Cast In Stone: War Consigned To History
I’m trying to figure out which is more absurd. Obama committing himself to a troop withdrawal by August, 2010, or this AP Peace in Our Time gushfest on his speech:
CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. (AP) — President Barack Obama consigned the Iraq war to history Friday, declaring he will end combat operations within 18 months and open a new era of diplomacy in the Middle East. “Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end,” Obama told Marines who are about to deploy by the thousands to the other war front, Afghanistan.
Even so, Obama will leave the bulk of troops in place this year, contrary to hopes of Democratic leaders for a speedier pullout. And after combat forces withdraw, 35,000 to 50,000 will stay behind for an additional year and half of support and counterterrorism duties.
Just six weeks into office, Obama used blunt terms and a cast-in-stone promise to write the last chapter of a war that began six years ago. It has cost more in lives, money and national stamina than ever envisioned.
OK, I think I have it. The Obama proposal is more absurd. Tragically, because there are literally millions of lives at stake. As opposed to the AP’s scribbling, which only risks a few exuberant cliches.
“Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.”
Now al-Qaeda and Iran have a new goal, something to strategize around. They can try to derail Obama’s plans, and make the withdrawal look like a retreat, or make him stay. Either way, he looks like a failure. Or they can try to make him look like a fool with what they do when the troops are gone.
Of course, Obama has given himself some wiggle room. 35,000 to 50,000 troops to train, support and conduct counterterrorism ops. But that sounds like something somewhat short of a withdrawal.
About the AP story, that’s only ridiculous. Embarassingly so.
President Barack Obama consigned the Iraq war to history Friday.
Events could make that sentence look even stupider than it already does. I hope not.
Just six weeks into office, Obama used blunt terms and a cast-in-stone promise to write the last chapter of a war that began six years ago.
Actually, the last chapter of the war … if that is what it is, and some soberminded people question that … was written before Obama got into office, by soldiers, with blood and sweat, acting on orders and a strategy that Obama’s blunt terms had nothing to do with. As for the cast-in-stone promise, I noticed there are no quotation marks or anything in indicate it is anything but a literal statement. I’d like to see the stone that promise is cast in.
I have to say I find it disgusting that Obama, who has trashed Bush at every opportunity, usually undeservedly, gave him no credit for the startegy that allowed Obama to actually carry out his pledge. I also find it disgusting that the AP could couch this article in grandiose historical terms and never once mention the name of Saddam Hussein, nor the word democracy, mentioning an upcoming election only in passing and none of the three highly successful nationwide elections already held. No mass graves in this article. The fact that Iran stalled its nuke program, that Moammar Ghaddafi gave up, and the Saddam will never revive his WMD programs or invade another nation are points obviously beyond the scope of an AP scribbler who can’t see past the glow of his guy on the podium.
Reuters, meanwhile, with some slightly more jaundiced observations from the same event:
Obama, who said U.S. combat forces would be out of Iraq by August 2010, drew polite clapping from the crowd for his policy announcements, but most of his presumed applause lines fell a bit flat.
…
In contrast, former President George W. Bush typically received thunderous applause when he addressed military crowds.
A few more thoughts. If not with an announced withdrawal at the end of George Bush’s highly successful surge, then how does this war end. Fair question. You could hazard that it is at an end, and we are in a post-war period of consolidating security and political gains. Events, as noted above, could change that, and then you can debate whether it is the same war firing up again or a new one. But what makes more sense is to shift to the mission of training, support and counterterrorism, and slowly withdraw brigades without making a big production out of it, a production every bit as ill-advised as it turned out to be for George Bush to stand in front of a “Mission Accomplished” banner, declaring major combat ops to be over.
Topics: Iraq,Obama,media,military
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 7:56 pm Comments (10) on Friday, February 27, 2009
10 Responses to “Cast In Stone: War Consigned To History”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
I’ve begun to fear that Obama and Crew are making such a botch of the economy that we’ll eventually (sooner rather than later) find ourselves on the brink of a world-wide conflict that will make the whole Iraq/Afghanistan thing irrelevant.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Yes, total withdrawal by 2010 sounds crazy, but remember:
All Barack Obama Statements Come With an Expiration Date. All Of Them.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
I am not overly worried because I think that the Maliki government and the iraq Army have passed their tests and are now ready to assume control. My guess would be that Petraus and Odierno signed off on this plan, and that it is reasonable and can be implemented.
The real problem is that BO is going to focus his attention on the economy. Incoming. Duck.
February 28th, 2009 at 1:39 am
” Obama, who said U.S. combat forces would be out of Iraq by August 2010, drew polite clapping from the crowd for his policy announcements, but most of his presumed applause lines fell a bit flat.
…
In contrast, former President George W. Bush typically received thunderous applause when he addressed military crowds.”
The difference between a leader and a poser.
If we don’t have a case of OdDS already, al-’Bama will create one for us.
February 28th, 2009 at 7:26 am
I am just spitting mad about this. The man has no shame and no honor. People gave their lives to liberate Iraq and Obama does not even recognize this! He won’t even mention it! People worked their hearts out, Free Iraqis, Americans, and other coalitian partners, they worked like dogs to create this new democracy and to defend it. It was a huge deal to have the elections, a huge deal to sign the status of forces agreements–this is beautiful, significant history playing out before our eyes. Obama refuses to acknowledge any of it, because it doesn’t fit the narrative. Truly amazing.
And it’s not like Iraq is his only blind spot. Far from it. It is shocking how many serious foreign policy errors he has already made–in one month! Either he is truly evil or he has no idea how many lives he is endangering.
Disgusting is putting it politely.
February 28th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
“If not with an announced withdrawal at the end of George Bush’s highly successful surge, then how does this war end.”
Well, since he can’t bring himself to declare victory and leave, he’s compelled to announce a departure date in plain, unadorned English. Obama’s objective, of course, has always been Departure, not Victory, and roughly meeting his own arbitrary timeline (which conveniently detached itself from successive dates certain along the way) is pure political icing on his personal cake.. “Let me say this as plainly as I can: I won.” Let the new era of American leadership now begin — with me!
“Thanks in great measure to your service, the situation in Iraq has improved.” WTF? We’ll call in the diplomats now, because the military can’t really win anything, dontcha you know? Maybe a lurking marine can tell me if t’m over reacting to stuff like that, and undervaluing the tributes he offers up as well, but does he really have to explain Semper Fidelis to the folks who live it every day? Or does he think the rest of us are just idiots listening in?
There was certainly more plain English in this speech than all the rest of his speeches put together, and it did more sense than the rest of them too, but it’s hard to believe he could announce his “new” strategy with a straight face:
A “sovereign, stable, and self-reliant” Iraq and a government that is “just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe-haven to terrorists,” along with commercial ties and a U.S./Iraqi “partnership” (major drinkin’ word there!) that “contributes to the peace and security of the region.” I try to content myself with imagining his reaction had he been greeted with an AP headline that read:
Obama delivers executive summary of Bush strategy at Camp Lejeune
I swear, whenever Obama addresses the troops, I get the feeling he spent the night before asking himself what a real Commander in Chief would say. Tough, but compassionate, that’s the ticket! I don’t know if anybody else noticed that as he and Michelle made the round of parties on inauguration night, he delivered the predictable chit chat — till he got to the military ball, where he apparently had a C-i-C moment and felt compelled to deliver a speech. It struck me as a measure of his ill ease when faced with relating to people who actually take a stand and put their lives on the line.
HIs relentless disparagement of his predecessor’s administration to his own putative advantage — when he knows Bush will respect his office — is a repudiation his own self-righteous lip service to civility. Prefacing his budget with 10 pages on “Inheriting a Legacy of Misplaced Priorities” is as callow and ill considered as describing opposition to the stimulus as ideological constipation, and asserting that conservatives just want to burn down public school systems. Not to mention tacky, tacky, tacky. Whether his cushy cocoon will ever unravel is, alas, anybody’s guess. I can hardly stand to listen to him any more. Unfortunately, the insults are even clearer when you read them in the transcript.
Sorry for imposing with a rant. Maybe throwing slippers at the tube will help.
February 28th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Joining the Tea Party protests might be a more effective way to go.
February 28th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
I’m excited to see the Tea Parties, but throwing slippers is highly under-rated.
I recommend throwing slippers with great force down long halls at sturdy doors.
February 28th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Not to draw yet another tedious Vietnam analogy, but is it just slightly possible that the troops formerly known as “combat troops” will after August 2010 be known as “military advisors”? Same job, same danger, same pay, new title.
March 1st, 2009 at 12:53 am
Bush lost the battle with the media over “framing” his statements in May 2003 about “major combat operations.” Is that what you mean by this? “…every bit as ill-advised as it turned out to be for George Bush to stand in front of a “Mission Accomplished” banner, declaring major combat ops to be over.”
The cessation of “major combat operations” came with the fall of the Baath Socialist regime. At that point, our forces became part of an occupying force with certain obligations under international law. The “mission” of removing Hussein’s regime from power was in fact “accomplished.” As Gen. Franks said back then, he urged Bush to make this announcement, because there were supposedly some “allies” who had promised help with the occupation obligations once major combat operations were over. (They didn’t keep their promises, apparently.)
As Bush continually said, that didn’t mean all conflict was ended.
But Bush’s adversaries on the left succeeded in twisting Bush’s words and making it appear that he was claiming that the whole thing was over and done with in May 2003.
Now, Obama claims our “combat mission” will end at his announced date, and AP is already misstating it as the end of “combat operations.” Obama is leaving enough troops there to engage in combat operations, if that becomes necessary; but he is saying that the “mission” won’t be the same — the Iraqis will have to carry the load for their own security needs absent some big change in circumstances.
Obama’s announced strategy is almost indistinguishable from Bush’s (and McCain’s for that matter).