Everybody has wondered when Obama was going to push back against the flip-flop meme that the media was tarring and feathering him with. Paul Krugman today went so far as to suggest that it had Rove's fingerprints written all over them. But Obama has begun pushing back against the flip-flop meme by releasing a fact sheet on Iraq. The fact sheet points out that Obama has the same positions on Iraq now that he did several months ago. You can read the fact sheet here.
June 2008: Obama: I've Consistently Said That I Will Consult With Military Commanders On The Ground And Be Open To The Possibility Of Tactical Adjustments. Obama said, "I've also consistently said that I will consult with military commanders on the ground and that we will always be open to the possibility of tactical adjustments. The important thing is to send a clear signal to the Iraqi people and most importantly to the Iraqi leadership that the U.S. occupation in Iraq is finite, it is gonna be coming to a foreseeable end." [MSNBC, 6/16/08]
This is a key difference between Obama and Bush. The problem with Bush and now McCain is that their plans are all written in stone without any possibility of change. We know that George Bush shuts himself out from any opinions that are not his own. On the other hand, Barack Obama would ensure that all of his peoples' opinions are heard before he makes a decision. This will allow him to react quickly whenever a crisis erupts. On the other hand, the fact that Bush totally shut himself out from news that he didn't want to hear meant that it was too late for him to coordinate an effective response to the Katrina disaster.
March 2008: Obama Said He Would Give Senior Military Leaders Opinions Great Weight In Implementing His Iraq Plan But As Commander In Chief Would Make His Own Assessment Of The Situation. Obama was asked "what weight will you give to the counsel of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command] commander, the combatant commander on the ground in Iraq and current intelligence chiefs on the ground in Iraq regarding an immediate phased withdrawal?" Obama said, "I will give their counsel great weight. But, as commander in chief, it is my responsibility to make my own assessment of the situation. We must send a clear signal to the Iraqi political leadership that we are leaving Iraq on a timeline. Doing so will put pressure on those leaders to begin to resolve the political impasse at the heart of this civil war. But I also want to be clear about another thing. I am worried our Army is overstretched and that we have asked an awful lot from our military families. Many in our senior military leadership are worried about a plan that will keep 130,000 troops on the ground in Iraq for the foreseeable future. So, as commander in chief, I will also have to take into consideration the counsel of other senior military leaders who may be concerned that Iraq is undercutting our ability to confront other security challenges."
This is another key difference between Obama and Bush. What George Bush would do was to put ideological supporters of perpetual warfare in charge of the army and then hide behind them instead of taking charge, as dictated by the Constitution of the United States. On the other hand, Barack Obama, while listening carefully to his commanders and making sure that all their views were heard, would make the decisions about policy in Iraq and own those decisions. And Barack Obama's plan to leave Iraq would accomplish three things. The first is that it would free up hundreds of billions of dollars and allow us to reduce our deficit. The second thing is that it would free up our forces to confront problems elsewhere; for instance, Sudan would no longer be able to act with impunity because we are tied down in Iraq. The third thing is that it would put pressure on the Iraqi government to come up with a plan to stabilize that country.
March 2008: Obama Said The Size Of The Residual Force Will Depend On Consultation With Military Commanders And "Will Depend On The Circumstances On The Ground." Obama said, "The precise size of the residual force will depend on consultations with our military commanders and will depend on the circumstances on the ground, including the willingness of the Iraqi government to move toward political accommodation. But let me be clear on one thing: I will end this war, and there will be far fewer Americans in Iraq conducting a much more limited set of missions that include counterterrorism and protection of our embassy and U.S. civilians."
Counterterrorism involves things like special forces operations based on actionable intelligence. And it has always been the mission of our armed forces to protect our embassies and civilians around the world; this has been a policy that has been followed by Presidents of both parties. But achieving stability is not up to us; it is up to the Iraqi government. The open-ended commitment of the Bush administration has caused most Muslims around the world to see our mission as that of converting the Islamic world to Christianity. The Iraqi people simply do not trust us to impose a solution on them like we have in the past; therefore, Iraq will not function as a state as long as we continue the Bush open-ended commitment.
November 2007: Obama Said He Would Leave Residual Troops In Iraq Based On The Levels Of Violence, "It's Not My Job To Specify Troop Levels." Obama said, "If we see a serious effort by the Iraqi leadership to arrive at an agreement and an accommodation and you've seen continued reductions of violence, then you need one level of troop protection for the embassy...If things have gone to hell in a hand basket then you need another ... It's not my job to specify troop levels. My job is to tell our commanders on the ground, 'Here's your mission. Protect our embassy, protect our diplomats and our humanitarian workers in the area and make sure al Qaeda in Iraq, or other terrorist organizations inside of Iraq are not re-establishing bases there."
There is a major difference between the Obama mission and the current mission where our troops are carrying out the same mission that the Iraqi police and soldiers should be carrying out. A solution to end the violence in Iraq must be between the various warring factions in Iraq. Our only mission there would be to protect our embassy and civilians and to carry out the special ops mission of stopping terrorists.
November 2007: Obama Said U.S. Has To Make Sure "We Are Not Just Willy-Nilly Removing Troops" And That It May "Take A Little Bit Longer" In Some Areas Where There Is Less Stability. "According to all the reports, we should have been well along our way in getting the Iraqi security forces to be more functional. We then have another 16 months after that to adjust the withdrawal and make sure that we are withdrawing from those areas, based on advice from the military officers in the field, those places where we are secured, made progress and we're not just willy-nilly removing troops, but we're making a determination – in this region we see some stability. We've had cooperation from local tribal leaders and local officials, so we can afford to remove troops here. Here, we've still got problems, it's going to take a little bit longer. Maybe those are the last areas to pull out."
The main goal in implementing a withdrawal plan is to avoid the kind of chaos that plagued the panicked withdrawal from South Vietnam in its last few hours. That is why Obama repeatedly says that we have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.
November 2007: Obama: "If The Commanders Tell Me They Need X, Y And Z, In Order To Accomplish The Very Narrow Mission That I've Laid Out, Than I Will Take That Into Consideration." "You raise a series of legitimate questions. As commander in chief, I'm not going to leave trainers unprotected. In our counterterrorism efforts, I'm not going to have a situation where our efforts can't be successful. We will structure those forces so they can be successful. We would still have human intelligence capabilities on the ground. Some of them would be civilian, as opposed to military, some would be operating out of our bases as well as our signal intelligence...But listen, I am not going to set up our troops for failure and I'm going to do something half-baked. If the commanders tell me that they need X, Y and Z, in order to accomplish the very narrow mission that I've laid out, than I will take that into consideration." [New York Times, 11/1/07]
When Karl Rove committed treason against this country by outing the name of Valerie Plame, he gutted one of the key efforts by the US in collecting intelligence on other countries. One of the main challenges of an Obama administration will be to rebuild those intelligence capabilities. The tragic 9/11 attacks happened on the watch of the Bush administration, and could have been prevented with proper coordination between the various law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
November 2007: Obama: "Even Something As Simple As Protecting Our Embassy Is Going To Dependent On What Is The Security In Baghdad...If There Is Some Sense Of Security, Then That Means One Level Of Force. If You Continue To Have Significant Sectarian Conflict, That Means Another." "I have not ascribed particular numbers to that and I won't for precisely the reason I was just talking to Michael about. I want to talk to military folks on the ground, No. 1. No. 2, a lot of it depends on what's happened on the political front and the diplomatic front. Even something as simple as protecting our embassy is going to be dependent on what is the security environment in Baghdad. If there is some sense of security, then that means one level of force. If you continue to have significant sectarian conflict, that means another, but this is an area where Senator Clinton and I do have a significant contrast." [New York Times, 11/1/07]
The reason that Obama is doing what he is doing is simple -- if he withdraws too fast, then it will create a power vacuum which will fuel the sectarian violence in Iraq. If he continues the Bush policy of perpetual warfare, then there will be no incentive for the factions to work out their differences. Either approach would necessitate massive numbers of troops just to protect our embassy. But the 16-month timeline that Obama would set out would allow the factions to prepare for a time when we would not be there, minimizing the vacuum effect, meaning less troops would be necessary to protect our embassy.
September 2007: Obama Said He Believed "That We Should Have All Our Troops Out By 2013, But I Don't Want To Make Promises." Obama said, "I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there. What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office -- which it appears there may be, unless we can get of our Republican colleagues to change their mind and cut off funding without a timetable -- if there's no timetable -- then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians, and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises, not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out." [NH DNC Debate, 9/26/07]
Barack Obama has already stated what kind of Presidency he would bring to the table -- one where he would practice the art of diplomacy. Once Obama achieves his 16-month timeline, the next step would be patient diplomacy so that he can reconcile the various political factions so that we can continue to reduce the troops necessary to protect our embassy, protect our civilians, and go after any remaining terrorist bases.