The Washington Post runs a
devastating editorial against Obama's current position on Iraq.
That's right, an editorial, not an op-ed. The editorial begins with
a point that I've been meaning to make for awhile:
Barack Obama yesterday accused President Bush and
Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: "They said we couldn't leave
when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is
down." Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish consistency. Early
last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate
proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in
slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest
level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After
hinting earlier this month that he might "refine" his Iraq strategy
after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama
appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month
timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes
in Iraq.
This is key. One of the leading arguments against the surge at the
time, one advanced by Obama and many other war opponents, was that
the reason we couldn't send more troops was that it wouldn't help,
essentially, that we shouldn't be squandering more blood and
treasure on a lost cause.
In October of 2006, Obama said, "Given the deteriorating
situation, it is clear at this point that we cannot, through
putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have,
expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have
to do something significant to break the pattern that we've been in
right now" Last January, when President Bush announced the
strategy, Obama said, "I don't know any expert on the region or any
military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that
that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on
the ground." He also said, "I am not persuaded that 20,000
additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence
there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
Obama was completely wrong. He won't admit it. He won't alter
his policy now that the facts on the ground have changed. And
yesterday, he had the gall to speak from a lectern with the slogan "Judgment to
Lead."
While the Post editorial board is more sympathetic to the war
than, say, the NY Times, it isn't exactly
the Wall Street Journal either. The fact
that they are starting to come down so hard on Obama for this is a
sign that he isn't wearing well.
topics:
John McCain, Barack Obama, Military, Iraq
