On Iraq, now is when judgment matters
By: James Kirchick
July 25, 2008 03:38 PM EST
Explaining his qualifications to be leader of the free world, Barack Obama places his judgment in opposing the Iraq war at the forefront. During his primary battle against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who voted to authorize President Bush?s taking military action against the regime of Saddam Hussein, Obama and his surrogates repeatedly referenced a 2002 speech he delivered at an anti-war rally in Chicago. This foresight in opposing what Obama referred to as a ?dumb war,? he and his supporters claim, is testament to his sound foreign policy analysis.
But not only has the relevance of Obama?s objection to the war been exaggerated, his judgment on the more timely subject of how to extricate ourselves from the conflict has been woefully deficient.
First, there?s no indication that Obama, had he been a United States senator at the time, would have voted against the Iraq war. Given his newness to federal office, he has no record on foreign policy from which voters can divine any sort of ideological predisposition about America?s role in the world and the use of force. The other hole in making hay about Obama?s early opposition to the Iraq war is the enormous distance between the foreign policy knowledge of a state senator in Chicago and a U.S. senator in Washington. The latter have high-level access to confidential intelligence reports, and, thus, nearly all of them believed that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. This is the reason why the Senate?s vote on the war resolution was 77-23 in favor. (No amount of postwar conspiracy theorizing has been able to prove that anyone was ?tricked? into supporting it).
See Also
* McCain struggles to overcome economy gap
* Obama to Berlin: 'This is our moment'
* DOD spokesman says Obama camp was reminded of political rules
Not only is it unclear how Obama would have viewed the war had he been in Clinton?s shoes, it?s also manifestly ridiculous for anyone to claim that he demonstrated as much as an ounce of courage ? like so many of his supporters say ? in opposing it. Obama?s Hyde Park constituency is one of the most liberal enclaves in the country, which is why he was able to get away with a line like ?What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats.? Supporting the war would have been a politically dicey move. In light of his distance from relevant political power and the far left environment in which he operated, his opposition to the war looks less wise and more like the rather obvious position that most people in his position would ? and indeed did ? take.
Of course, for those who believe that the decision to invade Iraq was a mistake, Obama?s early opposition to the war is as close to an airtight argument for his being president as one can get. His prudence about Iraq, these people argue, is not only ample substitute for his complete lack of experience in foreign affairs; it actually means that he?s better equipped to deal with overseas challenges than the vast majority of the Washington establishment, which ? Democrats and Republicans alike ? supported the war.
Regardless of where voters stood on the original decision to invade ? and, to be sure, far more Americans now believe that the Iraq war was a mistake than those who think it was the right decision ? what ought to be equally, if not more, important remains the question of what we do now. And on this question there can be little debate: John McCain?s judgment vastly exceeds that of Barack Obama.
Obama couldn?t have had a luckier political career, and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki?s perfectly timed endorsement of Obama?s 16-month withdrawal plan is earning the junior senator from Illinois all manner of plaudits. Put aside the fact that the commentators now extolling Maliki as the ?sovereign leader of Iraq? were, just two weeks ago, disparaging him as an American or Iranian puppet (depending on the day). The fact is that Maliki would not be able to even raise the possibility of American troop withdrawal had it not been for last year?s troop surge, a measure that John McCain championed and Obama ? following the Democratic herd ? opposed.
Two years ago Obama, like everyone else in his party, supported the Baker-Hamilton Commission?s plan of phased troop withdrawal and higher level ?engagement? with Iran and Syria. The country was in the worst shape since we invaded in 2003, with Al Qaeda maiming and killing countless Iraqis, sectarian gangs ruling Baghdad and Iranian proxies on the rise. When President Bush announced his surge strategy, Obama 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.?
In January 2007, a month after the release of the Baker-Hamilton report, Obama introduced legislation that would have enacted his 16-month withdrawal plan, redeploying all American troops from Iraq by March 31 of this year. Yet last month, having secured victory in the Democratic primary and no longer beholden to the left wing of his party, Obama announced he would travel to Iraq and meet with Army Gen. David Petraeus, after which he would ?refine? his position on the war. When this proposal enraged his far-left supporters, however, Obama delivered a speech recommitting himself to the arbitrary 16-month withdrawal period, irrespective of what the facts on the ground may require should he become commander in chief.
Had we listened to Obama back in January 2007, the effects of the surge would never have materialized, and we would not be in the place we are today, where talking about victory in Iraq no longer seems preposterous. So manifestly wrong was Obama about the surge that his spokesmen are saying he always believed it would reduce violence, and earlier this month his campaign removed negative references to it on his website.
We are incessantly told, without any real evidence other than a compromise bill here and there in the Illinois state Senate, that Obama is an incomparably thoughtful politician, the likes of which we have never seen before. Reminiscent of the early read on Texas Gov. George W. Bush, he is apparently possessive of a unique ability to seek out contrasting opinions and revise his own in light of new evidence. Yet he remains incapable of admitting that he was wrong about how to salvage Iraq, recently telling ABC?s Terry Moran that, in hindsight, he still would not have supported the surge.
To admit that his judgment was wanting on the subject of the surge would irreparably damage ? if not kill ? the Democratic narrative of the war. Admitting he was mistaken on something is a bridge too far for the supposedly post-partisan Obama to cross. Choosing a president this November, voters would do well to remember which candidate ? during America?s darkest days in Iraq ? called for retreat and which one presciently counseled a strategy for victory.
James Kirchick is an assistant editor of The New Republic.
? 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12017.html
