yapping constantly at his heels…

Posted on Monday 30 August 2010

Obama speech on Iraq has risks
Washington Post

By Anne E. Kornblut
August 30, 2010

President Obama is promoting the decision to end the U.S. combat mission in Iraq on Tuesday as a fulfillment of his campaign promise to draw the war to a close. But some of the president’s detractors are using the same moment to question the wisdom of doing so – noting that Iraq is still afflicted with violence and has yet to form a government. Obama will mark the occasion by flying to Fort Bliss, Tex., to meet with veterans. He will also deliver a prime-time Oval Office speech – only his second since taking office. On Monday, the president visited Walter Reed Army Medical Center and awarded 11 Purple Hearts to combat veterans. Vice President Biden traveled to Iraq to amplify the message.

"Maybe he’s entitled to the partial victory lap, but this is not the right moment for it," said analyst Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, who has been critical of both Democratic and Republican approaches to the war. "If I were him, I’d wait until we have an Iraqi government, and do it with the Iraqis together." O’Hanlon said he was "confused about the planned Oval Office speech." It could raise unrealistic expectations among the public about the chances for calm in Iraq, he said. And the timing of the pullout of combat troops may be seen as having more to do with the president’s political needs than with real signs of progress on the ground.

White House officials said the speech, scheduled to begin at 8 p.m. and last 15 to 20 minutes, would acknowledge this week’s deadline as a "milestone" and pay tribute to the 1.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq since 2003. Obama will address shifting U.S. options now that the country is no longer technically at war in Iraq, including a greater emphasis on Afghanistan and Pakistan – and the domestic economy.

Obama will say that "it’s time for Iraq to step up and take responsibility for security in the country," one senior administration official said, and that "it’s time to rebalance our resources when it comes to national security and our economy." Obama will call former president George W. Bush before the speech, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. He did not say whether Obama will give his predecessor credit for the 2007 troop "surge" as Republicans have demanded.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, in an opinion piece last week, assailed Obama for taking credit for the drawdown. "While the administration continues seeking credit for ‘ending the combat mission’ in Iraq, it is important to remember that this transition was made possible by the very surge that President Obama and Vice President Biden opposed," Boehner wrote. Obama’s celebration of an arbitrary deadline – much like Bush’s premature "Mission Accomplished" declaration in 2003 – could come back to haunt him if U.S. troops continue to die and the Iraqi government remains unformed…
There never has been a right way to end the war in Iraq. It was very wrong of us to invade the country in the first place – legally, morally, and strategically. As Dr. Hans Blix said in his testimony at the UK Chilcot Inquiry:
The interesting thing: was Iraq a danger in 2003? They were not a danger. They were practically prostrate and could not – it would have taken a lot of time to reconstitute in selling oil. What they got instead was a long period of anarchy. I think one conclusion I am inclined to draw is that anarchy can be worse than tyranny.
How many years have we heard things like "the timing of the pullout of combat troops may be seen as having more to do with the president’s political needs than with real signs of progress on the ground"?  Or plans to train the Iraqi Army or Police? Or attempts to negotiate with the warring factions in Iraq? There’s nothing right to do, and there has never been anything right to do from the day President Bush announced his "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad had commenced. John Boehner is saying that Bush should get credit for "the Surge" allowing us to pull out of Iraq. But if there’s continued violence [which is almost assured] they’ll say we pulled out too soon [like they’ve said for years]. Obama has no choice to make. No matter what he does, it will be wrong – because the war was wrong from the start. It would probably be wrong for him to even say that the war was wrong. It would be equally wrong to say the war was right. He’s in the position he’s been in with most of his big decisions, to make the most correct wrong choice. And leaving Iraq no matter what happens is the right wrong choice to make in this instance. It’s the fate of following the failed Presidency of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney for him to spend his time in office trying to clean up the carnage that preceded him with the very people who participated in that carnage yapping constantly at his heels. Rather than mark our ceasing combat in Iraq with bickering and political divisiveness, we ought to declare a day of mourning for the senseless waste of the Iraq War in every possible dimension. A day of shame, not blame…
    August 31, 2010 | 10:11 AM

    As always, your analysis is irrefragable. Still, I wish POTUS was taking a “permissum res locutus pro ipsum” approach as opposed to what I’m seeing from him, namely:

    “As both a candidate and President, I promised to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end. Now, we are taking an important step forward in delivering on that promise. Since I took office, we’ve brought nearly 100,000 U.S. troops home from Iraq, millions of pieces of equipment have been removed, and hundreds of bases have been closed or transferred to Iraqi Security Forces.”

    But you’re right, he’s damned if he does and he’s damned if he don’t.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.