

[Kelly the Dog]

His take is that Petraeus is wrong and Obama knows better.

 

Link

 

 

Weren't liberals all up in arms about Bush supposedly not listening to his generals or the troops on the ground when making decisions? I expect those same people to be very upset that Obama has decided to overrule whatever strategic advice he's received from the most successful general our military has had in the last few decades.

 

Actually he said if he were Patreus he would likely feel the same way and expected the general to want to do more but the general's position only includes Iraq but the President must consider the entire world.

 

For the record, I think Obama should just admit he was wrong about the military's success in the surge that he predicted wouldn't happen but did.

[GG]

Actually he said if he were Patreus he would likely feel the same way and expected the general to want to do more but the general's position only includes Iraq but the President must consider the entire world.

 

Now I'm really confused. Is he now saying that even though he'd listen to the commanders on the ground, he wouldn't necessarily heed the advice? Yup, a change is really coming.