There are currently 7 users and 123 guests online.
Obama abroad: a foreign policy election coup?
Submitted by R. Neal on Wed, 2008/07/23 - 1:40pm.
I haven't been following it closely, but you have to admit that Obama is looking and acting very presidential on his trip to the Middle East. It appears U.S. soldiers were even allowed to afford him an enthusiastic reception.
My favorite part was the press conference where he says he reminded Gen. Petraeus who's the boss, and it's the Commander in Chief not the generals. (Our present Commander in Chief notwithstanding. Sending troops to solve a political and diplomatic problem is like sending the Bush cabinet to storm the beaches of Normandy, led by Cheney and Rice.)
I also like that McCain is reduced to having a tantrum about the network media coverage and that Fox didn't get invited to go along. Now they're both whining like a couple of cry babies.
It also seems that Bush is trying to take Iraq off the table as an election issue by suddenly suggesting there's a "horizon" beyond which U.S. troops will be home. Wonder if it also had anything to do with the Iraq PM calling for a withdrawal and now agreeing with Obama on a timetable? Either way, it appears McCain is left all alone standing in the corner with his 100 year strategy.
And what's the deal with Chuck Hagel accompanying Obama? Hmmm...
Submitted by RayCapps on Wed, 2008/07/23 - 2:43pm.
My favorite part was the press conference where he says he reminded Gen. Petraeus who's the boss, and it's the Commander in Chief not the generals.
He reiterated what he said in a prior interview that his role as a candidate for commander-in-chief was to take in all factors -- beyond Iraq -- when dealing with matters of national security. But he also said that he understood that Petraeus was not in favor of a timeline, in part because the general wants the highest level of flexibility to achieve his mission.
I'm glad the actual article didn't read quite as confrontational as your summary. I'm also glad Obama didn't say anything like "I'm the boss." The POTUS should always be in charge at the strategic level, but nothing good comes from the POTUS playing boss at the tactical level.
Obama is far and away the best candidate for POTUS. At the same time, Petraeus has done a damned fine job in Iraq. The last thing I want to see is a conflict between those two. As Obama becomes able to shift U.S. personnel from Iraq to Afghanistan, I hope Petraeus is given due consideration to lead that charge.
As to the whole timeline/time horizon thing, I've become an incurable Iraq optimist of late (never thought I'd hear myself saying that) and have begun to think the Obama timeline (the most aggressive openly expressed thus far) might be a little conservative. The Iraqis are confident and eager to take a greater role in providing for their own security. The domestic insurgency has largely devolved into small bands of armed thugs. The so-called Al-Qaeda in Iraq has had its back broken by the Anbar Awakening and recent Iraqi operations in and around Mosul. Al Sadr appears to have been brought to heel. I'm feeling really good about it right now. And no, I've not changed my mind. We had no business going in there in the first place. I'm just glad to see we have a real chance of getting back out again without creating an even bigger mess.
Petraeus has openly opposed a fixed timeline that runs independent of events unfolding on the ground. That's a valid concern. He wants to have the flexibility to react according to any unforseen uptick in violence or let down in Iraq's own security forces. That's a valid desire. It's also not contrary to the vision of a timeline voiced by Obama repeatedly in his campaign. As POTUS, Obama will have to take all conditions into account and adapt his plans accordingly, accelerating or slowing down according to events on the ground (and not just in the Iraqi theater). Hopefully, that's all a moot point. I have my fingers crossed we'll have all our boys out of Iraq by Christmas 2009.
Obama said last night in the Katie Couric interview that it was the President's job to set policy objectives and the generals' job to figure out the best tactical way to achieve them (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the essence of it). Sounded good to me.
Meanwhile in wingerland, the latest outrage is that the Obama folks printed flyers for Obama's Berlin event in - wait for it - GERMAN!
And what I emphasized to him was, you know, if I was -- if I were in his shoes, I'd probably feel the same way. But my job as a candidate for president and a potential commander in chief extends beyond Iraq. And so, what we saw in Afghanistan, for example, where you've got a deteriorating security situation -- and all of the commanders uniformly indicated that two to three brigades would be extraordinarily helpful in allowing them to accomplish their goals, the only way we're going to get those troops over there in a meaningful way is if we are taking them from someplace else. So that's something that I have to factor in.
I have to factor in the perceptions of the Iraqi people and the statements by Prime Minister Malaki and his spokespeople in public, that they are ready to see the Iraqi government take on more responsibility for security.
So there are a range of factors that I have to take into account as a commander in chief or a potential commander in chief that I wouldn't expect General Petraeus or anybody who's just on the ground to have to take into account.
Submitted by RayCapps on Wed, 2008/07/23 - 3:06pm.
I actually like the quote you provided above even better than the summary. That's EXACTLY what the division of responsibility ought to be between a commander-in-chief and a theater commander. FDR had similar discussions with both Nimitz and MacArthur in discussing his "Europe First" strategy for WWII. Mac was something of an egotist (like the understatement?) and didn't take it well. Nimitz took it like the professional he was. Petraeus has to look out for his objectives, but he also has to recognize this is a multi-front war (thanks to Bush) and adapt his tactical plans according to what can be provided given the overall security situation.
If Maliki's opinion of his troops' abilities should place him in conflict with Petraeus' evaluation, as a matter of course - as the occupying power - we have an obligation to abide by the wishes of the Iraqi government. If Maliki is wrong and tries to bite off too much too soon, that's not on our heads.
I'm glad the actual article didn't read quite as confrontational as your summary. I'm also glad Obama didn't say anything like "I'm the boss." The POTUS should always be in charge at the strategic level, but nothing good comes from the POTUS playing boss at the tactical level.
Obama is far and away the best candidate for POTUS. At the same time, Petraeus has done a damned fine job in Iraq. The last thing I want to see is a conflict between those two. As Obama becomes able to shift U.S. personnel from Iraq to Afghanistan, I hope Petraeus is given due consideration to lead that charge.
As to the whole timeline/time horizon thing, I've become an incurable Iraq optimist of late (never thought I'd hear myself saying that) and have begun to think the Obama timeline (the most aggressive openly expressed thus far) might be a little conservative. The Iraqis are confident and eager to take a greater role in providing for their own security. The domestic insurgency has largely devolved into small bands of armed thugs. The so-called Al-Qaeda in Iraq has had its back broken by the Anbar Awakening and recent Iraqi operations in and around Mosul. Al Sadr appears to have been brought to heel. I'm feeling really good about it right now. And no, I've not changed my mind. We had no business going in there in the first place. I'm just glad to see we have a real chance of getting back out again without creating an even bigger mess.
Petraeus has openly opposed a fixed timeline that runs independent of events unfolding on the ground. That's a valid concern. He wants to have the flexibility to react according to any unforseen uptick in violence or let down in Iraq's own security forces. That's a valid desire. It's also not contrary to the vision of a timeline voiced by Obama repeatedly in his campaign. As POTUS, Obama will have to take all conditions into account and adapt his plans accordingly, accelerating or slowing down according to events on the ground (and not just in the Iraqi theater). Hopefully, that's all a moot point. I have my fingers crossed we'll have all our boys out of Iraq by Christmas 2009.
I have my fingers crossed we'll have all our boys out of Iraq by Christmas 2009.
.... but that's boys and girls.
Obama said last night in the Katie Couric interview that it was the President's job to set policy objectives and the generals' job to figure out the best tactical way to achieve them (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the essence of it). Sounded good to me.
Meanwhile in wingerland, the latest outrage is that the Obama folks printed flyers for Obama's Berlin event in - wait for it - GERMAN!
The horror.
And then of course, there are the inevitable comparisons.
Ray: I saw the clip on TV somewhere, and it was a little stronger than the summary. Here's the transcript...
Transcript - Obama’s Speech in Amman, Jordan - NYTimes.com
sounds like we have a winner.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
I actually like the quote you provided above even better than the summary. That's EXACTLY what the division of responsibility ought to be between a commander-in-chief and a theater commander. FDR had similar discussions with both Nimitz and MacArthur in discussing his "Europe First" strategy for WWII. Mac was something of an egotist (like the understatement?) and didn't take it well. Nimitz took it like the professional he was. Petraeus has to look out for his objectives, but he also has to recognize this is a multi-front war (thanks to Bush) and adapt his tactical plans according to what can be provided given the overall security situation.
If Maliki's opinion of his troops' abilities should place him in conflict with Petraeus' evaluation, as a matter of course - as the occupying power - we have an obligation to abide by the wishes of the Iraqi government. If Maliki is wrong and tries to bite off too much too soon, that's not on our heads.
Post new comment