While campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.
“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.
Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its “state of weakness and political confusion.”
“However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open.” Zebari says.
The McCain Campaign’s latest web ad has been released today. Remote Control continues to hammer Obama on his unreadiness for the highest office in the land. The commercial uses Obama’s fellow Democrats, including Bill and Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Senator Chris Dodd all of whom seem to think Senator Obama has no idea what he’s doing.
You might also notice another very prominent Democrat at the end who seems to echo those claims.
Barack Obama - “Now, all of us recognize that we must do more than look back - we must make a judgment about how to move forward. What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done? Senator McCain wants to talk of our tactics in Iraq; I want to focus on a new strategy for Iraq and the wider world.”
This is the crux of Obama’s Iraq problem. He doesn’t want to look back, but he has based his campaign on his original statement against the Iraq War; yet he’s shown no particular incite since that initial decision. Senator Obama doesn’t want Senator McCain to discuss tactics because Senator McCain has been tactically correct, while Senator Obama has demonstrated zero understanding of military tactics.
The Obama strategy for months has been to tie Senator McCain to President Bush and the Iraq War. However, this simplistic approach ignores historical realities. Senator McCain bucked his party, and the president, and called for Donald Rumsfeld’s removal as Secretary of Defense. Then he angered people on both sides of the aisle by pushing for the surge/counterinsurgency strategy. Remember it was a Democrat that labeled the surge ‘the McCain Doctrine’ as Source Watch notes,
The “surge” has also been called the McCain doctrine, a label coined by John Edwards to describe a proposed surge in troop levels and escalation of the war in Iraq named after its “chief advocate”, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Senator McCain did not just sign on to the president’s war strategy; he was one of the leaders that pushed the president to adopt the counterinsurgency strategy. He made a stand that was considered political suicide; he pushed for an unpopular strategy having just seriously criticized the president’s Secretary of Defense.
On the campaign trail he and Senator Biden were the only candidates in either party giving details about Iraq. They voiced their opinion and took questions from frequently skeptical audiences. While their views were different; they both should be commended for directly addressing the most pressing issue of the day in a direct and honest manner.
While progress was slow it did come, and it came due to the counterinsurgency strategy. Some people hesitate to accept this success because they are angry that we even went to war, or are unwilling to accept progress due to their anger at the president and the myriad of mistakes made on his watch. However, this isn’t about the president, or the candidates for that matter. People’s lives hang in the balance; the decisions made by the next president will determine the fate of many people of whom most of us will never know. Like it or not, we are a country at war, and looking forward is incredibly important. Choosing a candidate who understands war, the military, tactics, and strategy is vital. Senator McCain may not be everybody’s first choice, but he fits the bill for commander-in-chief at this particular point in history.
Update: The McCain campaign just released this video, Obama Iraq Documentary recounting the numerous positions Senator Obama has taken on the Iraq War.
Unfortunately, Susan Rice’s statement regarding the Kennedy Khrushchev meeting, “Thank God he did because if he hadn’t we would have not been able to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis” is completely false. In fact historians agree that this meeting fueled the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The Weekly Standand, in detailing the Kennedy Khrushchev meeting, quotes NYT columnist James Reston who interviewed President Kennedy right after his meeting with Khrushchev,
“Reston reported that Kennedy said just enough for Reston to conclude that Khrushchev “had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs” and that he had “decided that he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed.” Kennedy said to Reston that Khrushchev had “just beat [the] hell out of me” and that he had presented Kennedy with a terrible problem: “If he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts, until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him. So we have to act.”
Kennedy responded to the meeting with a congressional request for a dramatic increase in defense spending, and a significant increase in the size of the military. Khrushchev responded to Kennedy’s actions with above ground nuclear testing and erecting the Berlin Wall. The tensions between the US and Soviet Union dramatically increased due to the Kennedy Khrushchev meeting; the Cuban Missile Crisis followed.
Susan Rice’s statement is simply false. There is no historical record of the Kennedy Khrushchev meeting being at all helpful in resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis and actually the exact opposite true that an inexperienced leader was bullied into an arms race.
The Obama campaign showed its sensitive side today by becoming unglued at the suggestion that Senators Obama and McCain make a joint trip to Iraq in the near future…
“John McCain’s proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don’t need any more ‘Mission Accomplished’ banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq’s leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. The American people don’t want any more false promises of progress, they deserve a real debate about a war that has overstretched our military, and cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer.”
“After Senator Obama’s own advisors and supporters backtracked from his stated desire to hold summit meetings with the leaders of the world’s worst regimes, Senator Obama himself has begun to reinterpret his stand. He now claims that some ‘fear’ to ‘negotiate’ with the likes of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who has called Israel a ’stinking corpse’ or Ayatollah Khamenei, who called Israel a ‘cancerous tumor.’ I have news for Senator Obama: I have met some very bad people before in my life. It is not fear that drives my opposition to unconditional meetings with Ahmadinejad, Khamenei, Kim Jong Il, and Raul Castro; rather it is my clear understanding that such a course will fail to eliminate the threat posed by these rogue regimes. I don’t fear to negotiate. Instead I have the knowledge and experience to understand the dangerous consequences of a naive approach to Presidential summits based entirely on emotion.
“The question before the American people is which candidate is best able to secure the peace for the next generation of Americans, a peace that will keep our nation safe, prosperous and free. Senator Obama’s desire to meet unconditionally in his first year at the presidential level with Iranian leaders is reckless, and demonstrates poor judgment that will make the world more dangerous. With respect to Cuba, it is not America that needs to make unilateral concessions to the Castros — a ‘gesture of good faith’ as Senator Obama said yesterday — it is the Castro brothers who must allow the freedom they have so long denied to the Cuban people. Free the political prisoners, open the media, allow people to worship, schedule free and fair elections, and the United States will be happy to meet and talk. Until then, we cannot compromise our principles.
“Senator Obama has consistently offered his judgment on Iraq, and he has been consistently wrong. He said that General Petraeus’ new strategy would not reduce sectarian violence, but would worsen it. He was wrong. He said the dynamics in Iraq would not change as a result of the ’surge.’ He was wrong. One year ago, he voted to cut off all funds for our forces fighting extremists in Iraq. He was wrong. Sectarian violence has been dramatically reduced, Sunnis in Anbar province and throughout Iraq are cooperating in fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, and Shi’ite extremist militias no longer control Basra — the Maliki government and its forces do. British and Iraqi forces now move freely in areas that were controlled by Iranian-backed militias. The fight against al Qaeda in Mosul is succeeding in further weakening that deadly terrorist group, and many key leaders have been killed or captured. As General Petraeus said last month, ‘As we combat AQI we must r emember that doing so not only reduces a major source of instability in Iraq, it also weakens an organization that Al Qaeda’s senior leaders view as a tool to spread its influence and foment regional instability.’ Iraqi forces have moved unopposed into Sadr City, a development the New York Times characterized today as a ‘dramatic turnaround’ as the government of Prime Minister Maliki ‘advanced its goal of establishing sovereignty and curtailing the powers of the militias.’
“We continue to face challenges in Iraq, and we have a lot of work ahead. Yet the American people must ask whether we are more or less likely to succeed there if Senator Obama has his way. Each of these positive developments in Iraq is the direct result of the new strategy that Senator Obama opposed. Senator Obama consistently predicted the new strategy would fail, and at every step events have demonstrated his judgment was consistently wrong. He now says that he intends to withdraw combat troops from Iraq — one to two brigades per month until they are all removed — regardless of the conditions in Iraq, irrespective of the consequences for our national security, and despite the best advice of our commanders on the ground. He is wrong again, and the American people deserve a President who has the strength, judgment and experience to keep our country safe and secure.”
In yesterday’s blogger call Senator McCain was questioned about his speech outlining his goals for 2013, President Bush’s remarks about appeasement, and Senator Obama’s position on negotiating with Iran. Senator McCain discussed how he would embrace bipartisanship as he has done throughout his career. He talked of working on issues that both sides of the isle can come to an agreement on, and stated that he would most likely have Democrats in his cabinet. When questioned about President Bush’s remarks about appeasement, he said he took the President at his word that the comments weren’t about Senator Obama. He definitively stated his opposition to the president directly talking to Iran. He laid out what Iran would have to do before talks were even considered, such as renouncing their desire to ‘wipe Israel off the map’, stop their nuclear ambitions, abandon sending arms into Iraq, and stop supporting of Hezbollah. He was clearly disturbed by the idea of negotiating with someone who recently called Israel a “stinking corpse”, and questioned what could possibly be said that would result in anything positive. One questioner noted that Senator Obama’s campaign had made different statements about his willingness to talk with Iran than Senator Obama had and asked Senator McCain about these discrepancies. Senator McCain also noted that Senator Obama had stated in Ohio that he would unilaterally renegotiate the NAFTA and then stated he supported free trade in North Carolina, and was troubled by the inconsistencies and contradictions of Senator Obama and his campaign. Finally, Senator McCain was challenged on his speech’s prediction that their would be a significant reduction of troops in Iraq by 2013 being asked if that wasn’t a timeline for withdrawal which he has vehemently opposes. Senator McCain answered that troop levels would be dictated by conditions on the ground, and that the reduction of troops is a realistic goal but not the queue to the enemy as to when troops would leave that a timetable would be.
