Obama takes a trip: Part One/Middle East
Senator Barack Obama intelligently chose to go to Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as Israel and Palestine. Now some can argue that he simply caved into Senator John McCain's campaign constant talking point that it'd been "over 900 days and counting" since he had last been. Since this blog isn't to get childish, let us move on.
The Middle East part of his trip is exactly where he should have stopped. If Obama had come home right after visiting with Israel and Palestine he would've come home with a clear political victory. Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki came out saying that Obama's 16 month plan sounded about right but making sure to add that conditions would be part of it. Somehow the fact Obama has talked about conditions and consulting with commanders is still largely being missed but that's another post altogether. Afghanistan's leaders and the top Generals on the ground there showed support for his Afghan policies. The military released photo's of him shaking our troops hands, showing off his basketball skills (not sure why; also hearing some slight rumblings from actual soldiers that were there for that saying it was staged and he didn't stop to visit with them...it should be pointed out he did visit with many troops but you can't visit with all of them and his purpose of the trip was to talk with commanders and tribal leaders), and sitting down to eat with them.
Palestinian and Israeli leaders both seemed to walk away more comfortable with him, although reservations still exist from both countries. We'll know within a week or so through op-ed pieces and editorials that come out of the two countries just how well what he had to say actually played out. We most likely won’t know to what affect if any, it actually had on the Jewish vote in the states until November 4 but maybe polls will change one way or the other significantly. I say maybe because it is more likely Jewish voters will be voting primarily on "wallet based" issues and those that have reservations about Obama in regards to his Israel policies aren't likely to change because of a visit.
Posts
4 comments:
". If Obama had come home right after visiting with Israel and Palestine he would've come home with a clear political victory. Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki came out saying that Obama's 16 month plan sounded about right but making sure to add that conditions would be part of it. Somehow the fact Obama has talked about conditions and consulting with commanders is still largely being missed but that's another post altogether. Afghanistan's leaders and the top Generals on the ground there showed support for his Afghan policies. The military released photo's of him shaking our troops hands, showing off his basketball skills (not sure why; also hearing some slight rumblings from actual soldiers that were there for that saying it was staged and he didn't stop to visit with them."
I simply dont understand why you keep with the "Maliki supports Obama's plan" when by all accounts he doesn't. What the Iraqis want and what Obama proposes couldnt be more diametrically opposed. Iraq wants troops to leave ONLY as conditions on the ground improve and Iraqi forces and police are more ready. Its simply impossible to say that is Obama's plan when it isnt.
As far as this trip being a political victory... im not at all convinced. the Rasmussen reports poll Sunday showed Obama with a slight 4 point lead. For whats its worth, Obama only had a small 2 pt uptick in the poll from this time a week ago. However, more Americans are saying they support McCain's plan in Iraq rhan they do Obama. As far as Afghanistan goes, its about time. A member of the Senate Foreign Relations Cmte, what took him so long. And i think its going to come across as hypocritical at best, flip flopping whopper at its worst.. for Sen Obama to adopt the Petreaus/McCain Iraq surge plan for Afghanistan. McCain will be far more capable of convincing Americans to support that than with Obama. i think the McCain campaign is really beginning to hit that home during this Obama trip pointing out the rank hypocrisy in Obama's Afghan surge plan.
I've continually made a point to distinguish that Maliki said the time frame sounded right but as long as conditions allowed. I even said it in the quote you just quoted me. "...Maliki came out saying that Obama's 16 month plan sounded about right but making sure to add that conditions would be part of it." In another post I specifically said "...Maliki isn't implicitly endorsing the entirety of Obama's plan." In another "...very important to notice the words 'with slight changes'".
I said that had he come home RIGHT after the Middle East part it would've been a political victory; not to be confused with saying it would've guaranteed him the presidency.
No one has found any real difference between McCain's or Obama's Afghanistan plan dating back to over a year ago. McCain in fact argued against more US troops until recently compared to Obama. Don't imply that the Afghanistan plan is Petreus/McCain when McCain takes his cues from Petreus, not in any fashion the other way around. I also find it impossible to believe that Obama believing Afghanistan to be the most important war he'd try to tell his Generals how to win the war. Him and McCain both sound like they'll give a blank check to win in Afghanistan.
". McCain in fact argued against more US troops until recently compared to Obama. Don't imply that the Afghanistan plan is Petreus/McCain when McCain takes his cues from Petreus, not in any fashion the other way around. I also find it impossible to believe that Obama believing Afghanistan to be the most important war he'd try to tell his Generals how to win the war. Him and McCain both sound like they'll give a blank check to win in Afghanistan"
McCain has long called for a troop surge in Afghanistan. but a European troop surge. He believes rightly as i do that MORE European troops are neccesary to help America, France, Great Britan and Australia defeat the remnants of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and along the Afghan/Pakistan Border. Now not only does he want more Euro troops but because of the overwhelming success of the surge in Iraq that we can send some more American troops to Afghanistan. And thats why i put Petreaus first in the Petreaus/McCain Iraq surge plan because its Petreaus' plan backed by McCain. in fact and in reality it was the Petreaus/Bush/McCain Iraq surge plan
McCain refused to say more US troops in Afghanistan was needed, solely needed more NATO troops. We need both.
Post a Comment