Obama's War Plans-- He Refuses to Admit Error On Surge

[John317]

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama's plan to build up U.S. forces in Afghanistan while keeping perhaps 50,000 troops in Iraq has triggered a deep rift among antiwar activists, a reminder of the difficult tasking facing the presumptive Democratic nominee as he tries to broaden his appeal.

The Illinois senator wrapped up three days of tours and talks in the war-ravaged nations Tuesday, stressing in a news conference that the "situation in Afghanistan is perilous and urgent" and that "we should not wait any longer" to provide additional troops.

In Iraq , Obama won a tacit Iraqi endorsement of a plan to withdraw U.S. combat troops in 2010, but he also said that he backs leaving a residual force in Iraq to help train military personnel, provide security for U.S. interests and thwart terrorist threats. The residual force might total up to 50,000 troops, his campaign advisers have told reporters.

Some hailed Obama's trip as an important breakthrough.

"So far the trip has been out of the park. It's an enormous moment," declared Eli Pariser , executive director of MoveOn.org, which supports Obama. He hedged about Obama's troop commitments, however: He said he wasn't fully aware of Obama's call for a residual force in Iraq and was trying to get a sense from MoveOn members on their views about Afghanistan .

Sister Simone Campbell , executive director of NETWORK, the national Catholic social justice lobbying group, was less enthusiastic.

"It was a significant step forward," she said, "but it was only a step."

Others were simply annoyed.

Barbra Bearden , spokeswoman for Peace Action, called Obama's comments about Afghanistan "a bit disheartening."

Ian Thompson , lead organizer in Los Angeles for Act Now to Stop War & End Racism, an antiwar group, found Obama's Afghanistan position similar to that of President Bush and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain .

"What this shows is that Barack Obama does not really represent any policy shift," he said.

Republicans thought that Obama supplied them with new political ammunition. Obama supports withdrawing U.S. combat forces within 16 months after becoming president, while McCain has called such fixed timetables artificial and unrealistic. He says troops should come home when conditions on the ground warrant it, and not before.

Rep. Heather Wilson , R-N.M., a McCain backer, charged Tuesday in a conference call with reporters organized by McCain's campaign that Obama has shown he's "frighteningly inexperienced. The difference is Senator Obama's (view) is based on the calendar, while Senator McCain believes the decision should be based on conditions on the ground."

The trip's chief political goal has been to bolster Obama's stature among voters. The 46-year-old first-term U.S. senator is running against an opponent with a lengthy national security resume, and a Pew Research Center poll taken June 18-29 found 55 percent of voters thought McCain could better defend the U.S. against terrorism, while only 31 percent preferred Obama.

And they thought, by a 47 to 41 percent margin, that McCain could make better judgments about Iraq .

Experts were cautious Tuesday in measuring the trip's political impact.

Obama took on some risk by "looking like he's being tutored," said Harold Cox , professor emeritus of history at Wilkes College in Pennsylvania .

"Things seem to be going as planned, and he could be helping himself," said Kareem Crayton , associate professor of law and political science at the University of Southern California . "But we have to wait and see; we don't know the public reaction yet."

After Obama met Monday with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki , Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said that while Iraq did not endorse a date certain for withdrawal, he hoped it could occur sometime in 2010.

Some thought Obama helped himself politically.

"The prime minister clearly supports Obama's plan for exiting Iraq ," Pariser said. "This couldn't really be better."

The visit "appears to have given the Iraqis the courage to express some of what they're thinking, without fear of the Bush administration reprisals," said Campbell of NETWORK.

But Obama's views troubled many peace activists.

Bearden of Peace Action said that "we've seen the results of these military actions. We create a power vacuum and try to create a government. We did that in Iraq , and now we're talking about using the same failed strategy again in Afghanistan ."

Judith LeBlanc , organizing coordinator for United for Peace & Justice, said that "dealing with the threat of terrorism cannot be done on a military basis." She and other activists wanted to hear more from Obama about a strategy for dealing with terrorism around the globe, including more use of diplomacy and economic aid.

The activists agreed on this much: They're not going to vote for McCain.

But whether Obama generated new enthusiasm, let alone attracted fence-sitting independent voters as McCain continued to blast him as naive, remains an open question.

"I think it's fair to say," said Crayton, "that he hasn't hurt himself."

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Ian Thompson , lead organizer in Los Angeles for Act Now to Stop War & End Racism, an antiwar group, found Obama's Afghanistan position similar to that of President Bush and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain .

"What this shows is that Barack Obama does not really represent any policy shift," he said.

That is what I have been saying for years. YEARS!!! Those that think had Al Gore Jr. won things would have been different...

Hardly.

Quote:

Bearden of Peace Action said that "we've seen the results of these military actions. We create a power vacuum and try to create a government. We did that in Iraq , and now we're talking about using the same failed strategy again in Afghanistan ."

Failed strategy? Does that mean the surge? Since Iraq's new government is pushing us to leave I am not sure we can say the strategy has failed. Imagine if Afghanistan's new government was asking us to leave.

[John317]

I agree wholeheartedly.

I knew that Obama wouldn't do what he said last year that he'd do if he were President-- start immediately withdrawing American troops. That would have resulted in making the Democrats take the blame for an unnecessary American defeat. It just seemed insane and I knew he would find that out after seeing how things were improved in Iraq.

But it shows to me that he shouldn't be commander in chief. He lacks both the experience and the judgment. He's demonstrated it as far as I'm concerned. And then on top of it he doesn't have the guts to admit that he was just plain wrong. It's one thing to be wrong about that, but it's something else to refuse to admit the obvious to the American people. It seems as if saving face is more important to him than telling the truth about a dirty conflict where American youngsters are sweating & dying. That's my read.

[Neil D]

maybe he's changed his views a bit on Iraq since he's been there a bit....That means, he may have grown a bit....

How would you have handled his PR without committing political suicide, John?

[there buster]

Here are the things which Obama has now deleted from his web site:

Quote:

Under the heading “The Problem” he deleted:

— “The Surge” (apparently The Surge that he opposed isn’t the problem he thought it was)

Under the heading “Judgment You Can Trust” he deleted the statements that reflect his untrustworthy judgment:

— “In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors.”

— “In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.”

—”In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.”

Under the heading “Bringing Our Troops Home” he deleted his immediate withdrawal timetable:

— “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.” (A plan that has been shown to be completely untenable, and one that he made before ever speaking with commanders on the ground, just like his New York Times op-ed plan.)

Under the heading “Press Iraq’s Leaders to Reconcile” he deleted:

—”The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving.” (Apparently Obama realized he’s not so good at making anything clear to anyone in Iraq or out of Iraq, so that line had to go.)

Quote:

How would you have handled his PR without committing political suicide

That's it. It's PR that's the problem. If the truth is political suicide, maybe the country should put him out of his misery (politically, that is) -- before it becomes ours.

[Woody]

You're right. He could be a very dangerous president. Just his lies and deception alone are dangerous.

[there buster]

His followers want to put him on Mt. Rushmore, but they can't figure out how to sculpt his halo from stone.

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D---How would you have handled his PR without committing political suicide

That's it. It's PR that's the problem. If the truth is political suicide, maybe the country should put him out of his misery (politically, that is) -- before it becomes ours.

That is precisely what I was going to say when I saw your response. That is excellent.

Obama has been campaigning on the idea that he is a new kind of politician that will unify the nation and the races and is unafraid to tell the American people the truth. OK, so show us you can tell the truth when it is NOT in your benefit. But when he only tells the truth when it is to his political benefit to do so, how is that any different from what all the other politicians do?

One thing I like about McCain is that he at least has demonstrated that he would rather lose the campaign than see the United States lose the war. He was willing to have the US make an effort to win that war by voting for an unpopular surge that might backfire, than do the easy thing and vote against it, which is what Obama did. McCain showed both good judgment and guts. That is what it takes to be president and commander in chief.

[John317]

Here are the things which Obama has now deleted from his web site:

Absolutely amazing. I had heard about these things, but seeing them this way really make a person think. I'm sincerely and honestly disappointed in him.

If McCain doesn't bring these things up in his debates with Obama, McCain would deserve to lose. He has to let the American people know. America needs to know these things before it votes in November.

[fccool]

Iraq should be THE LEAST of the concerns of the candidates right now. The biggest danger that USA is facing right now is the economic collapse that is beginning to unfold. I certainly think that the troops should be brought back to maintain some kind of order in case of massive bank runs do occur. FDIC can only cover a couple large banks max.

McCain is oblivious when it comes to the basic economy as he himself admitted.

[Dr. Shane]

Increasing taxes, as Obama proposes, isn't the answer to our debt either as it will slow down growth. The key to controlling the debt is to freeze spending and grow the economy. That will allow us to grow out of the problem. However no one wants to freeze spending. As the economy grows tax revenues increase - which is what we hope to get from raising taxes. However politicians spend the increasing revenues faster than the revenues increase. If, by some stroke of luck, revenues did increase after taxes were raised, do any of us believe politicians would pay down the debt instead of increasing spending?

[Beryl]

Quote:

do any of us believe politicians would pay down the debt instead of increasing spending?

No! They would do what they have done here --pay the top people an EXTRA $1400 per week -- but tell the struggling penioner that there is nothing for them this year, and they will re-look at the situation in April NEXT YEAR! This at a time when rents have more than doubled, and, even if a person had their own home all costs have skyrocketed. James 5:1-6. That is being fulfilled right now.

Beryl

[fccool]

Increasing taxes, as Obama proposes, isn't the answer to our debt either as it will slow down growth. The key to controlling the debt is to freeze spending and grow the economy. That will allow us to grow out of the problem. However no one wants to freeze spending. As the economy grows tax revenues increase - which is what we hope to get from raising taxes. However politicians spend the increasing revenues faster than the revenues increase. If, by some stroke of luck, revenues did increase after taxes were raised, do any of us believe politicians would pay down the debt instead of increasing spending?

Exactly