Page: 1 2 3 4 5
barrister
Knight of the Order
Global user
Registered: 10-2007
Posts: 2170
Karma: 16 (+30/-14)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's leaders support Obama's strategy.
That is not my opinion. It is the opinion of none other than that bastion of conservatism, The Washington Post. That's right, I said the POST, not the Times.
Mr. Obama in Iraq
Did he really find support for his withdrawal plan?
Wednesday, July 23, 2008; Page A14
THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy.
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of the dramatic turnaround in U.S. fortunes, "does not want a timetable," Mr. Obama reported with welcome candor during a news conference yesterday. In an interview with ABC, he explained that "there are deep concerns about . . . a timetable that doesn't take into account what [American commanders] anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions."
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki's timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama's. More significant, it would be "a timetable which Iraqis set" -- not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki "wants some flexibility in terms of how that's carried out."
Other Iraqi leaders were more directly critical. As Mr. Obama acknowledged, Sunni leaders in Anbar province told him that American troops are essential to maintaining the peace among Iraq's rival sects and said they were worried about a rapid drawdown.
Mr. Obama's response is that, as president, he would have to weigh Iraq's needs against those of Afghanistan and the U.S. economy. He says that because Iraq is "a distraction" from more important problems, U.S. resources devoted to it must be curtailed. Yet he also says his aim is to "succeed in leaving Iraq to a sovereign government that can take responsibility for its own future." What if Gen. Petraeus and Iraqi leaders are right that this goal is not consistent with a 16-month timetable? Will Iraq be written off because Mr. Obama does not consider it important enough -- or will the strategy be altered?
Arguably, Mr. Obama has given himself the flexibility to adopt either course. Yesterday he denied being "so rigid and stubborn that I ignore anything that happens during the course of the 16 months," though this would be more reassuring if Mr. Obama were not rigidly and stubbornly maintaining his opposition to the successful "surge" of the past 16 months. He also pointed out that he had "deliberately avoided providing a particular number" for the residual force of Americans he says would be left behind.
Yet Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/22/AR2008072202462.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
---
Tuitio Fidei et Obsequium Pauperum
|
|
7/23/2008, 12:45 pm
|
Send Email to barrister
Send PM to barrister
|
steveatl
Queen
Global user
Registered: 11-2007
Posts: 9114
Karma: -38 (+69/-107)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
…
Yes, the Post has conservative op ed columnists. We know that. I disagree with this op ed, however.
---
"McCAIN-PALIN: A BRIDGE TO NOWHERE"
One House One Spouse Obama 08!!!
|
|
7/23/2008, 12:49 pm
|
Send Email to steveatl
Send PM to steveatl
|
barrister
Knight of the Order
Global user
Registered: 10-2007
Posts: 2170
Karma: 16 (+30/-14)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: …
quote:
steveatl wrote:
Yes, the Post has conservative op ed columnists. We know that. I disagree with this op ed, however.
First of all this isn't an "op ed". It is the Washington Post editorial for the day. And we all know that the Washington Post is well known for its extremely liberal editorial columnists. And that's a fact Jack.
---
Tuitio Fidei et Obsequium Pauperum
|
|
7/23/2008, 12:52 pm
|
Send Email to barrister
Send PM to barrister
|
Corona69x
Boy Toy
Global user
Registered: 12-2007
Posts: 3529
Karma: -32 (+61/-93)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's leaders support Obama's strategy.
Well....I suppose we can just stay the course....and stay the course....and...well...stay the course.
--- 
The Iceman Commeth...this Saturday |
|
7/23/2008, 12:54 pm
|
Send Email to Corona69x
Send PM to Corona69x
|
llovejim
Blue Steel
Global user
Registered: 10-2007
Posts: 13669
Karma: 20 (+182/-162)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
…
What is the worst that could happen if we leave "too early" in Iraq? What is the worst that could happen if we leave Afghanistan? I am not sure why Afghanistan is any more strategic than Iraq, or exactly what it means to us if one or the other or both finds their own particular way to their own particular answer of who is going to be in control. If we know bin laden is not in Afghanistan, then why are we? Saudi Arabia is no more fundamentally flawed than Afghanistan was during the Taliban days, and yet we seemed content to let them fester their own brand of hate with the Wahhabi sect teaching and their being the most active supporters of worldwide terrorism, including al qaeda. Terrorist groups do not necessarily want to run things, they seem to just want to attack those in power. So who would rule Iraq and Afghanistan if we took a hike, and wouldn't any oil that is produced be put on the world market just like it is today? Bottom line, how would "losing" either country affect us all that much?
---  |
|
7/23/2008, 12:54 pm
|
Send Email to llovejim
Send PM to llovejim
ICQ
|
barrister
Knight of the Order
Global user
Registered: 10-2007
Posts: 2170
Karma: 16 (+30/-14)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
…
"The Washington Post editorial page is liberal, though more middle-of-the-road than that of the New York Times. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial
---
Tuitio Fidei et Obsequium Pauperum
|
|
7/23/2008, 12:55 pm
|
Send Email to barrister
Send PM to barrister
|
steveatl
Queen
Global user
Registered: 11-2007
Posts: 9114
Karma: -38 (+69/-107)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
…
First of all, this is DEFINITELY an opinion article.
Secondly, they have some conservative columnists. Generally, they are more centrist to liberal, yes.
---
"McCAIN-PALIN: A BRIDGE TO NOWHERE"
One House One Spouse Obama 08!!!
|
|
7/23/2008, 12:55 pm
|
Send Email to steveatl
Send PM to steveatl
|
barrister
Knight of the Order
Global user
Registered: 10-2007
Posts: 2170
Karma: 16 (+30/-14)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
…
Hmmmmmm, I think I hear cries of "heresy" when a disciple dares to question the Messiah.
---
Tuitio Fidei et Obsequium Pauperum
|
|
7/23/2008, 12:56 pm
|
Send Email to barrister
Send PM to barrister
|
barrister
Knight of the Order
Global user
Registered: 10-2007
Posts: 2170
Karma: 16 (+30/-14)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: …
quote:
steveatl wrote:
First of all, this is DEFINITELY an opinion article.
Secondly, they have some conservative columnists. Generally, they are more centrist to liberal, yes.
ALL editorials are "opinion articles". This one is not an "op ed", it is the Washington Post Editorial. You do know that "op ed" doesn't mean "opinion editorial" don't you?
---
Tuitio Fidei et Obsequium Pauperum
|
|
7/23/2008, 12:58 pm
|
Send Email to barrister
Send PM to barrister
|
llovejim
Blue Steel
Global user
Registered: 10-2007
Posts: 13669
Karma: 20 (+182/-162)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
…
I don't see no disciples 'round here...and no Messiah, that's for damn sure.
--- |
|
7/23/2008, 12:58 pm
|
Send Email to llovejim
Send PM to llovejim
ICQ
|
Add a reply
Page: 1 2 3 4 5
Powered by AkBBS 0.9.5b - Link to us
- Blogs
- Hall of Honour
- Chat
Click here to get your own free message board
|
You are not logged in (login)
Board's time is: 9/6/2008, 7:30 pm
|
|
|