The above two photos proportionally represent the amount of media coverage each candidate is getting this week.

Obama has been criticized by members of the right wing for making the trip. Yet these same folks were running a countdown on the days it’s been since Obama visited Iraq or Afghanistan.. in fact, that countdown still remains on the main page of GOP.com. To those who criticize Obama for making this trip, I ask you: what’s your proposed alternative? That he not go? Isn’t that what you criticized him for in the first place?

Many have criticized the media for adding to the Obama-overseas-mania for having all three network news anchors visit him while he’s abroad. Dee Dee Myers, former Bill Clinton press secretary & Hillary Clinton 2008 supporter asks in Vanity Fair “Is the Media Trying to Elect Obama?” One could make that case, but please tell me the last time you thought the three network news anchors were relevant in any way. Far fewer people consider “the big 3″ when getting their news these days than ever before. Those who would inflate this trip as a pure example of media bias would do well to remember this.

It is news. You can’t not cover it.

Plus look at this poll from ABC News that shows Obama lags far behind McCain in terms of who’d make a better commander-in-chief. This trip is necessary for any candidate, Democrat or Republican, who faces those numbers.

& besides, McCain should consider himself lucky that he’s out of the spotlight a little more this week:

p.s., Senator McCain: Czechoslovakia doesn’t exist anymore. He had better be careful with these gaffes, because there is a good chance that the media will start paying closer attention to them as November draws near.

What do you think? Is the coverage of Obama’s overseas trip unbalanced? Should he have just stayed at home? Time for you to weigh in!

(above clip: near the end, Obama sinks a 3-pointer on the 1st try)

OK, a confession: I have been up all night producing the 2-hour Good Morning Chattanooga newscast, & thus am left a bit groggy today.

But I’d be remiss if I didn’t tell you about Obama’s overseas trip that’s going on right now, even though I’m letting others do the heavy lifting.

Click here to read about his visit to Afghanistan.

(above: Obama interviewed in Afghanistan)Click here to read the latest from Iraq, where Obama arrived early Monday.

Iraq’s prime minister Nouri al-Maliki made news over the weekend by saying he is in favor of Obama’s plan to pull troops out in 16 months.

That dovetails into an issue I think is a fascinating one for this election: how closely are the soldiers following this presidential campaign?

ABC’s Martha Raddatz just got back from her 17th trip to Iraq, & two Fridays ago she had some interesting tidbits that help answer that question on PBS’s Washington Week in Review:

MS. IFILL: Can John McCain do - can Barack Obama or John McCain do what they’ve been promising, in Obama’s case in 16 months? Martha Raddatz is just back from another one of her periodic trips to Iraq and she has tonight’s reality check. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says there should be timetables for withdrawal, so does Obama. McCain says no. Who’s right?

MS. RADDATZ: (Laughs.) I don’t know who’s right, but I think Maliki saying he was timetables is a little ironic since the administration would never put any timetables on them. I think that story about Maliki was slightly overplayed this week. I think that’s all about domestic politics - that Maliki wants to sort of show he’s not being pushed around totally by the Americans. They had some successes in Basra and in Sadr City. And I think in the end what you’ll see, and you’ve already heard the language change a little bit - it’s no longer timetables. It’s time horizons. Doesn’t that sound -

MS. IFILL: Horizons?

MS. RADDATZ: - so soft. The national security adviser there backed off on that timetables just a little bit. Now, Barack Obama - I go to the website. I know he’s added nuance. I know there’s been a little nuance throughout the campaign, but they’re -

MS. MURRAY: He calls it refining -

MS. RADDATZ: - refining, but the core of his plan - and I’m sure it attracted a lot of Democratic voters - is, I will start drawing down immediately, and will withdraw up to two combat brigades a month. That’s a whole lot of combat brigades. It’s a whole lot of people. It’s a whole lot of equipment. And the people I talk to, including commanders, I ask them a couple of questions. They’re not going to talk about politics first of all. They’re not - I’m not going to say, what do you think of Barack Obama? What do you think of John McCain’s plan?

But when you say, if someone ordered you to draw down immediately and pull out two combat brigades a month, and one of the commanders over there who has Baghdad said, you cannot do it unless it’s conditions based, meaning you can’t make those decisions unless you know what’s happening on the ground, or they fail. They couldn’t be successful. He actually said he thought it was dangerous to withdraw on a timetable if it was not conditions based.

MR. GJELTEN: But is that - is it politically impossible or is it logistically impossible? What about - could they - even if you didn’t consider -

MS. RADDATZ: Physically pull out the equipment?

MR. GJELTEN: Could you do it logistically?

MS. RADDATZ: There’s a really interesting point about this. We redeploy troops all the time. We’ve got - we just ended the big troop surge and all of those came out, but what you usually happen is you have more going in. The soldiers and Marines leave, a lot of the equipment stays. And you’re talking about for two combat brigades 1,200 Humvees. So I also went to Kuwait and said, how do you get these out of here? You’ve got one little port in Kuwait, where everything would have to come out. Ninety percent of that equipment would have o come out through that port. They have to wash it all - I was standing in a howling dust storm and they’re trying to wash these Humvees and things like that. So you look at all the complications there. A couple of commanders said to me off camera, there is no way we could do that logistically.

MS. MURRAY: Do you get the sense - we expect Senator Obama to go to Iraq shortly - and do you expect them to confront this issue with him when he -

MS. RADDATZ: I think they will give their honest opinion. And if you look back what David Petraeus has said in the past, he talks about conditions based too. He talks about no timetable. I can’t imagine they’re going to suddenly change their tune because Senator Barack Obama’s there. I think he will get straightforward advice. They certainly know civilians control the policies and civilians control the military. And they do what they say and whoever gets elected, I’m sure they’ll follow orders. But I think he will probably get an ear full.

And the conditions really have improved. This was the first trip - and this was trip 17 - that I’ve been on, where I actually felt we were in an exit phase. It just felt different. It doesn’t mean it’s going to happen in a year. It doesn’t mean it’s going to happen in four years. It obviously depends on who the president is. And John McCain has said that he certainly wants to stay and see this through. But you felt like you weren’t just bogged down there, that you were in an exit phase.

MS. TUMULTY: And what is your sense of how closely the troops are following this election. Does it feel like completely divorced from the reality that they are dealing with every day, or does it feel like it matters to them?

MS. RADDATZ: It really matters to them and they’re under orders not to talk about particular candidates. But I asked one young sergeant - we’re walking around and I said, I’m going to ask you if you’re following the presidential race. And he said, yes, ma’am, I am. I’m undecided, but I have read John McCain’s book and I have read Barack Obama’s book. They knew so much about these candidates. It was really extraordinary. It really - and randomly chosen soldiers, Marines, you can ask questions about it, and they are really, really - there’s a lot at stake for them.

MS. IFILL: And they can give you an informed opinion about whether -

MS. RADDATZ: About the economy, about gas prices - it is not - that’s what’s most surprising. It’s not all about Iraq. That certainly matters to them, but it’s gas prices and my wife says this - so it’s a fascinating look at politics over there.

MS. IFILL: Well, thank you. Trip 17, huh? Well, welcome back again.

Know what I wish? I would love it if every eligible voter in America is following the presidential race as closely as Raddatz says the troops serving our country overseas are. Can we make that happen, people?

Back to Obama. John McCain released what you could call his first negative tv ad of the campaign on Friday. (he has had others, but they were web-only):

RealClearPolitics is a good place to get links to differing views on the Obama trip; they don’t have their Monday pieces in yet at the time I’m writing this but they should by the time you’re reading this.

So what do you think about any of this? The floor is yours!

Watch the new 8-minute video attacking Obama’s Iraq stance above, then read the full memo here. 

Then read the Obama camp’s response here.

& ABC News discovered that McCain has a worse record than Obama on attending Senate foreign policy hearings, particularly on Afghanistan; read about it here. 

Above: McCain in Albuquerque, New Mexico yesterday, on winning in Afghanistan.

Below: Obama in Washington, D.C. yesterday, on winning in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Who’s right? Post a comment!

FURTHER READING:

–McCain could be the new Nixon in terms of foreign policy - the New Republic

–Obama’s Iraq speech “suffers from fundamental flaws of logic & fact that Obama refuses to confront.” - the New York Daily News

–How talk of a withdrawl - speedy or otherwise - is shifting the the dynamics of Iraqi politics - the Guardian

–Grading the candidates war speeches - Slate

Yes, & that’s actually a good thing.

Click here for a post we wrote all the way back on February 1st, 2008, 28 years ago, & see that we had been critical of both Clinton & Obama’s stances on Iraq. It’s not realistic to promise that we’ll be out in 16 months, & that promise smacks of pure political pandering.

Obama has drawn fire from McCain’s camp for apparent “flip-flopping,” but in actuality his announcement that he will adapt his plan to “facts on the ground” based on advice from military commanders on the ground is merely a step towards reality. & there is no doubt in our minds that McCain will also pursue a more realistic, less-beholden-to-ideology style of military pragmatism, the lack of which got us into the mess we’re in today. Why are we seeing success in Iraq these past few months? Because we’re adapting to whatever facts are presented to us on the ground. We’re not “refusing to talk to our enemies,” but rather convincing our enemies through deeds, not just words, that we’re the side they should be on. If only we could apply this to our entire current foreign policy.

The Washington Post’s editorial today on the matter is generally how we feel about it:

“In fact, Mr. Obama can’t afford not to update his Iraq policy. Once he has the conversations he’s promising with U.S. commanders, he will have plenty of information that “contradicts the notion” of his rigid plan. Iraq’s improvement means that American forces probably can be reduced next year, but it would be folly to begin a forced march out of the country without regard to the risks of renewed sectarian warfare and escalating intervention in the country by Iran and other of Iraq’s neighbors.”

But what about you? What do you think? 

David Brooks:

“…it’s amazing that George Bush decided on the surge. And looking back, one thing is clear: Every personal trait that led Bush to make a hash of the first years of the war led him to make a successful decision when it came to this crucial call.

…

In fact, when it comes to Iraq, Bush was at his worst when he was humbly deferring to the generals and at his best when he was arrogantly overruling them. During that period in 2006 and 2007, Bush stiffed the brass and sided with a band of dissidents.

…

Bush is also a secretive man who listens too much to Dick Cheney. Well, the uncomfortable fact is that Cheney played an essential role in promoting the surge. Many of the people who are dubbed bad guys actually got this one right.

The additional fact is that Bush, who made such bad calls early in the war, made a courageous and astute decision in 2006. More than a year on, the surge has produced large, if tenuous, gains. Violence is down sharply. Daily life has improved. Iraqi security forces have been given time to become a more effective fighting force. The Iraqi government is showing signs of strength and even glimmers of impartiality.”

Joe Klein:

“The most important factor in the surge wasn’t the additional troops so much as the change in tactics, which pulled the troops out of huge forward operating bases (FOBs) on the periphery of Baghdad and transformed them into community police officers who lived in the neighborhoods where they worked. Providing security for the local population is the highest priority of counterinsurgency doctrine. The next most important factor was Petraeus himself, who proved to be a flexible, resourceful and wise leader, unafraid to take risks. Some of his most effective actions were traditional kinetic assaults on terrorist strongholds–pushing the insurgents out of their staging areas in the belts surrounding Baghdad, and then using the additional surge troops to hold those areas.

But Petraeus was also incredibly lucky–although he knew how to take advantage of the breaks he got–and these were the factors I hadn’t counted upon. The biggest break was the decision of the Sunni tribes to switch sides and oppose the taqfiri terrorists. This started to happen before the surge began, but Petraeus jumped on it–he was amazed, he told me last June, how quickly the transformation was taking place. This led directly to the defeat, or near-defeat, of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

…

The surge has reduced violence. We should all be thrilled about that–and honored by the brilliance of those who have served in Iraq. But what we’re talking about here is whipped cream on a pile of fertilizer–a regional policy unprecedented in its stupidity and squalor.”

This ad is part of an effort on McCain’s part to distance himself from George W. Bush. Those of you thinking he’s kowtowing to the “environmentalist wackos” & Al Gore need to read up on your history of past Republican presidents.

& then there’s this from MoveOn.org, which could easily be called “a parent’s worst nightmare:”

It’s obvious the “we could stay in Iraq 100 years” line McCain uttered months ago is testing very highly in focus groups; chances are extremely good you’re going to be sick of it by November. It’s hard to argue against its effectiveness. But as we’ve said before, you owe it to yourself to do your own homework to be fully informed.

What do you think?

& so it continues.

Today on the Today show Matt Lauer asked John McCain if he had a better estimate on when American troops might be coming home from Iraq. McCain delivered a less-than-artful answer (see above):

NBC’S MATT LAUER: “If it’s working Senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?”

SEN. MCCAIN: “No, but that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq, Americans are in South Korea, Americans are in Japan, American troops are in Germany. That’s all fine. American casualties and the ability to withdraw; we will be able to withdraw. General Petraeus is going to tell us in July when he thinks we are. But the key to it is that we don’t want any more Americans in harm’s way. That way, they will be safe, and serve our country and come home with honor and victory, not in defeat, which is what Senator Obama’s proposal would have done. I’m proud of them. And they’re doing a great job. And we are succeeding and it’s fascinating that Senator Obama still doesn’t realize that.”

What’s his point? It’s not that “bringing troops home from Iraq are not important to him.” It’s that they aren’t as important to him as the casualty levels in Iraq in determining success there.

Nevertheless, the Obama campaign apparently could not resist the bait McCain dangled in front of their eyes.

On a conference call, 2004 Dem nominee John Kerry said “It is unbelievably out of touch and inconsistent with the needs of Americans and particularly the families of troops who are over there. To them it’s the most important thing in the world when they come home,” he said. “It’s a policy for staying in Iraq.” & Obama adviser Susan Rice said “This is yet one further indication of his striking lack of appreciation of the burden Iraq is putting on our military.”

In response, a McCain spokesman said “Any reasonable person who reads the full transcript would… reject the Obama campaign’s attempt to manipulate, twist and distort the truth.”

One could imagine the ads that will air during the fall regarding this quip.. & a quick YouTube search already turned up one:

ENOUGH, ALREADY. Look, there are plenty of ways to criticize John McCain on how he views Iraq, just as there are an equal number of ways Barack Obama is open to criticism for his policy. But let’s let these debates be of substance! Not debates that are centered around “gotcha” & “can you believe he said that.”

We have said before that you owe it to yourself to pay close attention this year - it’s a year that’s important like no other. & part of what’s asked of you is that you pay close attention to context in all of these types of exchanges. It does the American people a disservice to take a perceived “gaffe” & run with it, giving the impression that a candidate would actually consciously say something that stupid. This happened on the other side with Obama’s “bitter” remark. In both cases, the candidate should not have made such a stupid/inartful statement. But their opponents went way too far in exploiting the opening. What’s revealed (for both sides) is an implicit cynicism that the American people won’t actually do their homework. Please, American voter, prove them wrong this year.

Please join me in calling for more attention paid to nuance in this campaign. This country sure could use it. If that makes us out to be a Don Quixote chasing after a phantom windmill, so be it.

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.

(more…)

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. 

• If you have supported this war from the start, you need to face the fact that this was one of the worst thought out endeavors in American history, & you should realize that rigidly toeing the party line has actually ultimately hurt its cause.
• If you have opposed the war from the start, you need to face the fact that nothing, absolutely nothing, can return Iraq to what it was under Saddam Hussein, & you should recognize that in many ways this has been good for the long term future of the Iraqi people.

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.

A lack of candidate candor over the Iraq question is hurting the United States’ long-term efforts in the struggle against terrorism. Vote08 has reality checks for voters on both sides after the jump.

(more…)

Yesterday’s news of the death of Marine Lance Corporal James Michael Gluff, of Tunnel Hill, Georgia gives us all a reminder that though it seems to have moved off of the front pages — and from the tops of minds of American voters — the war in Iraq still affects us all, and should be one of your considerations in choosing our next president. While the economy’s recent downturn looks to be the “top issue” of the campaign, you owe it to your country to continue to pay attention to what’s happening in Iraq, and to think about how we can move forward.

In the coming days, Vote08 will look at how each candidate views the current situation in Iraq and what will be needed to achieve success. Doing that will ensure that soldiers & Marines like Lance Corporal Gluff will not have died in vain.