Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, July 04, 2008
Donald Lambro :: Townhall.com Columnist
Improvement in Iraq Makes Barack Go Back
by Donald Lambro
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


WASHINGTON - Violence has drastically declined in Iraq, the chief Sunni Muslim political bloc is ready to rejoin the Shiite-led government, and Obama campaign advisers are talking about a more gradual troop pullout plan.

These are among the remarkable developments occurring in Iraq since President Bush implemented the surge strategy -- a bold gambit that has proven all of the defeatists wrong, strengthened Iraq's fledgling democracy and given Iraqi citizens new hope for a better life.

Abandoning a nearly year-long boycott, Sunni leaders will rejoin Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's cabinet if their six nominees are approved by the parliament as early as this week, a move that can open the way to further reconciliation in the war-torn country. The government has met many Sunni demands for reform, including an amnesty program that released thousands of Sunni detainees this year. Its leaders were also encouraged by Maliki's tougher offensive against violent Shiite militias, particularly Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.

Meanwhile, a report from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad last week said Iraq has met 15 of the 18 original benchmarks set by Congress to gauge its progress on political, economic and national security reforms. Still, much work remains to be done in three areas: a workable system to govern the oil industry that allows all Iraqis to share in its revenues, the disarmament of militant militia and insurgent groups, and strengthening the country's police forces.

But perhaps the most stunning political development in the aftermath of the surge's success is a grudging movement within the Obama campaign to recognize that the situation in Iraq has improved. The candidate has given signs that he's ready to scale back his defeatist-driven plans for a complete military pullout should he win the presidency in November.

In recent months, some of Obama's top national security advisers have been circulating strategy papers recommending that a significant "residual" U.S. military force be kept in Iraq to insure its stability as Iraqi government leaders work toward national reconciliation. The leader of this movement is Georgetown University defense analyst

Colin Kahl, coordinator of the Obama campaign's working group on Iraq policy.

Discarding the freshman senator's early position for a complete military pullout regardless of the situation on the ground, Kahl is pushing a more strategic, centrist approach that he calls "conditional engagement." Writing in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs, he says this: "Rather than unilaterally and unconditionally withdrawing from Iraq and hoping the international community will fill the void and push the Iraqis toward accommodation -- a very unlikely scenario -- the United States must embrace a policy of 'conditional engagement.'

"This approach would couple a phased redeployment of combat forces with a commitment to providing residual support for the Iraqi government if and only if it moves toward genuine reconciliation," Kahl writes.

In an earlier paper in March, prepared for a workshop on Iraq for the Center for a New American Security, he wrote that "the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground)."

He says his article and similar proposals made in scholarly papers and working groups are entirely his own and do not necessarily represent Obama's developing positions about what to do in Iraq.

Certainly, Obama's positions have been evolving though there is no clear sign as yet that he has openly embraced Kahl's recommendations. But he has gone from an "immediate" pullout to one that would remove one or two brigades a month until all combat forces are out in 16 months. Then came his statement that he would consult with commanders on the ground before proceeding with any troop withdrawals.

He opposed the surge at the outset. "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," he said in January of last year. But now, with the picture improving in Iraq, the freshman senator is not so sure of his judgment.

His foreign policy advisers, like Kahl, urge caution. In March, Samantha Power, his former foreign policy mentor, told the BBC, "You can't make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009." Last week, Obama's foreign affairs adviser Susan Rice said that "he will listen to his commanders on the ground, he will follow and heed their advice as he decides how at the strategic level we must proceed." Kahl counsels a minimal near-term drawdown to "perhaps 12 brigades" whose mission would "switch to counterterrorism, training and advising of the Iraqi security forces, and force protection for U.S. civilians and advisers."

Such advice represents an abrupt shift away from the rhetoric-filled pullout plans that won over the antiwar base of Obama's party and propelled him to the nomination. That begs the question: what will his disappointed base do now?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Donald Lambro is chief political correspondent for The Washington Times.

Be the first to read Donald Lambro's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Apollo
Prior to the invasion Iraq was supposedly this wonderfully secular society that should be used as a model for the rest of the region. Now they are only interested in blowing each other up?

The beautiful thing about democracy is allowing disaggrement without the bombs.

The Iraqi's turned against the outside influences precisely because they promoted violence as the only answer.

3wire/Allen
Allen- well said. I'm with you on your post. These armchair hinsighters are something else. And they act like it's a dance routine of some kind instead of a WAR. That it should go smoothly and according to plan is not how wars work.


3wire- You point out a critical quote (he's not so sure of his judgement). It's showing. Some of his earlier self confidence and assurance is waning, it seems to me. I think his campaign is lost already, actually. He finished the primaries weakly. He's not comfortable or ready in any way to answer real questions. He's dissembling. hard to imagine what he'd do it the press acted like press and really "pressed" him.

It was oh-so much easier for him when he was looking down his nose at his female opponent, and cheered on by adoring fans. We'll see less and less confidence I reckon.

Obama's "adjustments"
are very interesting - before evaluating the situation on the ground in Iraq, without weighing facts-it was 16 months - and his followers cheered him on - like they had any information that validated their enthusiasm. The details on the ground, the input from our military leaders - is where it's at - not cheers from some uninformed crowd. Our military deserves much better than BHO -that should be a major consideration when Americans vote.
Obama makes it up as he goes along.
There is a lot of baggage out there that needs to be checked - we can not have the cheering crowds elect our President.

CLASSICAL UK STATION
CLASSICAL UK STATION
Dear Mister Barack “Barry” Hussain bin O’BoomBox (nee: Obama):

In the course of your many pedantic diatribe you tend to reiterate a supposed disparity towards the Bush Administration and the United States of America. Due to the miracle of the Internet I listen constantly - with digital quality - to classical music from a station in London England which on the Fourth of July will celebrate our "Independence Day". In my many months listening to this wonderful source of music never have I heard a dispirited word, phrase or comment directed against anything American. That said, my request of you is to cease further any reference from unnamed foreign sources that speak poorly of the greatness of my country. There is nothing respectful from spreading false rumor.

Sincerely;
REILLY ACE OF SPIES

20/20 hindsight
Got to love the folks who suggest the strategy was wrong to begin with in Iraq.

Obama and the democrats, especially those like Hillary who warned that Hussein was a danger, wanted to say we told you it couldn't work. The republicans especially those who warned that to large a force would appear to the people of the region as an occupying force would still be sitting on their thumbs complaining about S. Hussein.

God bless the people of Iraq for standing up for their right to vote when it could have cost them. God bless those who stood in lines to become part of the Iraq security forces when it was costing them their lives. Thank God to our troops who've helped teach the Iraqis that liberty is worth fighting for.

Obama's lack of judgment.
Mr. Obama has absolutely no knowledge about national security, and yet he's a US Senator and Presidential candidate. I don't agree with the comment about "Outline" function or this or that. Mr. Obama clearly lost his bet.

An Overview
Mr.Obama originally stated, that the troops would be removed in 16 months.In his most recent efforts to "Refine" that position, he has decided to take into account the reviews of the officers on the ground.Everyone who is knowledgeable,knows that the primary is an "Outline" function.The general election is set aside for more specific argument.The "Troops" will be removed from Iraq regardless.Why?By making a commitment to end the war,Mr.Obama gained "Political Capital" in the Islamic world,which he will not "WASTE".America should be very careful about Iraq,it will determine our future position in the WORLD.

Look in the mirror
Most of us used poor judgment in selecting our Nat'l leaders & compound the error by re-electing 'em.Obambi is even less a strategic thinker than "W" is.To date,his poor judgment on many issues is fair warning of what's to come.Lord help us if the country is stupid enough (we are!) to elect him.
Our troops fought brilliantly,but military/civilian leaders were clueless regarding the aftermath.NONE understood the muslim mindset or the historical bloodfeuds that were to come.

I will
believe Obama's "Change" of heart regarding the battle of Iraq when pigs fly.

Flip Flop
This is a telling quotation: "...the freshman senator is not so sure of his judgment...." And, neither are we.

WHAT MADE THE SURGE NECESSARY?
Apparently, 2003 - 2007 never happened, judging by Donald Lambro's assessment that "the remarkable developments occurring in Iraq since President Bush implemented the surge strategy -- a bold gambit that has proven all of the defeatists wrong, strengthened Iraq's fledgling democracy and given Iraqi citizens new hope for a better life."

Fact is, Pres. Bush's "bold gambit" surge was a desperate attempt to stave off "the consequences of defeat" staring Pres. Bush and the nation in the face, because of the following:

Senator John McCain for four years repeatedly criticized Donald Rumsfeld for conducting a "terrribly mismanaged" war, and Pres. Bush still stood by his inept Secretary of Defense til the end.

Rich Lowry, Town Hall columnist and editor of the conservative National Review last October, severely criticized Pres. Bush and his team when Lowry wrote: "The U.S. Government has never brought to bear its resources in a truly national effort to win (the Iraq War)" *

Mitt Romney, during a Republican candidates' debate earlier this year, declared that after a "brilliant" start. the Iraq War was "undermanaged, underprepared, underplanned and undsertaffed." This, although Pres. Bush had five months to prepare for the conflict

Town Hall columnist Cliff May on March 20, assessing he conduct of the Iraq War wrote: "The result of so many errors and misjudgments was catastrophic."

Veterans for Freedom's Pete Hegseth, quoted in Kathryn Jean Lopez Town Hall column last September, could not understand why Pres. Bush had not enlisted "the best and brightest to serve on the battlefield" in this "extremely important war."

Had Pres. Bush honored his pledges made in Oct. 2002 to "plan carefully" and to employ the full might of the military when he took the nation to war in 2003, the surge would not have been necessary in 2007.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.