Washington Post Editors Get it Wrong on Iraq -Again

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

First of all, thank you to all of our troops serving in Iraq (as well as elsewhere abroad) especially those whom I know personally. Congratulations on reaching a milestone that hopefully leads down a path that all can be proud of -Iraqi's and American's alike.

This editorial in the Washington Post on Iraq incredulously claims that President Obama is "neglecting" Iraq. Mentioning meddling by Iran, al-Qaeda coming in through the border on Syria, and the various issues with the Kurd's, they make this bewildering claim:

Both Mr. Obama and Mr. al-Maliki tend to play down these concerns -- but then, both have political motives to do so. Mr. Obama wants to stick to the withdrawal timetable that he outlined several months ago and that was an early foundation of his presidential campaign. Mr. al-Maliki wants to appear, ahead of upcoming parliamentary elections, as a strong leader and champion of Iraqi nationalism. Both are consequently inclined to minimize the continuing problems of terrorism and political discord and to take risks in pressing forward with the U.S. drawdown.

Now yes, both are sticking to the SOFA agreement made between Mr. al-Maliki and former President Bush but they're doing so because it has reached the point where Iraqi's and only Iraqi's can determine their destiny from here on -not because of some wish that things weren't as bad as they are. No one is downplaying anything. If U.S. troops were to stay simply because violence is taking place or it'll get worse as U.S. troops pull out, America would never leave. U.S. troops make up 130,000, Iraqi troops and security forces are 700,000+. At some point the 700,000+ need to be as capable as 130,000. Obviously Iraq not having an air force and only just now taking delivery of its first patrol ship means that it won't literally be as capable as the U.S. Military but in terms of on the street security, it can only get where it needs to be through experience. Most troops on the ground and many Commanders do feel it is a little premature but acknowledge that all of the problems that are to arise would no matter when U.S. troops started drawing down. The feeling that it is a little premature is due to confidence in the training of Iraqi forces, not in what will happen during the drawdown or a belief that the Iraqi people won’t work things out themselves one way or the other.

The editors do make the exhausted claim that the U.S. must help Iraq settle the Kirkuk issue, which U.S. administration's have tried to do since political reconciliation started in Iraq. Kirkuk though is a severe challenge on the constitutional front. Although the U.S. must help where it can in resolving the issue, the U.N. is running frontman on the issue with its Assistance Mission for Iraq having initiated rounds of talks to save the north from a potential cross-border war, the struggle over the future status of the northern city of Kirkuk has entered its decisive phase. Failure could lead to the ultimate disintegration of Iraq but as noted in an Economist article, by a Western diplomat: "The trouble is, doing nothing in Kirkuk is almost as bad as doing something," The inter-Iraqi feud over Kirkuk is exacerbated by external actors with the Turkish government seeing itself as a protector of Iraq's Turkoman population.

Although for now they remain committed to a non-violent solution, Iraq's political factions have maneuvered into a no-win stalemate on Kirkuk from which they seem unable to extricate themselves. Consequently, they ought to be provided with an alternative means to save face by a neutral third party. Toward that end, UNAMI's proposal proves the most viable option put forward in years. ... Over the coming weeks, while carefully maintaining the appearance of an honest broker, Washington should try to back UNAMI's suggestions with balanced incentives and carefully applied pressure.

The Iraq Army and U.S. troops have been fighting (and will "indefinitely") to eliminate militants in Kirkuk since the start of June of this year. U.S. troops can only continue to provide security while American engagement has taken political reconciliation only as far as a non-Iraqi, non-Sunni/Shiite, non-Kurd government can. This article has an interesting quote:

Yet even Kurdish politicians, who welcomed the Americans as liberators more than any other Iraqi group, mostly agree it is time for them to leave urban areas.
"Those divides between communities would be there even if the Americans stayed," said Mahmoud Othman, senior lawmaker from the main Kurdish alliance in parliament.
"It's between Iraqis. If they can't get together and solve their problems, what can the Americans do?"

Mushriq 'Abbas filed a report for al-Hatay on Kurdistan (via IraqSlogger but no link to the report, info taken from this article) reporting that in Kurdistan, the two mainstream Kurdish parties, KDP and PUK, are most likely not going to hold onto the 90% of seats they won in the 2005 elections. The Kurdish leader is being challenged by an ex-friend and comrade in Nusherwan Mustapha, who seceded from the party and is now waging a campaign under the slogans of "reform" and "change" (Obama and McCain's campaigns ruined those terms for this blogger).

It isn't only up to the U.S. to help Iraq reconcile its internal differences and reintegrate with rest of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia for one, as well as other Sunni dominated Middle East countries need to come off the fences.

At a recent forum on U.S.-Saudi relations in Washington, D.C., current and former Saudi officials decried the previous U.S. administration's Middle East policies. Yet in shunning the Shiite-dominated government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a regime they deem inimical to their interests, the Saudis -- along with other Sunni Arab regimes -- appear to have internalized the core foreign policy impulse of the Bush administration.

This myopic approach has had the perverse effect of amplifying Iran's already outsized influence in Iraq and throughout the region. It has also fueled Iraqi suspicions about the intentions of its Sunni Arab neighbors, hindering the reintegration of Iraq into the Arab world.
...it (U.S.) has increased pressure on Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries to begin normalizing relations with Iraq. On his recent trip to the region, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates reiterated his appeal to Riyadh and Cairo to appoint ambassadors to Baghdad.
Iraq's recent posting of an ambassador to Riyadh, its first since 1991, offers an opportunity for reciprocal steps by the Saudis and a way to move beyond the Saudi-Iraqi tensions on display at the latest Arab summit in Doha. But so far, Washington's appeals have met with little success, jeopardizing its broader diplomatic efforts to establish regional stability. (Emphasis' added)

The Obama Administration is already re-establishing diplomatic ties with Syria with the most immediate goal most likely an agreement to crack down better along the Syria/Iraq border even after Iraq and America already asked Syria to prevent al-Qa'ida and Baathist insurgent groups from launching a wave of attacks.
Regarding future U.S./Iraq relations from this point on:

Delaying withdrawals because of recent bombings would have given insurgents veto power over U.S. actions. More perilously, it would have conceded a key strategic goal of the ongoing insurgency by undercutting the legitimacy of the Iraqi government as sovereign over Iraqi territory. It would also have undermined U.S. credibility in the region at a time when the Obama administration is seeking buy-in and support for its ambitious regional agenda from partners in the Arab world.
Unfortunately, the improved security and accompanying degree of normalcy that has returned to many areas of the country has allowed complacency and overconfidence to set in among Iraqi political actors, frustrating significant political progress. ... U.S. influence over the nature and pace of the Iraqi political process has considerably diminished and will wane even more as forces draw down. But it is not insignificant.
In light of current political realities in Iraq, the U.S. role going forward must necessarily be less obtrusive, predicated on diplomatic means, and focused on bolstering United Nations-led efforts at brokering political compromise. ...
...The upcoming January 2010 national parliamentary elections, which will continue to polarize politics and ratchet up rhetorical differences, will only complicate the task. A series of political breakthroughs in the midst of what will be a hard-fought contest for political supremacy is hard to imagine. In fact, the current political dynamics are likely to skew political rivalries and complicate future negotiations.

Or as Judah Grunstien put it in his blog:

The questions regarding Iraq's future remain both political and unanswered. If political identity congeals around some functioning incarnation of a state, democratic or otherwise, there will be stability. If, on the other hand, political identity congeals around the incoherent violence that continues even now, then the sporadic attacks will take shape as a coherent movement, signaling a return to ethno-sectarian war.
(A different post)The resemblance to what we're likely to leave behind in Iraq is obvious, and reflects the fact that when you militarize the political alchemy of nation-building (i.e., COIN), you end up with a nation heavily weighted towards the security -- as opposed to the civil -- sector.

Don't know what else the U.S. can do besides continue to provide security to allow advancement and maneuverability through such political issues. Plus, if the U.S. keeps rushing back in with troops, all you're doing is maintaining a status quo by keeping the Iraq nation "heavily weighted towards the security" that has to be allowed to end someday.

Read more...

Iraq passes voting bill

This is great news with a bit of not so good news:

BAGHDAD, Sept. 24 -- Iraq's parliament passed a provincial elections law Wednesday that
paves the way for balloting in most parts of the country by Jan. 31 and that
could help bolster efforts at national reconciliation.
But lawmakers decided to postpone debate over one of the most contentious
issues facing Iraq -- the dispute between Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens over power
sharing in the oil-rich city of Kirkuk. The legislators also did not resolve how
to best achieve political representation for Iraq's Christians and other
minorities.

Read more...

A forgotten post...

This is a post I had written back on 7/26/08 and somehow forgot to post it...

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. This is where Obama should have stopped and come home. He had a fantastic couple of days while in the middle-east, especially with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki talking about Obama's plan sounding "about right" to him. (Keep in mind that Maliki in no way explicitly endorsed Obama's plan and made a point to state, through his spokesman, that conditions would have to be part of it. He also used the term "with slight changes". These absolutely important distinctions were somehow missed by a large part of reporters and especially Obama support "talking point pundits" on TV.)

Obama may have made the mistake of being a tad too specific in what tribal leaders and Gen. Petreus said to him in private talks but he wasn't overly specific where it could be obvious which way the tribal leaders saw his plan. People seem to not have noticed that his plan did, or more accurately his talking points of his Iraq plan did change even while over there. While Sen. McCain and others get swept up in Sen. Obama still using the words "16 months", he is more and more talking about conditions and leaving enough troops to help the Iraqi forces. One of his aides has even said those forces would ideally be between 60-80,000 troops, hardly an insignificant level at the rate the Iraqi forces are gaining in strength and experience.

You never want to be overly specific as to your foreign policy plans, specifically in regards to a war and so far he hasn't been. This has however, allowed McCain and his supporters to claim Obama is somehow still stuck on having all US troops home within 16 months of him becoming president, if elected. As this really was once his plan, it isn't any longer and hasn’t been for at least a year now. (It is important to mention that Obama himself didn’t view his plan as a way to lose in Iraq; obviously some would argue his original plan would’ve guaranteed failure in Iraq but he didn’t see it that way. Take that as you the reader wish.)

He gave up saying all US troops would be home within 16 months early in his primary race and when the evidence the surge was working/had worked became overwhelming; even if he failed to acknowledge it soon enough. It is one thing to make the fair & accurate point that one can never know how history would've turned out if another path had been chosen. To say you wouldn't have changed your opinion of the surge if you could go back in time because you still believe your plan may very well have done the same thing the surge did is even okay. To not outright admit one was wrong about what the surge would do is pure stubbornness. Or is it? Or is their enough facts, or nuance, that makes him technicaly correct? Or isn’t this really just politics by Obama? It should be hard to imagine a man of such education and such a diverse upbringing could not see that he was in fact wrong about the surge, let alone anything with such evidence to the contrary. This isn’t Obama being stubborn, this is Obama playing politics. This is pure politics. Typically only two kinds of politicians exist: those that admit when an opponent was right and he/she was wrong and those that never do. Depending on whom his opponent is Sen. Obama is in the middle. When debating with Sen. Hillary Clinton he said he agreed with her and she was right a couple of times, not even doing the typical politician thing of adding to her point. Now Obama and Hillary were 90% the same candidate so that isn’t surprising. That also doesn’t make it surprising that when his opponent is Sen. McCain, he’s only willing to agree with him about global warming.

Now it is equally fair of him, even extremely accurate of him, to point out that more US troops wasn't the sole reason violence went back down. Other key parts to it were the Sen. Obama was even talked about highly by Palestinians as well as Israeli's for whatever opinions Obama seemed to share with them. That was important because he is having trouble with the Jewish vote in America unlike many Democratic candidates before him. Polls over time will show whether it helped him or not with Jewish voters but his campaign I'm sure is hoping it did.

Read more...

So Obama made the switch with a nuanced spin.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/148986

You've been talking about those limited missions for a long time. Having gone there and talked to both diplomatic and military folks, do you have a clearer idea of how big a force you'd need to leave behind to fulfill all those functions?

I do think that's entirely conditions-based. It's hard to anticipate where we may be six months from now, or a year from now, or a year and a half from now.

Now how long until this makes headlines and people call it for what it is? Obama has come a long way on his plan for Iraq; from 100% US troop withdrawal by March of 2007 to "most" troops out of Iraq within 16 months of him becoming president and now finally to the amount of "most troops" being entirely conditions based. USA Today did an editorial a couple days ago talking about the fact that in reality, Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama's Iraq plans really aren't much different, it should be noted that with that quote, they officially have no difference. Of course, the more that quote gets out the more his campaign will back track from it or claim he’s always said that, which would be only partially true.

The other Iraq related question:
In Iraq, it's not new that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has wanted to take control of his own country. But there's always been this gap between his assessment of his abilities and American commanders' saying he's not up to it. As president, faced with that difference between what he says he can do and what the commanders say he can do, how would you choose between them?

Iraq is a sovereign country. Not just according to me, but according to George Bush and John McCain. So ultimately our presence there is at their invitation, and their policy decisions have to be taken into account. I also think that Maliki recognizes that they're going to need our help for some time to come, as our commanders insist, but that the help is of the sort that is consistent with the kind of phased withdrawal that I have promoted. We're going to have to provide them with logistical support, intelligence support. We're going to have to have a very capable counterterrorism strike force. We're going to have to continue to train their Army and police to make them more effective.

Read more...

More from Maliki

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-iraq-sly_22jul22,0,519982.story

Maliki told Obama he hopes the troops will go home "by the end of 2010," according to Maliki's spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, marking the first time the Iraqi government has specified a time limit on the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq.
I'm not entirely sure how one can spin the fact that Maliki's own spokesman is who said this.

But a statement issued by Obama's congressional delegation, including Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.)..."Iraqis want an aspirational timeline, with a clear date, for the redeployment of American combat forces," the statement said. "Prime Minister Maliki told us that while the Iraqi people deeply appreciate the sacrifices of American soldiers, they do not want an open-ended presence of U.S. combat forces."
This quote and other things we've heard from Prime Minister Maliki frankly speak for themselves.

Dabbagh cautioned, however, that any timetable should be flexible enough to accommodate changing conditions, "to ensure that we won't be attacked by any enemy inside or outside Iraq."
It is important to remember that Obama has said he'd be open to this, specifically in saying that he would leave enough troops behind to protect our non-military personnel, train Iraqi forces, and conduct counter-terrorism. He has always said that if it was obvious Iraq was being invaded or Al-Qaeda was growing he would re-deploy to stop it. Sen. McCain has been far more specific in saying that it would be conditions that would dictate when our troops are drawn down and only conditions. Sen. Obama's plan is more of a stance that forces the issue and Sen. McCain's policy is a stance of being at the pace it happens to go. Both men, as said previously, share in the ultimate goal.

However, some Iraqi officials have said they may scale back the talks and reach only a temporary arrangement with the Bush administration, leaving it up to the next president to negotiate a permanent deal with Iraq. If Obama is elected, the Iraqis will be able to negotiate a deal that fits their goal of seeing the troops gone by the end of 2010.
Now two things about this wording: 1) McCain has never said he'd go against what the Iraqi's want. He has always said that if the Iraqi's want us out we'll leave. The idea that Sen. John McCain wouldn't agree to Iraq's wish that we have all of our troops gone by the end of 2010 is disingenuous. 2) Iraq is clearly not happy with President Bush's demands. This is a shrewd political move by Maliki. We're already seeing some public concessions and I'm sure some non-public concessions as well from our administration. Apparently they still aren't enough which calls into question just what President Bush could be asking for. One huge issue seems to be the demand that our troops and citizens be immune to Iraqi laws. Frankly, it isn't likely that President Bush allows this kind of hit to his legacy, he'll do what it takes to get an agreement done no matter what.

"I don't think that there are deep concerns about the notion of a pullout per se," Obama told ABC News in an interview. "There are deep concerns about, from their perspective, of a timetable that doesn't take into account what they anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions."
The nuance (some would say spin) we'll most likely hear from Obama once he's back will be something along the lines of "my ultimate goal will still be 16 months but if it became obvious more troops were needed or withdrawal needed to be halted I'd do so in order not to lose the gains that have been made". Very similar to things Obama has said in the past. Unfortunately, a great deal of people seem to be hearing only what they want to when Obama speaks.

Read more...

Iraq: Can anyone be honest?

As President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki now discuss a "time horizon" (aka a goal time frame) that will in fact be conditioned based and both parties are open to now, unlike in the past, the typical skewed talking points are coming from everywhere. Allow some facts in regards to Iraq to be pointed out as opposed to political rhetoric/stances/spin/etc.

1. 15 of the 18 political benchmarks have been reached by the Iraqi government.


2. Al-Qaeda is relatively gone from Iraq. (This post recognizes the debate as to whether they were there before we invaded or not but is not taking part in it.)


3. Sunni's and Shiites are working together more and more as seen by the amount of Sunni's agreeing to re-enter into the Iraqi parliament after boycotting it and some Sunni's are even being brought back into Prime Minister Maliki's cabinet.


4. Not all Sunni's nor all Shiite's are on board, there are still many who aren't happy with the current Iraqi government and/or our continued involvement with it, specifically us simply being there. This is is for many various reasons, some or many of which involve Iran.


5. The surge in military personnel was not the only reason we have seen the improvements we have. Political progress started before the surge was implemented as Gen. Petreus has mentioned many times. The surge allowed it to continue more quickly. Political progress through reconciliation as well as paying people played an equal role, arguably a bigger role in things turning around. (Whether one wants to look at paying them as giving them a job as some joined the Iraqi military and security forces or simply paying them off as some just took the money and stayed home is a matter of great debate, both opinions are easily supported by facts.) The surge would not have worked if a great deal of Sunni's had never agreed to work with us (for the various reasons they did) and/or reject Al-Qaeda.


6. To say the current progress in Iraq happened simply because of more troops is naive. To think it could have happened without the extra troops is equally naive.
7. Not only did we send in more troops but the Iraqi people increased its security forces by roughly 100,000.

• In regards to point number one: When Obama says that the political goal of the surge was not met by the Iraqi government he is factually correct. His biggest problem is that instead of making a specific, fact based statement as to the political "benchmarks" (what a horrible phrase to use during the re-building of a country) that have and haven't been reached, he simply says that the political goal wasn't achieved. In other words, as a typical politician, he makes a factual but misleading statement when he says the political goals haven't been met.
• In regards to number two: While Al-Qaeda has been relatively removed from Iraq they have grown in numbers as well as the amount of safe havens they now maintain. This is where we're seeing far too much politicizing on both sides. Republicans continually want to focus solely on the success in Iraq and the amount of Al-Qaeda killed/removed there while the Democrats want to solely focus on the strength of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan. As is usually the case, they're both right but choose to only talk about which truth about Al-Qaeda helps their political cause.
• In regards to number three and five: Why this doesn't get more reporting, more specifically why both campaigns can't recognize this as the biggest reason progress continues despite the troop levels coming down, let alone as a key reason troop levels are even able to be brought down is curious at best.
• In regards to number four: The fact not all Iraqi's are happy with the current situation isn't surprising. Not everyone is always going to be happy. Some say those that aren't happy but are maintaining cease fires are because they know they can't win the battles anymore. Some say it is because they're simply laying low until US troops leave. Some say Iran is keeping control of the main militia's until they see how the elections pan out. Some say they're waiting to see if Prime Minister Maliki sticks to his recent talk of time tables for 100% US/allied troop withdrawal, even if it takes longer than they (the militias) wish. Some have pointed to Maliki attacking rogue Shiite militia's as well as Sunni's, showing that he isn't simply playing politics with his attacks but genuinely just wants to see a peaceful and united Iraq. These many reasons, because they vary and are numerous, are why Sen. Obama has said that he would leave a residual force behind to conduct counter terrorism/training of Iraqi military/security forces. These same reasons are why Sen. McCain has consistently said no time tables but will bring troops home depending upon conditions. He's also said that he'd abide by any wish from the Iraqi people. In other words both campaigns recognize these things but differ on how best to handle them, worry about them. Neither is talking about allowing defeat or an Iraq lost to Iran.
• Number six speaks for itself and both parties, specifically both campaigns should be able to admit such simple things. Oddly, or rather typically, both campaigns aren't willing to be so frank. Interestingly, Sen. McCain used to be the type to be such a straight shooter, so has Sen. Obama at times.
• It is the height of bad reporting that the amount of Iraqi's who have stepped up to fight for there country is rarely mentioned, let alone ignored when people talk about Iraqi's needing to take more responsibility and step up.

Read more...

Obama's Iraq visit: A different take on what it means

Allow a few standard talking points/accusations/labels/whatever one wants to call them to be gotten out of the way about Sen. Barack Obama's trip to Iraq and Afghanistan. The Europe trip is really the only photo op part of the trip, that is to say the part of the trip done solely for a photo op.
1) He has to change his rhetoric as to how things are going in Iraq, that he must admit the success that has been achieved.
2) If he doesn't come home saying that he'll still stick to his 16-month plan he's a flip-flopper.
3) How can Obama have a plan for Iraq/Afghanistan without having been there on the ground in over 800 days/never.
4) Will he still be able to accept defeat after being there?
5) Insert your own point here(or in the comments):


This Iraq/Afghanistan trip for Obama gives him a real opportunity on a couple things, which will have huge political consequences. This gives him the opportunity to take a stance that goes against the heads of his party (Pelosi, Dean), showing that for the first time he's willing to stand against his party on something, excuse the cliche, "big". On the flip side -no pun intended- he can show he's willing to stand by his belief/conviction about this war being the wrong war and that Afghanistan is far more important, a stance that wouldn't add to the list of debatable flip-flops. Obviously both stances could harm and help him at the same time.

If it is true that elections are won in the middle, specifically Democrats can only win in the middle then the former stance must be taken but done something like this: "I still believe this war was the wrong war and I still believe that permanent bases aren't in our interest in any way. I do however acknowledge the gains made and accept the fact that more troops than I wish will need to stay in Iraq at least through the election in '09 or sooner if the Iraqi's are able to have full security/military control by mid-09. I will still be drawing down some Iraqi troops to re-deploy into Afghanistan as soon as possible as the security situation there demands more troops". This would obviously still alienate some of his base to the point they may, probably not likely they would, stay home or the more likely situation where they vote for Nader. Sen. Obama's campaign may also find or rather believe that despite the outcries of his change in Iraqi policy that his supporters, both the extreme part of his base and your more run of the mill Democrats will still view him as "at least better than McCain", that good old standby if you will of "lesser of two evils". He would also have to immediately do his best to emphasize and focus on Afghanistan, try to make his plan for Afghanistan/Pakistan the focus leaving his change in Iraqi policy a side note.

If it is possible for a Democrat to win by igniting his base, as Republicans have been able to do (specifically our current Pres. Bush) then the latter stance must be maintained but with a more consistent emphasis on him talking about listening to his commanders (which he only emphasizes sparingly) as to the best way to draw down within 16 months, mainly so that when he hasn't brought us out of Iraq by the end of 2010 his base isn't so shocked and/or hurt that he can't win re-election 2012.

Obviously no matter what he does/says when comes back he will be open to attacks from Sen. John McCain, the Republican party, talking pundits, bloggers, op-ed writers, editorials, etc but he must take this opportunity to show how he'll handle foreign policy matters that are always changing. Does he change with them or stand by his beliefs?

Read more...

Some Obama supporters kidded themselves.

How is it that so many missed Sen. Barack Obama’s foreign policy? Absolutely nothing about his foreign policy is anti-war or even anti-Iraq war (not when one of his top aides says ideally "only 60-80,000 troops would be left in Iraq"), speeches not residing. More specifically his foreign policy hasn't been, since running for president, what some Obama supporters or Ron Paul has wanted. I’m not entirely sure what his supporters who are now acting as if he has changed his Iraq plan has been thinking this whole time. He has always said he’d withdraw troops on a 16 month plan but listen to his commanders on the ground. He has always maintained the right as President to change his mind depending on what is going on, on the ground. He has always said that he’d leave enough troops behind to protect our contractors/non-military personnel that we have working in Iraq, which, last time I checked, was more than the amount of troops we currently have so how drawn down can our troop level really go? He has said he'd leave troops to train Iraqi forces. He has also always maintained that he just wants to withdraw troops in order to go into Afghanistan and Pakistan to go after Bin Laden. The only anti-war vote was Ron Paul (now maybe Nader?). Some of his supporters and supposed 65% (most polls say 60-68%) of this country that doesn’t support this war need to admit this. Sadly, not only has this always been Obama’s stance but he’s only been asked pointed questions that attempted to get specifics from him by the late Tim Russert. Even then we got none. Obama has some cold hard facts to deal with in regards to wanting to increase troop levels in Afghanistan and wanting to go into Pakistan after bringing down troop levels in Iraq. I believe we'll see an actual move on his stance once he comes back from Iraq that will be largely nuance and partly spin, maybe even the other way around. Wait for the backlash when Obama actually changes.

Edited: 7/26

Read more...