Obama and Iraq agree on troop withdrawal

[SilverNRed]

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.

In other words, he thinks his ideas for Iraq are better than Petraeus' but will understand if Petraeus feels differently.

 

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.

He says that he still couldn't support the Surge even given what he knows now with "20/20 hindsight." So even though the Surge was a success (which he has kinda-sorta-vaguely admitted) he still can't support it. But he does support a surge in Afghanistan....apparently based on the non-success (?) of the surge in Iraq that he opposed.

 

Makes perfect sense.

[finknottle]

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.

 

In fact, he predicted in a Jan 07 interview that a surge would lead to an increase in sectarian violence.

 

The difficulty with saying he was wrong on that point and moving on is that it tarnishes the simplistic mantra - used to shore up his non-experience in foreign policy - that he was right about Iraq. Saying he was right about one Iraq issue but wrong about another makes him seem ordinary. It deflates the whole messiah image which is the cornerstone of his campaign. He isn't running on specific issues, he is running as the Answer to our Problems.

[SilverNRed]

Obama isn't making sense to the Washington Post either.

 

Link

 

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

 

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of the dramatic turnaround in U.S. fortunes, "does not want a timetable," Mr. Obama reported with welcome candor during a news conference yesterday. In an interview with ABC, he explained that "there are deep concerns about . . . a timetable that doesn't take into account what [American commanders] anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions."

 

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki's timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama's. More significant, it would be "a timetable which Iraqis set" -- not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki "wants some flexibility in terms of how that's carried out."

 

Arguably, Mr. Obama has given himself the flexibility to adopt either course. Yesterday he denied being "so rigid and stubborn that I ignore anything that happens during the course of the 16 months," though this would be more reassuring if Mr. Obama were not rigidly and stubbornly maintaining his opposition to the successful "surge" of the past 16 months. He also pointed out that he had "deliberately avoided providing a particular number" for the residual force of Americans he says would be left behind.

 

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

 

Nice to see at least some members of the media paying attention to what Obama is saying and not just how pretty he is.

[Kelly the Dog]

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.

Now i think you're just being obnoxious or a jerk for the hell of it. And you know I have enormous respect for you.

 

Every fukking' boss in the world, unless they are a total ****, does the exact same thing. You have a plan for your company, you listen to your managers, especially the best ones who are directly under you, you decide how right they are in your opinion, at that moment. Sometimes you take their advice, sometimes you take most of it, sometimes you take part of it, sometimes you say thanks but no thanks. He isn't the President yet. Even Patreus has little to no idea what Iraq is going to be like in February '09, especially if there have been elections by then. WHEN the time comes, if Obama is CiC, he will tell Patreus this is what I want. Patreus is going to say BLANK, and THEN AND ONLY THEN is Obama going to decide if that fits what he sees and what he wants and what is going on in the rest of the world. He may take all his advice, he may take half, he may take none. He doesn't have to say TODAY how much of what Patreus tells him six months from now, which even Patreus doesn't know what it is, he is going to accept or rebuke. It's a thrd grade concept. Jesus Christ.

[GG]

Obama isn't making sense to the Washington Post either.

 

Holy cow, it didn't take Marcus Brauchli long to shake up the editorial POV.

[Kelly the Dog]

In other words, he thinks his ideas for Iraq are better than Petraeus' but will understand if Petraeus feels differently.

No, that is not what he said at all. He said Patraeus may indeed be completely right about Iraq, and that Obama himself may think the exact same thing if he were in Patraeus's shoes. But that what is best for Iraq may take away from what is best for the country, the region, the world, our miliatry as a whole, Afghanistan, our economy, etc. And as Prez, that is his job. As commander in Iraq, only Iraq is the general's job. Right now, which is immaterial, they don't agree on the withdrawal timetable. They may or may not agree on it in 6 months. And Obama will determine how close he can come to what Patraeus wants when the time comes.

He says that he still couldn't support the Surge even given what he knows now with "20/20 hindsight." So even though the Surge was a success (which he has kinda-sorta-vaguely admitted) he still can't support it. But he does support a surge in Afghanistan....apparently based on the non-success (?) of the surge in Iraq that he opposed.

 

Makes perfect sense.

So now all increases in troops are now called "SURGES" and are all completely the same and if you are for or against one you cannot be for or against another?

[GG]

Now i think you're just being obnoxious or a jerk for the hell of it. And you know I have enormous respect for you.

 

Compliment accepted. I think.

 

Every fukking' boss in the world, unless they are a total ****, does the exact same thing. You have a plan for your company, you listen to your managers, especially the best ones who are directly under you, you decide how right they are in your opinion, at that moment. Sometimes you take their advice, sometimes you take most of it, sometimes you take part of it, sometimes you say thanks but no thanks. He isn't the President yet. Even Patreus has little to no idea what Iraq is going to be like in February '09, especially if there have been elections by then. WHEN the time comes, if Obama is CiC, he will tell Patreus this is what I want. Patreus is going to say BLANK, and THEN AND ONLY THEN is Obama going to decide if that fits what he sees and what he wants and what is going on in the rest of the world. He may take all his advice, he may take half, he may take none. He doesn't have to say TODAY how much of what Patreus tells him six months from now, which even Patreus doesn't know what it is, he is going to accept or rebuke. It's a thrd grade concept. Jesus Christ.

 

And you fail to understand that I'm perfectly well aware of what Obama is trying to do, and how he's leaving himself a berth wide enough to land a carrier. Which makes him a ....... POLITICIAN. Which wouldn't be a real issue, unless that politician was running a campaign of being an anti-politician.

 

Look back at your personal accounts with McCain staffers & how the common thread in his career has been promoting John McCain. That's why I find it humorous that you steadfastedly defend Obama when he pulls classic McCains.

 

These are legitimate questions being asked of the leading Presidential candidate and he (nor his fans) should be getting defensive about them. (And somewhere Pasta Joe hits head on wall, again)

[Kelly the Dog]

Compliment accepted. I think.

 

 

And you fail to understand that I'm perfectly well aware of what Obama is trying to do, and how he's leaving himself a berth wide enough to land a carrier. Which makes him a ....... POLITICIAN. Which wouldn't be a real issue, unless that politician was running a campaign of being an anti-politician.

 

Look back at your personal accounts with McCain staffers & how the common thread in his career has been promoting John McCain. That's why I find it humorous that you steadfastedly defend Obama when he pulls classic McCains.

 

These are legitimate questions being asked of the leading Presidential candidate and he (nor his fans) should be getting defensive about them. (And somewhere Pasta Joe hits head on wall, again)

Being a politician is not ALL bad. It's understandable why they do it. I don't agree with a lot of obama's politicking and very often point it out, even when I am defending him in general terms. Like, for instance, I think he's (doubly) wrong to not admit he was wrong about what the military aspects of the surge have done, and done well. he should just admit he was wrong about that, all while maintaining he was right about a lot of other things. That's a mistake, IMO, but that is just politicking.

 

That has nothing to do with what I don't like about McCain. That is a completely different ballgame, IMO. Like I know how he personally sabotaged an Arizona land deal that virtually everyone was for because it didn't promote John McCain, and he wouldn't have gotten credit for it. Those are the kinds of things I mean when I criticize him for being all about John McCain. Not the everyday politicking kind of stuff that they all do.

 

I find it laughable that you and other criticize Obama so much for saying he's trying to change Washington. It's a Presidential campaign for crissakes, in a change cycle.

 

But we have been through all of that before here and you're entitled to believe it, and it's one of the relatively few things his opponents have been able to go after him on. He never said he wasn't a politician, or that he was going to completely overhaul Washington, or that he was never going to move to the center where the majority of the people are (which I think for any politician of any party that is usually a wise thing to do). You can still significantly change Washington and still be a shrewd politician.

 

Besides, what he is often talking about is the changing of Washington of the last eight years, not as much the last 208 years.

[GG]

Being a politician is not ALL bad. It's understandable why they do it. I don't agree with a lot of obama's politicking and very often point it out, even when I am defending him in general terms. Like, for instance, I think he's (doubly) wrong to not admit he was wrong about what the military aspects of the surge have done, and done well. he should just admit he was wrong about that, all while maintaining he was right about a lot of other things. That's a mistake, IMO, but that is just politicking.

 

That has nothing to do with what I don't like about McCain. That is a completely different ballgame, IMO. Like I know how he personally sabotaged an Arizona land deal that virtually everyone was for because it didn't promote John McCain, and he wouldn't have gotten credit for it. Those are the kinds of things I mean when I criticize him for being all about John McCain. Not the everyday politicking kind of stuff that they all do.

 

I find it laughable that you and other criticize Obama so much for saying he's trying to change Washington. It's a Presidential campaign for crissakes, in a change cycle.

 

But we have been through all of that before here and you're entitled to believe it, and it's one of the relatively few things his opponents have been able to go after him on. He never said he wasn't a politician, or that he was going to completely overhaul Washington, or that he was never going to move to the center where the majority of the people are (which I think for any politician of any party that is usually a wise thing to do). You can still significantly change Washington and still be a shrewd politician.

 

Besides, what he is often talking about is the changing of Washington of the last eight years, not as much the last 208 years.

 

Unlike the real estate deal that Obama got in Chicago from a sketchy character? The main difference is that Obama doesn't have a 24 year Senate history of self promotion. And since he doesn't have the history, his opponents are trying to nail him to be a bit less vague about issues - to which everyone associated with him get defensive. If he is a politician, then he shouldn't get indignant at the questions.

 

FWIW, Bush ran on a change platform as well.

[Chilly]

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.

 

"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."

 

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.

 

I'm not sure there really is any significant difference. Seems to me, the country needs to have successfully transferred security to the Iraqis to be able to pull the troops out, at which point both candidates would agree that the troops would need to be gone. Sure, Obama may pull some small number of troops before McCain would, but meh.

[Helmet_hair]

WOW! You really changed my mind about BO, and here I thought he was just another porch monkey...THAAAAAANKS!