2008-07-16

Is This What He Means By Change?

A funny thing happened over on the Barack Obama campaign website in the last few days.

The parts that stressed his opposition to the 2007 troop surge and his statement that more troops would make no difference in a civil war have somehow disappeared.
It's like a reverse Iranian Photoshop! No wonder he's so eager to meet with Iran. It's probably just so they can discuss on how best to hide the truth. And why would Obama want to hide the truth?
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. 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.

"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. 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.
Really all Sen. Obama has to do is say his judgment regarding a timetable was wrong and give President Bush credit where credit is due for showing leadership by deciding for the surge despite strong opposition. I mean if Sen. Obama is all about change from ordinary politics that's what he should and would do right?

What next?

You can also bookmark this post using your favorite bookmarking service:

Related Posts by Categories



2 comments: to “ Is This What He Means By Change?


  •  

    "...President Bush credit where credit is due for showing leadership by deciding for the surge despite strong opposition."

    What is the "surge"?

    We are led to believe that the surge is the increase in military presence. The truth though is it is mostly a financial aid. The American people is buying a temporary peace and order by paying an non-existent workforce. Can we afford to continue this policy for an indefinite period of time?

    I don't think so.

    So where does credit reside? Certainly not on Bush.


  •  

    You obviously didn't read The Weekly Standard article I had linked. And if what you say is the case, then Sen. Obama is more than welcomed to make the point, especially since he is so keen on getting troops out of there.