Obama: Consistent on Iraq
Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on July 8th, 2008 4:35 am by HL
Sen. Barack Obama’s position on Iraq is that:
1) Unlike Sen. John McCain’s position, we cannot have permanent military bases be the policy objective in Iraq.
2) Instead, we should gradually withdraw our combat forces over a 16-month period, with a temporary residual force remaining for an unspecified time.
3) The specifics of the withdrawal could be adjusted based on the counsel of military commanders on the ground.
None of this is new. Obama explained all this during the primary season.
I lamented about it at the time, when in a September 2007 debate, neither Obama or John Edwards took the opportunity to criticize Sen. Hillary Clinton’s rejection of a pledge to fully withdraw by Jan. 2013.
Obama specifically said during that debate:
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 … 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.
More broadly, Obama said on CBS’ 60 Minutes in February 2008:
STEVE KROFT: And you pull out according to that time table, regardless of the situation? Even if there’s serious sectarian violence?
OBAMA: No, I always reserve as commander in chief, the right to assess the situation.
Here’s the video from that interview:
It’s a pretty basic approach. You allow yourself the ability to adjust tactics as circumstances change, while making clear what your principles and overarching objectives are.
Of course, that leaves the opportunity to indefinitely delay the end of the occupation. And maybe you have misgivings about the nuance of that position. I do.
But my misgivings are sufficiently mitigated by his clear and repeated rejection of permanent military bases as a policy goal.
And if other voters had more serious misgivings, they had other options in Gov. Bill Richardson and Rep. Dennis Kucinich.
The positions of the candidates were well aired, fully debated, allowing voters to make an informed decision.
Obviously, not nearly enough did to deny Obama the nomination.
Which is why it’s silly that pundits are:
1) trying to claim Obama has shifted his position
2) predicting or fretting that Obama will shift his position, when his current position already has flexibility in regard to tactics, or
3) predicting liberal base voters will freak out at Obama shifting his position, when his position already wasn’t the preferred position of some liberals, and he already won the nomination with the help of liberals.