Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson says Obama’s making tactical mistakes about his plan for Iraq in today’s Washington Post.
Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune argues that McCain’s Iraq policy doesn’t differ enough from President Bush’s.What do you think?
Today General David Petraeus & Ambassador Ryan Crocker gave the Senate Armed Services Committee an update on the Iraq war.
View clips of Petraeus & the candidates after the jump.
Full transcript of the speech he gave to the Veterans of Foreign Wars here.
Once you’re done there, compare with Clinton’s Iraq plan & Obama’s Iraq plan .
Quotes of interest from McCain’s speech today:
Over the past year, the counterinsurgency strategy of General Petraeus has been based on the premise that establishing greater security in Iraq is indispensable to advancing political reconciliation and economic reconstruction; to making diplomatic progress in the region; and to preparing the Iraqi military to assume its responsibilities to defend the sovereignty of Iraq and the authority of its elected government. Should the United States withdraw from Iraq before that level of security is established those goals will be infinitely harder if not impossible to attain.
…
The American people deserve the truth from their leaders. They deserve a candid assessment of the progress we have managed to make in the last year in preventing the worst from happening in Iraq, of the very serious difficulties that remain, and of the grave consequences of a hasty, reckless, and irresponsible withdrawal. If we are honest about the opportunities and the risks, I believe they will have the patience to allow us the time necessary to obtain our objectives. That honesty is my responsibility, and it is also the responsibility of Senators Obama and Clinton, as well as Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress. Doing the right thing in the heat of a political campaign is not always the easiest thing. But when 4000 Americans have given their lives so that America does not suffer the worst consequences of our failure in Iraq, it is a necessary thing. In such a grave matter, we must put the nation’s interests before our own ambitions.
…
I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there. Our goal is an Iraq that can stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighborhood. Our goal is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops. And I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine. But I do not believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for President that they cannot keep if elected. To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility. It is a failure of leadership.
…
We all respect the sacrifices made by our soldiers. We all mourn the losses they have suffered in this war. But let us honor them by doing all we can to ensure their sacrifices were not made in vain. Let us show an appropriate humility by recognizing that so little is asked of us compared to the burdens we imposed on them, and let us show just a small, but significant measure of their courage, resolve and patriotism by putting our country’s interests before every personal or political consideration.
…
We know how little has been asked of others compared to their service, and the terrible sacrifice made by those who have not returned to the country they loved so well. They now deserve the distinction of the best Americans, and we owe them a debt we can never fully repay. We can only offer the small tribute of our humility and our commitment to do all that we can do, in less trying and costly circumstances, to help keep this nation worthy of their sacrifice.
…
As President, I will do everything in my power to ensure that those who serve today and those who have served in the past have access to the highest quality health, mental health and rehabilitative care in the world. The disgrace of Walter Reed must not be forgotten.
The entire speech is worth reading & given serious thought. McCain noted the progress — but failed to note the recent uptick in violence in the past week.
He also touched on -indirectly- the fact that there has been no real serious call for the American people to sacrifice in the struggle to keep us safe, something which really sticks in our craw, frankly. Note, though, that he did not turn the call to sacrifice to the American public; he just indicated that the calls for sacrifice among U.S. troops will continue.
That’s not right. We as a people need to do far more in this struggle. However you want to look at it .. whether it’s economically, or the donation of time, we all need to do more .. and our leaders need to ask us to do more.
It does appear that all three candidates do have this in mind; it’s something we’ll keep our ears perked for as the campaign progresses.
What do you think?
continues to take a look at some hard truths about Iraq that folks on both sides of the debate need to realize.
The always-readable George Packer of the New Yorker has a great piece in the winter 2008 issue of the World Affairs Journal. The entire thing is worth a read, but here I want to highlight some of the points he makes that are worthy of applying to how we approach this upcoming presidential campaign, both in terms of how to think about the Iraq question & how we need to change our approach for many other issues.
Packer has been to Iraq many times in the past five years, & he is definitely a critic of the way the U.S. rushed into war:
“Iraq’s remoteness…derives from the politics of the war, and from the political culture of contemporary America at war. The fighting only ever affected a tiny fraction of the public directly. The administration, which never leveled with the country about the potential costs and risks of the enterprise beforehand, tried to keep the war quiet by declaring victory prematurely, refusing to allow pictures of flag-draped caskets arriving at Dover Air Force Base, keeping silent when large numbers of soldiers were killed. The all-volunteer military bought the administration a year or two of goodwill before public opinion began to turn. The façade collapsed when the nation began to realize, around the time New Orleans was under water, that the war was going badly. There was no reason to follow the president into the mouth of hell, and public support, which had always been thin, disintegrated lmost overnight.
But he also has some very critical points to make for those who would turn their backs on any issue this war has created simply because of their initial opposition to it:
“The administration’s deceptions, exaggerations, and always-evolving rationales provoked a counter-narrative that mirrored the White House version of the war in its simple-mindedness: the war was about nothing (except greed, empire, and blind folly). Once, after a trip to Iraq, I attended a dinner party in Los Angeles at which most of the other guests were movie types. They wanted to know what it was like “over there.” I began to describe a Shiite doctor I’d gotten to know, who felt torn between gratitude and fear that occupation and chaos were making Iraq less Islamic. A burst of invective interrupted my sketch: none of it mattered-the only thing that mattered was this immoral, criminal war. The guests had no interest in hearing what it was like over there. They already knew.”
& these entrenched positions on both sides only made matters worse:
“So the lines were drawn from the start. To the pro-war side, criticism was animated by partisanship and defeatism, if not treason. This view, amplified on cable news, talk radio, and right-wing blogs, was tacitly encouraged by the White House. It kept a disastrous defense secretary in office long after it was obvious that he was losing the war, ensured that no senior officer was held accountable for military setbacks, and contributed to the repetition of disastrous errors by the war’s political architects. Meanwhile, the fact that the best and brightest Iraqis were being slaughtered by a ruthless insurgency never aroused much interest or sympathy among the war’s opponents. The kind of people who would ordinarily inspire solidarity campaigns among Western progressives-trade unionists, journalists, human rights advocates, women’s rights activists, independent politicians, doctors, professors-were being systematically exterminated. But since the war shouldn’t have been fought in the first place, what began badly must also end badly. “
Again, the entire article is worth your time, but I link it today to make a point I’ve made before:
America, its people & its policies are not black & white. We all would improve our country immensely if we saw the world as it truly is, in shades of gray.
The surge is a perfect example of this “shades-of-gray” mentality. We should be thankful that the military has finally - far too late to be most effective, but finally - figured out that the battlefield is not one of territory, but in the minds of the Iraqi people. However, this past week’s violence has shown that it can only get us so far in achieving victory. More needs to be done.
This isn’t just about Iraq, though. It’s important in this crucial election year that you be willing to listen to what you may consider “the other side.” Being entrenched into one single ideology, being willfully ignorant of that ideology’s potential downsides, will lead our great nation on the path to ruin.
