 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / July 2008Washington Post: Obama's Iron Timetable Strategy On Iraq
Spot On... The Washington Post is taking grown-up positions on Iraq.  SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor ------------------------------------------------------ The Iron Timetable Whether the war in Iraq is being lost or won, Barack Obama's strategy remains unchanged. Wednesday, July 16, 2008 BARACK OBAMA yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: "They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down." Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish consistency. Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this month that he might "refine" his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq. Mr. Obama's charge against the Republicans was not entirely fair, since Mr. Bush has overseen the withdrawal of five American brigades from Iraq this year, and Mr. McCain has suggested that he would bring most of the rest of the troops home by early 2013. Mr. Obama's timeline would end in the summer of 2010, a year or two before the earliest dates proposed recently by members of the Iraqi government. The real difference between the various plans is not the dates but the conditions: Both the Iraqis and Mr. McCain say the withdrawal would be linked to the ability of Iraqi forces to take over from U.S. troops, as they have begun to do. Mr. Obama's strategy allows no such linkage -- his logic is that a timetable unilaterally dictated from Washington is necessary to force Iraqis to take responsibility for the country. At the time he first proposed his timetable, Mr. Obama argued -- wrongly, as it turned out -- that U.S. troops could not stop a sectarian civil war. As did MANY pogues and poguettes here in these newsgroups -- including Pogue Gans [hiding in the tall grass], Pogue Surreyman, Pogue Tiglath, Poguette Nilita and all the little sock puppets. -- DSH He conceded that a withdrawal might be accompanied by a "spike" in violence. Now, he describes as "an achievable goal" that "we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future -- a government that prevents sectarian conflict and ensures that the al-Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge." How will that "true success" be achieved? By the same pullout that Mr. Obama proposed when chaos in Iraq appeared to him inevitable. Mr. Obama reiterated yesterday that he would consult with U.S. commanders and the Iraqi government and "make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy." However, as Mr. McCain quickly pointed out, he delivered his speech before traveling to Iraq -- before his meetings with Gen. David H. Petraeus and the Iraqi leadership. American commanders will probably tell Mr. Obama that from a logistical standpoint, a 16-month withdrawal timetable will be difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill. Iraqis will say that a pullout that is not negotiated with the government and disregards the readiness of Iraqi troops will be a gift to al-Qaeda and other enemies. If Mr. Obama really intends to listen to such advisers, why would he lock in his position in advance? Because he is playing to the Loony-Left Wing of his own Party and does not want to alienate them. -- DSH "What's missing in our debate," Mr. Obama said yesterday, "is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq." Indeed: The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome -- that Iraq "distracts us from every threat we face" and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That's an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world's largest oil reserves. RIGHT! McCain wants the United States to WIN in Iraq. Obama is unwilling to make that commitment. -- DSH Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq's future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality. "Liberals" have a great deal of trouble facing Reality. -- DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor > Spot On... > > The Washington Post is taking grown-up positions on Iraq. That's a Republican lie. Bush called Iran and N Korea the "axis of evil" and played tough on no negotiations, just threats, , then he caved in on both, like the phony he is. The improvement in the situation in Iraq is far less due to some extra troops, than it is to paying off the insurgent Sunnis in Anbar, who had been killing US troops - $300 / month - Garner was going to pay them $50 / month. It's likely that US troops can be drawn down (as Bush is doing) - but ending the surge in payoffs to the Sunni insurgements may very well cause them to go back to seeking insurgent work from the monied Baathists that the Bush morons made into enemies in 2003. Anyone with an ounce of military sense knows that in Afghanistan, the Taliban refuge in Pakistan is going to have to be hit. Yet, you Bush morons crticize Obama for saying so. It is Y O U who are ignorant of how to protect the US - not Obama - not even the Democrats. > Anyone with an ounce of military sense knows that in Afghanistan, the > Taliban refuge in Pakistan is going to have to be hit. Yet, you Bush morons > crticize Obama for saying so. > > It is Y O U who are ignorant of how to protect the US - not Obama - not > even the Democrats. And anyone with a once of sense knows you would be attacking one of our (relative) friends. Disabling a shaky Government with Nuclear weapons. Obama is just a jackass Chicago Pol; who has gotten too far in life on a pretty face & a teleprompter. Yes... And we still don't know how Obama can perform without a teleprompter. He keeps trying to squirm out of town hall meetings with Americans and McCain. McCain may start using a prop with an empty podium and two teleprompter screens for Obama in his town hall meetings. SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor > Obama is just a jackass Chicago Pol; who has gotten too far in life on a > pretty face & a teleprompter. Laughable, as usual. McCain wants the town meetings becasue they're free, and they put him on stage with Obama, as though he were his equal.... ;-)) <chuckle chuckle> Of course, another reason McDummy wants it, is that it is a venue in which you can push the average person's dummy buttons (flags, jebus, I was a POW, I flew a jet blah blah blah), versus having an in depth discussion over complicated, sometimes painful, challenges and solutions facing the US. > Yes... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> Obama is just a jackass Chicago Pol; who has gotten too far in life on a >> pretty face & a teleprompter. > And anyone with a once of sense knows you would be attacking one of our > (relative) friends. Disabling a shaky Government with Nuclear weapons. > Obama is just a jackass Chicago Pol; who has gotten too far in life on a > pretty face & a teleprompter. Have you seen/heard GWB talking without a teleprompter?! LOL! "There is some who say that perhaps freedom is not universal. Maybe it's only Western people that can self-govern. Maybe it's only, you know, white-guy Methodists who are capable of self-government. I reject that notion." --George W. Bush, London, June 16, 2008 "Amigo! Amigo!" --George W. Bush, calling out to Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi in Spanish at the G-8 Summit, Rusutsu, Japan, July 10, 2008 - nilita >> Anyone with an ounce of military sense knows that in Afghanistan, the >> Taliban refuge in Pakistan is going to have to be hit. Yet, you Bush [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And anyone with a once of sense knows you would be attacking one of our > (relative) friends. Asinine. The Pakistani govt admits they can't control the NW frontier areas, where al Qaeda and the Afghan and Paki Taliban are operating from. Anyone with any military sense knows that Afghanistan will be in a pertual insurgency war unless the safe havens in Pakistan are dealt with. If we had a decent President, he would have been able to sell them on joint operations, since there is an increasing amount of terrorism in Pakistan coming from the same place. >Disabling a shaky Government with Nuclear weapons. They already are being destabilized- by terroists and fundamentalists. > Obama is just a jackass Chicago Pol; who has gotten too far in life on a > pretty face & a teleprompter. McCain doesn't think so. Neither does Clinton's wife. Obama has the best intellect, education and probably character, of anyone who has run for the office, probably since Theodore Roosevelt. The two probably would have liked each other. Considering the arrogance, stupidity and corruption which is infesting our national politics, his lack of national level experience is a postive point in his favor. > Spot On... > [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > Lux et Veritas et Libertas > Vires et Honor Would that be the same 16-month timetable that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has endorsed as of today? Dom > > Spot On... > [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > > Dom But McCain's people seem to be the victims of a "bad translation", the Republicans' explanation for anything that doesn't fit their own statements.*** "The McCain campaign responded with this statement from top foreign- policy adviser Randy Scheunemann, emphasis ours: "The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama is that Barack Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders. John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground. ***Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view, and did so again today.*** Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama. The fundamental truth remains that Senator McCain was right about the surge and Senator Obama was wrong. We would not be in the position to discuss a responsible withdrawal today if Senator Obama's views had prevailed." For the record, here's what Maliki actually said: "US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes." http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/presidential_campaigns_f ight_o.php "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:0379d17c-8a22-46d8-97f4- > For the record, here's what Maliki actually said: > > "US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. > That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with > the possibility of slight changes." The Shias in power are nervous about the Sunni militias that the US is paying and helping to become better organized, armed and solidified. What are these militas going to do when the US stops the pay off surge? > > > Spot On... > [quoted text clipped - 128 lines] > > http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/presidential_... The Presidential interpretation is that al Maliki didn't understand the implications of his remarks. Seven thousand years of civilization and the Iraqis are the ones who don't understand? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/us/politics/21obama.html?hp "Diplomats from the United States Embassy in Baghdad spoke to Mr. Maliki’s advisers on Saturday, said an American official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss what he called diplomatic communications. After that, the government’s spokesman, Ali al- Dabbagh, issued a statement casting doubt on the magazine’s rendering of the interview. The statement, which was distributed to media organizations by the American military early on Sunday, said Mr. Maliki’s words had been “misunderstood and mistranslated,” but it failed to cite specifics. “Unfortunately, Der Spiegel was not accurate,” Mr. Dabbagh said Sunday by telephone. “I have the recording of the voice of Mr. Maliki. We even listened to the translation.” But the interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Maliki’s office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Mr. Maliki’s interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Mr. Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Mr. Obama’s position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence. The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki’s comments by The Times: “Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.” He continued: “Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.” Mr. Maliki’s top political adviser, Sadiq al-Rikabi, declined to comment on the remarks, but spoke in general about the Iraqi position on Sunday. Part of that position, he said, comes from domestic political pressure to withdraw. “Foreign soldiers in the middle of the most populated areas are not without their side effects,” he said. “Shouldn’t we look to an end for this unhealthy situation?” Administration officials expressed confidence on Sunday that Mr. Maliki did not intend to create a rift with Mr. Bush on the issue of withdrawals, saying that both leaders conditioned any troop pullout on improved security in Iraq and would not impose a rigid timetable. But a senior military official in Iraq said top American commanders expressed surprise and confusion over Mr. Maliki’s published remarks. The official added, however, that no American officers spoke to the Iraqi prime minister or any of his top aides about them. “This isn’t the first time this has happened with the prime minister,” said the senior military official, noting that Mr. Maliki or his top aides had had to issue clarifications previously of comments that Iraqi or foreign journalists reported the prime minister said. “All of us were going, ‘What? What did he say, why did he say it and was it accurate?’ ” On Jul 21, 6:15 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote: Interesting comment on the efficacy of the surge from Juan Cole. Monday, July 21, 2008 Obama in Iraq; Der Spiegel Proves al-Maliki Story Correct; Series of Bombings hit Baghdad Senator Barack Obama is in Iraq for consultations with American military commanders and Iraqi leaders. Despite all the talk about Iraq being "calm," I'd like to point out that the month just before the last visit Barack Obama made to Iraq (he went in January, 2006), there were 537 civilian and ISF Iraqi casualties. In June of this year, 2008, there were 554 according to AP. These are official statistics gathered passively that probably only capture about 10 percent of the true toll. That is, the Iraqi death toll is actually still worse now than the last time Obama was in Iraq! (See the bombings and shootings listed below for Sunday). The hype around last year's troop escalation obscures a simple fact: that Obama formed his views about the need for the US to leave Iraq at a time when its security situation was very similar to what it is now! Why a return to the bad situation in late 05 and early 06 should be greeted by the GOP as the veritable coming of the Messiah is beyond me. You have people like Joe Lieberman saying silly things like if it weren't for the troop escalation, Obama wouldn't be able to visit Iraq. Uh, he visited it before the troop escalation, just fine. The troop escalation, which actually allowed the ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis of Baghdad and the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis from the country, has largely been pushed as propaganda by the White House and the AEI. <snip> But you see, it does not matter that al-Maliki actually said what he said. It does not matter that Der Spiegel can prove it. All that matters is that the Goebbelses around Bush and Cheney have managed to muddy the waters and produce doubt, taking the hard edge off the interview. Even AFP, the usually skeptical French wire service, asserted that al-Maliki had "denied" the accuracy of the Der Spiegel interview! Of course, al-Maliki has done no such thing. CENTCOM ventriloquising al-Dabbagh engaged in the denial, and a very vague one at that. That is the way propaganda works, to obscure the truth and ensure it can be denied. Some wingnut even tried to pressure me to retract the little sentence I had written on the affair yesterday, on the grounds of "al-Dabbagh's" mendacious and ridiculous assertions. Our information system is so corrupt and easily manipulated that even a clumsy ploy can obscure the truth and bully the journalists. Aljazeera International reports on the conflict between Obama and McCain on a timetable for US troop withdrawals from Iraq. http://www.juancole.com/2008/07/obama-in-iraq-der-spiegel-proves-al.html Another attempt to whittle away at what is meant by taking literally something that is said. Ali al Dabbagh, variously an Iraqi spokesman who seems to always speak from Cencom, has said that 2010 would be a good time for the U.S. to either leave or begone. Taking that literally 16 months (Obama's number) from February 2009 is May 2010, but the cheeseparers argue that al-Dabbagh said or meant December 2010, even though a check of his statement is more vague. Thus we hope to gain the highest office in the world by parsing offhand comments from third or even fourth parties who may actually be in the pay of the U.S. government. > On Jul 21, 6:15 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > information system is so corrupt and easily manipulated that even a > clumsy ploy can obscure the truth and bully the journalists. I think a bigger Bush regime propaganda coup is the widespread acceptance that the descent from the horrendous levels of carnage that were reached, was due to a US troop surge, versus the US starting a largescale pay off of Sunni insurgents. I didn't think the troop surge would work. But if Petraeus had made plain that it was being accompanied by a large pay off to the Sunni insurgents (which is the standard middle-east mode of conflict resolution), my opinion and that of others, would have been different. By concealing or de-emphasizing the key element of the plan, the Bush regime not only got a reduction in the carnage level, but it was able to make opponents, who were thinking only in terms of the heavily advertised troop surge, look lame. Nice work - dishonest, misleading and ultimately corrosive to the public's understanding of events, but nicely done in terms of Rovian/Bush regime tactics. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25786952/ Iraqi backing of Obama plan irks White House Says Baghdad may be using U.S. election as leverage in negotiations WASHINGTON - The White House expressed unhappiness Monday about Iraqi leaders' public backing for Barack Obama's troop withdrawal timetable. And it said that Baghdad may be trying to use the U.S. presidential election as leverage in talks about the future of American's military presence and obligations in the war. > Spot On... > [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > Lux et Veritas et Libertas > Vires et Honor |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.