Imagine if it were American forces fleeing Iraq in retreat, as the American Left has long urged. Al Qaeda and Iran would be surging into their new playground in Iraq, with new terrorist recruits from all over the Muslim world surging into the triumphant al Qaeda that defeated the American superpower.
Try to remember this. What would have happened if Obama et al had gotten what they wanted.
Remember this when you think of who you want in charge.
Not terribly good judgement when you put it into context is it?
Out of touch
"I strongly stand by my plan to end this war." Wake up, Barack, its over. We no longer need a "plan to end this war." Obama said, "To achieve that success, I will give our military a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war." The U.S. military has already developed, implemented, and succeeded with their plan to end this war. What would they send you next year, press clippings from this year?
Obama reiterated his commitment to remove American combat brigades within 16 months of taking office. But under current plans, there will be no American troops fighting in Iraq 16 months into the next presidential term.
....
The problem was illustrated when Obama, after one of his spring primary victories, declared, "We need to talk to our enemies, the way Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy did." Obama would do well to consider carefully Roosevelt's talks with our enemies: Japanese diplomats were in Washington for negotiations to resolve our differences peacefully on the very day that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
Ah, once again Obama's stunning ignorance of history rises up to bite him.
The interesting thing about Prime Minister Maliki's comments is not the various ways its been translated or if it helps Obama (it likely will), but how it underscores how little McCain and Obama differ in Iraq policy going forward.
Obviously, both campaigns will loathe the suggestion that there's not much difference between their stands on one of the biggest issues in the campaign. But if McCain says that most of 140,000 will be leaving over the next four years, and Obama says that after 16 months the U.S. will be down to 50,000 troops in Iraq... aren't we arguing about whether the U.S. should have about 50,000 troops in Iraq after 2010 or some number less than 70,000 by 2012?
Interesting how Iraq has gone from Republican kryponite to being a non-issue that the candidates seem to agree on, at least in the most gross terms. That Obama's plan becomes less of a disaster is not due to Obama's wisdom but the situation improving beyond even his most cynical netroots pleasing expectations.
Remember, what would have happened if Obama had gotten what he wanted.
Via Glen
If we had listened to Barack Obama in 2002, Saddam Hussein (or his murderous son Qusay) would still be brutally repressing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Shiites and Kurds, and some of the world's most accomplished terrorists (such as Abu Abbas, 1993 WTC bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi) would still be calling Iraq home. I doubt Obama would be flying to Baghdad.
If we had listened to him in 2005-2006 when things were at their worst, then the nightmare scenario of an open Iraqi civil war fought with the backing of Saudi Arabia and Iran and verging on a wider regional war would possibly be playing out. I doubt Obama would be flying to Baghdad.
Obama can only visit Iraq now because the Surge worked. Something even now he doesn't support.
Knowing What He Knows Now, Obama... Still Would Have Opposed the Surge
Moran's close of the story: "And so, when pressed, Barack Obama says that he still would have opposed the surge but said he didn't anticipate what people here call the Iraqi surge uprising against Al Qaeda and Shi'ite extremists. He said he didn't anticipate that, but he is insisting that he is focusing forward on what needs to be done — setting that timetable for withdrawal."
So he didn't foresee the surge working, but as his adviser Susan Rice said, Obama "bows to nobody in his understanding of this world.
Stuborn Arrogance.
"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."
"My opponent, Senator Obama, announced his strategy for Afghanistan and Iraq before departing on a fact-finding mission that will include visits to both those countries. Apparently, he's confident enough that he won't find any facts that might change his opinion or alter his strategy. Remarkable." Sen, McCain Link also has an overview of how Obama's handlers did everything in their power to keep him from making gaffes.
Victor Davis Hanson weighs in.
Yet, the more his handlers treat him like fossilized amber, the less experience he gains, guaranteeing that on almost every rare ex tempore moment he will suggest something that doesn't compute—that he might be president for 10 years, or that we need a civilian version of the Pentagon with the same $500 billion annual budget, or that someone like a Centcom commander like Petraeus doesn't have his strategic comprehensive view, or that the Anbar awakening and the Surge were not, at least in part, connected (as if the signal that we were not pulling out, [as Obama advocated] or that we were changing tactics to ensure the safety of those in the neighborhoods who would help us, did not reassure tired Sunnis to join with us in expelling al Qaeda.)
No comments:
Post a Comment