Matt and I seem to have the same mind today. See his post on the same subject, just below this one--Chris
Barack Obama is set to make a major foreign policy speech today. While the transcript is currently unavailable, Obama's campaign website is currently linking to this AP Wire story in the Washington Post to, "learn more" about "turning the page in Iraq." From the article:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq, with the pullout being completed by the end of next year.(…)
"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year _ now," the Illinois senator says.
Obama's ardent opposition to the war has been a central theme of his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, and he has used it to distinguish himself from leading rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. She voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq; Obama was not yet a senator.
Obama was trying to further sharpen that distinction Wednesday, spelling out his views on what the U.S. should do next.
To be blunt, I don't really know how pulling out all combat troops would "sharpen that distinction." At all. As far as I can tell, every single Democrat running for President is talking about removing all combat troops. That is, no one is suggesting that we leave troops in Iraq to continue to police Iraqi streets and actively try to prevent sectarian violence. The focus is typically on counter-terrorism, Iraqi force training, and infrastructure / embassy protection. And it doesn't seem as though Obama has closed the door on that at all:
Although he stopped short of calling for an immediate pullout of all troops, Obama said there should be a clear and certain timetable.(…)
By arguing that only combat brigades should be withdrawn _ there are 20 in Iraq, including five President Bush sent January _ Obama appeared to suggest that other U.S. troops could remain.
Good. I am somewhat relieved that the residual forces issue is starting to get some coverage, even if it comes in paragraphs 18 and 20 of the article. And let me remind everyone that Obama's campaign website is currently providing a huge link to this article in the top center of its welcome page. As such, I can hardly think of a clearer admission that he is proposing leaving non-combat troops in Iraq, to perform some or all of the missions . Actually, I can think of one, from his plan to end the Iraq war:
The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.
Obama is really blowing it here. The key differentiation on what to do in Iraq is not how quickly you remove all combat troops, but how many non-combat, residual forces you leave behind. On this front, he still seems to be absolutely identical to Hillary Clinton. A few months ago, she also introduced legislation proposing a removal of all combat troops, with a residual force contingent that does the following:
(1) That a phased redeployment of United States military forces from Iraq has begun, in a manner consistent with any limitations on aid for Iraq for security purposes in effect under section 4, including the transition of United States forces in Iraq to the limited presence and mission of-
(A) training Iraqi security forces;
(B) providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces;
(C) protecting United States personnel and infrastructure; and
(D) participating in targeted counter-terrorism activities.
So, if there is a difference here, it is that Clinton is proposing providing "logistic support" to Iraqi security forces, while Obama is not. That is a very slight differentiation that I do not think is going to move many votes.
Considering that he opposed the war from the start, Obama is a position to really seize the mantle of progressive foreign policy in this campaign. However, he will be unable to do that as long as he continues to favor a significant residual force of at least 40,000 troops that is roughly the equivalent of Clinton's plans. I feel confident that if Obama had chosen this "major foreign policy speech" as an opportunity to truly differentiate himself from Clinton on residual forces, then he would have been in an excellent position to change the campaign. Barack Obama can generate tremendous press, and he would have had an ability like other candidate to make the residual forces issue more prominent in this campaign. He would have been able to position himself as "right on Iraq before the war, and right on Iraq now," with a double differentiation from Clinton. That strikes me as a potentially nomination-securing position for any major candidate to hold in this campaign. However, it seems that he has squandered that opportunity, and has not changed his stance on residual forces. I wonder if, after giving this foreign policy speech, it has grown too late for him to change that position before the start of the primaries now. |
