The text of President Obama’s Iraq speech from last night is here. The parts that most interested me were, first, the idea of ‘time to turn the page’. Merely my view, of course, but it seems to me (along with practically all the other critics of the speech, to be sure) an ambiguous and ambivalent formulation aimed at avoiding having to address the question of victory or loss, among other things. But also of a piece with other terms important in the Obama administration’s foreign policy – particularly “multilateralism” and “engagement.” Like ‘turning the page’, they are susceptible of multiple meanings, addressed to multiple audiences, and the strategic ambiguity that elides certain difficult questions.
‘Strategic ambiguity’ is not without its uses; it is likewise not without its abuses. We tend to think of it in relation to things like nuclear standoff or a deliberately introduced uncertainty on the part of a regulator like the Fed. Used in a somewhat different way, it can be applied to deliberately ambiguous formulations such as the “one China” formulation that allowed mainland China and Taiwan each to claim legitimacy as “the” government and, in that peculiar circumstance, find a formulation that avoided a showdown that might lead to war. The problem, of course, is that such linguistic ambiguities become unstable as geopolitical circumstances shift.
To the extent that one can generalize about such things, I’d say that where ambiguity is the predominant part of the usage – that is, the ability to elide is the predominant strategic use – then at least a procedural flag should go up as to whether the use of ambiguity advances ends other than having to avoid hard questions. Hard questions for which one might pay at compound rates of trouble down the road. In other words, the question that needs to be asked at that point is whether the reach to ambiguity serves some reason other than having to answer the hard questions, and how good that reason is.
I’ve just completed a short book manuscript for the Hoover Institution Press on US-UN relations and the problems of ambiguity raised by the Obama administration’s appeal to “multilateral engagement.” Having written a sharp critique of the administration’s use of those concepts to avoid, in my estimation, certain hard questions, I have been slightly dismayed at the reaction of some of my friends in the EU reading the manuscript – they are one step ahead of me, and simply don’t believe the Obama administration means anything fixed by anything it says. In their view, my no-doubt brilliant manuscript is boring because it takes the Obama administration’s invocations of all these slogans such as multilateralism and engagement seriously. They think it is ammo expended on a shadow target, because they don’t think the administration means anything in particular by anything it says in its foreign policy. There’s no serious interlocutor with which a conservative commenter can debate – on this view from EU friends of mine who are all, without exception, European left wing social democrats.
When I ask why, if this is so, a US presidential administration would not be interested in staking out serious – even if, in my view, seriously wrong – foreign policy positions, the answer is, in some sense, reflected in President Obama’s speech last night – hence, my second interest in it. Commenters have noted, some with puzzlement, as to why the domestic economy figured in this speech. Seen through a domestic policy lens, it’s obvious – Americans, with upcoming elections, are worried about the domestic economy, and this foreign stuff, even when it is a major war, is merely a side-show and distraction from the domestic agenda that is, at bottom, both what American voters care about and what the Obama administration has always truly cared about, even if those two have sharply divergent views as to what the domestic policies should be, to judge by the polls.
Seen through a foreign policy lens, however, the answer is somewhat the same, but emphasizes a different point. That point is that the Obama administration proposes that the United States should embark on an extended period of in-turned focus upon its domestic issues but that, seen from the standpoint of the rest of the world, friend and foe alike, it looks very much like America wants a good, long, global nap. I’m a conservative critic of this whole idea; I don’t think that would work out very well for the United States, for our friends and allies, or really for anyone – including many of our enemies, active and passive – who rely on the US for the provision of certain basic public goods in both global security and the global economy.
But I would say that the way in which the President linked the foreign and domestic policies in last night’s speech – ambiguous, to be sure, but that, from this perspective, is part of the problem – is a modest indication of the Obama administration’s overall global strategic view that “multilateral engagement” is a rhetorical term for “American strategic withdrawal.” Your results may differ, of course, and I have no doubt that for many, they do. One could argue, of course, that the Obama speech was purely about the Iraq war, and a withdrawal from it, and not a larger withdrawal in a strategic sense; I understand that, though on balance I don’t think I’d agree.
gab says:
Perhaps rather than approaching the speech as a critic, if you approached the speech taking Obama at his word, you’d have a better understanding.
“Turning the page” doesn’t seem all that difficult a concept. Time to move on. Time to go from combat operations to, well, not combat operations. Time to get the ‘eff out. After all, it’s been seven and a half years, 4400 plus lives lost, 35,000 plus wounded. Seems pretty clear to me. How long do you and your “social-democrat” EU friends propose we stay and fight?
And why is addressing victory or loss important or even relevant? We went in with the idea of ferreting out weapons of mass destruction. We did that – or did we? But whether we did or didn’t find any, the fact that there are no longer WMD’s seems to be a victory, so you can call what we did in Iraq a victory, right?
And a “good, long global nap?” So our engagement in Afghanistan would be of a piece with that logic? Meeting with Netanyahu in an attempt to start some kind of negotiations in the middle east is part of a “global nap?”
And, as for your friends in the EU, who have been on a 60 year global nap, why would you take anything they have to say on the issue of US foreign engagement seriously?
September 1, 2010, 2:01 pmAllan Walstad says:
Whatever Obama’s intentions, I certainly would not equate a less interventionist foreign policy (i.e., more like the Founders envisioned) as a “global nap.” And I suggest that the US has permitted other nations, most notably Germany and Japan which were major powers, to mooch off us with regard to security rather than step up to hold their own in their own regions.
As far as Iraq is concerned, there was no legitimate military mission and there is no “victory.” We caused a lot of pain to them and to ourselves. Just get out.
September 1, 2010, 2:01 pmUgh says:
Isn’t the answer terribly obvious?
September 1, 2010, 2:09 pmHarold Day says:
Epimetheus only knows what Obama means by “multilateral engagement,” which sounds like a polygonous tryst of squares having a rhombus when he says it.
September 1, 2010, 2:14 pmChrisTS says:
I assume that ‘turning the page’ also refers to forgetting about the conduct of the Bush/Cheney administration.
September 1, 2010, 2:14 pmt1 says:
“an ambivalent formulation aimed at avoiding having to address the question of victory or loss, among other things.”
It doesn’t appear that you have thought about these issues in any substantive way.
What would “victory” look like? A fully functioning western democracy that has about the same level of graft and corruption of the US? What if there are ongoing attacks that kill citizens in Iraq? Is that a defeat? (Keeping in mind that a number of Americans are killed by Americans every year for purposes of comparison.)
I guess you were looking for someone to land on an aircraft carrier beneath a “Mission Accomplished” banner or something. Unfortunately that level of idiotic simplicity is now commonplace in our political discourse – but serious people should avoid it.
September 1, 2010, 2:19 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Let me get this straight: A national politician (the highest, in our case) makes a speech to the entire nation (known to be listened to by the entire world community) about war between nations, etc., and you propose approaching the speech by taking the speaker purely at his word to get the best understanding of it?
Forgive me if I consider this approach to be incredibly foolish. (And, to be clear, I mean this in a very non-partisan way.)
September 1, 2010, 2:20 pmHouston Lawyer says:
I question the logic of making a nationally televised speech when you really have nothing to say.
September 1, 2010, 2:22 pmCheckEnclosed says:
Right now the US has so many combat troops & other assets deployed that we lack strategic flexibility. A potential bad guy may look at our current commitments & think it unlikely that the US would commit to military action elsewhere — hardly a deterrent — while each day of extended deployment hurts both retention and recruitment in the armed forces.
Were we to bring those forces home, we would have the ability to respond to more threats, and with that ability, we could deter more activity that we don’t like — while each day we would have more troops who were trained by officers and non-coms with real combat experience — whose retention could increase as the reaped the rewards that always come with having combat expereince in a peacetime army.
This would not be “taking a nap”. (Although it might not be what our current administration has in mind, either.)
September 1, 2010, 2:24 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Precisely the reason why ambiguity in political speech(es) is such a great tool – one which Obama is particularly skilled at utilizing: It means whatever you want it to mean.
September 1, 2010, 2:25 pmfred says:
I agree with Ken Anderson’s concerns in the post with a minor quibble as to that global snore idea. Don’t forget Obama and Dems’ wont to sleeprun toward global transnational green engagement, in the interests of “securing”
September 1, 2010, 2:31 pmthe worldcontrol.JDW says:
What conduct would that be?
September 1, 2010, 2:34 pmJDW says:
I would think “victory” would look like creating an environment that provides sufficient conditions for the Iraqi people to establish a representative democracy. I don’t think many people actually dispute that that has happened…and apparently neither does Obama.
September 1, 2010, 2:36 pmDebrah says:
“Seen through a foreign policy lens, however, the answer is somewhat the same, but emphasizes a different point. That point is that the Obama administration proposes that the United States should embark on an extended period of in-turned focus upon its domestic issues but that, seen from the standpoint of the rest of the world, friend and foe alike, it looks very much like America wants a good, long, global nap.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The obvious thread of ambiguity running through Obama’s foreign policy strategies—not to mention his choppy “address” last evening—is a manifestation of his view that the Iraq war and the Israeli-Palestinian issues are just regular items on a long list of “things to do”.
Obama has proven that he has no strong desire to ensure the United States’ dominance in the world.
And his lack of warmth toward Israel—snubbing Bibi was his initial Muslim placation strategy—cannot be eclipsed with current photo-ops.
A column from George Will a few weeks ago explored the topic of Obama’s curious mindset.
Provocative, yet undeniable.
“Netanyahu, his focus firmly on Iran, honors Churchill because he did not flinch from facts about gathering storms. Obama returned to the British Embassy in Washington the bust of Churchill that was in the Oval Office when he got there.”
On a lighter note Maureen Dowd illuminates how terribly out-of-touch Obama is and the sheer cluelessness with which he conducts himself as the leader of the free world…..
…….and of a country whose economy is in the tank.
It’s always amusing to watch an ultra-Leftist from humble beginnings morph into a chichi cosmopolitan elitist.
This special brand of detachment can only be produced by an ever-expectant, taxpayer-funded career.
September 1, 2010, 2:41 pmJoseph Slater says:
All these interpretations, in which Obama shows by this phrase his incompetence, evil-ness, or even “chichi cosmopolitan elitist”-ness, are mighty convincing.
Equally plausible, though, is that he might just be a big Bob Seeger fan.
September 1, 2010, 2:47 pmJDW says:
Equally plausible? I think you are underestimating the plausibility of your interpretation.
September 1, 2010, 2:51 pmKamal says:
“One could argue, of course, that the Obama speech was purely about the Iraq war, and a withdrawal from it, and not a larger withdrawal in a strategic sense”
I’m a strong Obama supporter, and I don’t get why you think we would disagree with this. We elected this man to halt the imperialism that Bush/Cheney pushed for. I do wish that Obama was less polite in his speech towards Bush. Being president, it’s hard to speak the truth that the former president lied to get us to go to war, and that we accomplished *nothing* we set out to accomplish. There were no nuclear weapons, we didn’t change the region, and we have still had to fight enemies at home. We lost the war insofar as the public explanation for it goes. If there was a private agenda Bush/Cheney had, then maybe that succeeded.
September 1, 2010, 2:51 pmAnderson says:
What a strange post. Obama suggests that maybe land wars in Asia are not the best use of taxpayers’ money, and this is supposed to indicate global unilateral withdrawal?
It seems pretty obvious that Obama prefers cheaper power-projection (diplomacy, sanctions, killer drones) to pointless, bloody occupations.
Prof. Anderson’s analysis could only benefit if he worked less hard to find *something* awful in whatever Obama says. Besides, I thought that was Jim Lindgren’s job.
September 1, 2010, 2:53 pmfred says:
JDW, maybe ChrisTS was referring to Frank and his page or Clinton’s turning the intern.
Checkenclosed makes a good point about our needing to pull back troops and refresh– I would add, while keeping certain hard-won and needed assets in theater, to include some troops and intel personnel. The problem with Obama’s choice of wording and subtext from not only his rhetoric but via his demeanor and priorities track record thus far is that the U.S. is, not will be, perceived as war weary and veering toward military isolationism.
How is this not the formula for more foreign actor adventurism, imperialism, power imbalances, WMD proliferation and terrorism?
September 1, 2010, 2:54 pmMichael B says:
file under: The Voluptuously Superficial Vision of Barack Obama
“… it seems to me (along with practically all the other critics of the speech, to be sure) an ambiguous and ambivalent formulation aimed at avoiding having to address the question of victory or loss, among other things.”
Indeed, among other things … Things such as the fact the war can responsibly be viewed as beginning with the first Gulf War, followed by no-fly zone regimes, followed by thwarted U.N. sanctions, followed by Clinton admin. officials, including Albright and Gore, among others populating the left/Dem side of the aisle, who warned of Saddam & Sons’ regional threat and potential for global destabilization, including prospects for WMD. (E.g, Twenty-nine Democratic senators voted for the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of Armed Force Against Iraq.) Or, things such as the human abottoir Saddam & Sons had been running, featuring all manner of (real) torture. Or, things such as Saddam’s funding of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. Or, Saddam giving refuge and aiding and abetting characters such as Abu Nidal and Abu al-Zarqawi, prior to 2003. Or, the fact that it was Senator Barack Obama who, on Jan. 31, 2007, introduced legislation to the floor of the Senate that would have undercut Bush’s and Petraeus’s surge strategy, had that legislation garnered sufficient support. Or, so many other things …
And now, given the nearly total absence of moral framing and proportion in his speech last night, we can wonder whether or not we have in fact incubated Iraqi democratic institutions for a sufficient period of time. Perhaps, perhaps not. But this is not the tragedy that was Vietnam, post-April, 1975; the stakes are rather higher, much higher.
September 1, 2010, 3:02 pmAnderson says:
How is this not the formula for more foreign actor adventurism, imperialism, power imbalances, WMD proliferation and terrorism?
How have the bad guys responsible for those things ever conditioned their bad acts on whether the U.S. looked “war weary” or whatever?
Or, to go for the even more obvious point: doesn’t our entanglement in Iraq and Afghanistan suggest to those bad guys that they can get away with more, because the U.S. is all tied up?
Sheesh.
September 1, 2010, 3:02 pmIran says:
I would like to thank Obama for not impeding our most peaceful nuclear industry and especially for his getting the terrorist Israel off our back with his personal “assurances.”
Sweet dreams, Barack baby.
September 1, 2010, 3:03 pmgab says:
Super Skeptic says:
Taking the comment in a manner I assume it was intended, and I mean in a very non-partisan way, I’ll respond in kind.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with thinking critically – but KA seemingly does nothing of the sort. Because of Anderson’s political leanings, he MUST absolutely disbelieve everything Obama says, as well as questioning his intentions. That is the opposite of thinking critically – it’s letting your biases inform your thinking and commentary. That was my point.
And secondly, would that Dr. Anderson have brought that same level of skepticism and critical thinking to our entry into the conflict! (Don’t know if he did or didn’t, hoping he would have, but doubt that he did.)
September 1, 2010, 3:09 pmfred says:
Commenter Anderson, no.
The world knows the the Dem WH and Congress are looking to transform the world here at home and don’t want to bother with sending troops anywhere except to disaster sites.
“War is Not the Answer” is ironed on in big white letters on their tees, along with a dove. Certainly, the world knows how most of today’s Democratic Party are expert in spinning insult and atrocity as justified or at least understandable and certainly not necessitating more “violence” (military action) in what would be an endless spiraling of blah blah.)
September 1, 2010, 3:13 pmAnderson says:
Gosh, Fred, that’s so … persuasive. Thanks for taking the time to write.
September 1, 2010, 3:25 pmBaseballhead says:
Putting aside the assertion that the speech had a “total absence of moral framing” — people, please — it’s a fair question as to whether this type of military action in fact exacerbates, prolongs, or introduces new, unanticipated dangers into situations we’re supposedly solving. Case in point, look at Vietnam today, a stable, peaceful trading partner to the United States. Even taking a shorter view, how many people in the DoD in 1975 expected newly merged Vietnam to be exchanging bullets with China less than five years later?
We should certainly be concerned about whether democratic Iraq survives post-2010, but let’s not pretend we all knew what we were doing before this day or that the people who disagreed with the previous actions on Iraq lack “moral framing”, or whatever.
September 1, 2010, 3:26 pmTamerlane says:
I have to agree with Gab that Obama might better have used the expression “move on” rather than “turn the page”. The former expression should resonate more with his base.
This administration has never taken foreign affairs seriously. The only apparent reason for appointing Hillary Clinton as Sec. of State was to put a woefully unprepared and vulnerable but dangerous political opponent in a position where she could catch flack for her and the President’s mistakes while allowing the President to get credit for whatever successes might occur. This was, perhaps, brilliant Chicago-style politics but it also showed a shocking indifference to this country’s foreign policy interests.
Based on Ms. Clinton’s utter absence of foreign policy experience and her administrative ineptitude (as demonstrated in the Clinton health care fiasco and an incompetent presidential run) the grotesque foreign policy failures of this administration, e.g., the Malvinas fumble and follow-on UK Foreign Office’s official repudiation of the “special relationship”, the failure to reign in Iran and North Korea, the continuing series of debacles in Latin America, etc., seem to me tragically inevitable.
September 1, 2010, 3:27 pmHouston Lawyer says:
Actually, just the opposite. Just ask Khadaffi.
September 1, 2010, 3:28 pmMichael B says:
Baseballhead,
I specifically stated, the “nearly total absence of moral framing and proportion in his speech,” and the allusion was to the background that was also sketched out, providing some detail, in addition to that incubation period referred to – i.e. the future. That was the moral framing and proportion referred to, that was almost entirely lacking.
As to this: “Case in point, look at Vietnam today, a stable, peaceful trading partner to the United States,” it would seem you avoided the link I provided, as I was referring to the roughly 800,000 lives lost. Or, where do you place those 800,000 lives? In the memory hole, for the sake of convenience? Again (people, please), a more substantive reply wherein some continuity of thought, some coherence and cogency, is offered, would be helpful.
(I don’t wish to argue Vietnam, it serves and is intended as a point of reference, a salient reminder of immense tragedy – no matter that it can so easily and so readily be placed in the memory hole.)
September 1, 2010, 3:46 pmJack says:
I, for one, thought you were kidding. Who are the “bad guys”? You think our having a forward projection of forces in the ME and SW Asia (and East Asia) doesn’t inhibit certain state and non-state “bad stuff”, and I have a magic bean for you.
September 1, 2010, 3:53 pmleo marvin says:
Your devotion to all things Michigan is shameless.
September 1, 2010, 3:57 pmJoseph Slater says:
I plead guilty, although a true Michigan afficiando would note that I accidentally misspelled Seger’s last name. Should have been only two “e”s total.
And personally, I’m hoping Obama goes for a more modern, White Stripes reference in his next major speech.
September 1, 2010, 4:04 pmBaseballhead says:
No, I addressed this indirectly, but I’ll do so more directly here: We have no idea what would have happened if we hadn’t intervened, and there’s a pretty convincing argument to be made that many of those 800,000 lives were lost because they had spent the previous few years actively helping the United States. Again, we can’t know if major military intervention exacerbates or prolongs bloodshed, or if introduces new, unanticipated dangers into an already unstable situation. For all we know, if the U.S. hadn’t gone in, we’d be looking at a lot smaller number of deaths, and Vietnam would still be where it is today.
As to the moral framing and proportion… well, I’m not sure exactly what you were hoping to hear. If you don’t agree with Obama’s approach to Iraq, it wasn’t going to happen for you.
September 1, 2010, 4:07 pmAnderson says:
You think our having a forward projection of forces in the ME and SW Asia (and East Asia) doesn’t inhibit certain state and non-state “bad stuff”
Sounds like you’re thinking he can move our armies from “Afghanistan” to “China” during the movement round, but this is not a game of Risk.
Leaving aside, has anyone heard that we are abandoning/dismantling our bases in Iraq or Afghanistan? I haven’t.
September 1, 2010, 4:11 pmMichael B says:
Baseballhead – as previously noted, some continuity of thought, some comprehension, some relevancy to what was actually stated, some cogency – would have been helpful. But, you did avoid mere name calling. That’s something. Though this is obtuse: “… many of those 800,000 lives were lost because they had spent the previous few years actively helping the United States.” They were helping themselves, Einstein.
September 1, 2010, 4:30 pmAllan Walstad says:
Anderson
I’d make a similar point, with the proviso that “bad guys” might be a bit simplistic. Here we are losing thousands of troops killed, tens of thousands wounded, and throwing away — what? –a cool trillion or two on these Mideast misadventures, and going deep into debt (most notably to the Chinese); meanwhile, formerly great powers, now stable democracies like Germany and Japan are leaning on us for security. What’s it look like from China and Russia, the more despotic of the significant powers? I think it looks quite realistically like the US has bit off more than it can chew, that it is on its way into the bankruptcy that empire inevitably causes (Ron Paul has that one right), and that there will be no one to stand in the way of their military ambitions in a few years.
September 1, 2010, 4:41 pmfred says:
Goodness, our way left of center commenters here seem to be insinuating we should withdraw from the ME and SW Asia so as to engage militarily with China and Russia, need be, because they’re “bad guys” for purposes of their pro-Obama pullout and anti-Bush Iraq and Afghanistan wars argument today.
But not now in y’all’s wildest dreams are we gonna hot war with them, absent them inventing the Doomsday Machine, and even then War Will Not Be the Answer (TM), with your full-throated concurrence.
Add: our presence in current theaters is serving, at least obliquely, to check and check up on certain Russian and Chinese activity. Not a thoroughly perfect rationale for remaining past any mission statement, though.
September 1, 2010, 4:59 pmBaseballhead says:
Eye of the beholder, etc.
How’d it work out for them? And for us? And more to the point, despite our utter failure and their tragic and brutal deaths, decades later Vietnam has managed to mature into a stable, peaceful state without (and in spite of) our help.
You worry that the incubation period for the Iraqi democracy wasn’t enough. I worry about that, too. I’m just saying that I’m not sure our helping actually helps. I wrote in this thread that I believe things are out of our hands now, that we’re past the point where the US can significantly dictate the success or failure of Iraq’s government.
A lot of people want to make comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam. In the long run, we would be very lucky to have Iraq turn out like Vietnam.
September 1, 2010, 5:02 pmwfjag says:
And Darfur qualified as what? Funny how it disappeared on Jan. 20, 2009. Guess that page got turned back then.
September 1, 2010, 5:33 pmChrisTS says:
Translation, please.
September 1, 2010, 5:56 pmChrisTS says:
fred says:
As this is about me, I really would like a translation. Who is Frank? What does the Clinton/what’s-her-name scandal have to do with Bush/Cheney?
September 1, 2010, 6:07 pmArthur Kirkland says:
President Obama was elected, in large part, to steer our country away from the disastrous course charted by his predecessor, and to try to clean up the messes. The people who supported the invasion and attempted occupation of Iraq should apologize and thank him for dealing sensibly with an American-made clustermuck in Iraq; if they lack the character to do that, they should reflect upon the price (paid primarily others) for their folly and have the decency to remain quiet.
September 1, 2010, 6:46 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Will you be happier if he attacks the wrong country soon? How about if he botches an invasion?
Would you settle for torture, kidnapping and other immoral lawlessness?
September 1, 2010, 6:49 pmArthur Kirkland says:
I guess the arrival of David Addington at the Heritage Foundation should have made it less surprising to behold the nearly boundless conservative appetite for ideologically driven failure.
September 1, 2010, 6:53 pmAllan Walstad says:
Agreed, Arthur. So where are we 1.5 years into his presidency? 50,000 troops in Iraq, supposedly “non-combat,” and MORE troops sent to Afghanistan. Do you have so much as a single word of criticism for Obama or any other Democrat, or is it all about Dems good, Repubs bad? Frankly, I don’t see more than a dime’s worth of difference in performance. If President Obama actually believed candidate Obama’s rhetoric (and I mean the Obama who stole the Dem nomination from Hillary by outflanking her on the anti-war side), and if he wasn’t just another crass pol, he would have pulled the plug on day 1.
September 1, 2010, 8:19 pmArthur Kirkland says:
We have a command structure that seems disinclined to launch military assaults against the wrong targets; that alone is enormous progress. Until Obama initiates an immoral, costly, counterproductive military strike, there will be far, far more than a dime’s difference in performance.
The decision to escalate the folly in Afghanistan appears to have been a substantial mistake by President Obama. We appear destined to end our expedition to Afghanistan even more distant from anything approaching “victory” or even “acceptable” than we have in Iraq, limiting the most likely consequences of escalation to more pointless death and destruction, more money squandered, more opportunity for expanded failure.
September 1, 2010, 9:28 pmrpt says:
Nostalgia for Rice?
September 1, 2010, 9:30 pmMark Field says:
Pretty hard to argue with this, sad to say.
September 1, 2010, 9:31 pmrpt says:
He must be talking about Frank Gaffney….who is certainly turned around.
September 1, 2010, 9:32 pmleo marvin says:
You equate being too slow navigating out of a dangerous situation with getting into it in the first place?
September 1, 2010, 9:41 pmAllan Walstad says:
No “navigation” required, leo. Just get out. That’s what candidate Obama, back when he was running for the nomination, led the left-liberal Dem base to believe would happen.
September 1, 2010, 9:45 pmAllan Walstad says:
Ok, you stepped up. Kudos.
September 1, 2010, 9:47 pmArthur Kirkland says:
No stepping required, professor. Was in that spot already.
(I hope I am wrong about this, and that the longshot chance that this could turn out well is realized. It also is possible the decision could be ascribed, in part, to bad military or intelligence advice. At the moment, however, it lines up as an ugly mistake that belongs to Pres. Obama.)
September 1, 2010, 10:10 pmleo marvin says:
Then I guess I’m not the left-liberal Dem base, because that isn’t what I was led to believe. In fact what he’s done is, within a fair margin of error, pretty much exactly what I heard him promise to do. Which isn’t to say it’s what I would do, but that’s a different question.
September 1, 2010, 10:13 pmMark says:
He is bracing the public for the eventuality of things going south in Iraq.
We are not going back. Period. The listen to the language about who is responsible for what happens in Iraq from now on.
September 1, 2010, 10:27 pmArthur Kirkland says:
I agree that we’re not going back while Pres. Obama is calling the shots. Not so sure about a Republican president.
September 1, 2010, 10:52 pmrpt says:
Each Issa investigation will of necessity go back into the Bush-Cheney years, unlike the D investigations of 2007 into the prior six years of the B-C regime.
September 1, 2010, 11:43 pmrpt says:
Agreed. One of the main problems of Iraq, and a linkage which KA disregards, is that there was a terrible financial price to deficit funding the war of the books in the most fiscally irresponsible way. Provide basic public goods to the domestic economy before worrying about the global economy.
September 1, 2010, 11:47 pmrpt says:
Perhaps the sacrifices of the troops, taxpayers and Iraqis are meaningless to you.
September 1, 2010, 11:49 pmrpt says:
And he follows eight years of the crown prince and king of taxpayer-funded detachment.
September 1, 2010, 11:52 pmrpt says:
File under the complete error of almost everything in this post. The mass fabricated hysteria over the war was no less hysterical because many Democrats partook in it.
September 1, 2010, 11:58 pmSarcastro says:
My telepathy tells me Obama doesn’t really care about those either, so they don’t count.
September 2, 2010, 12:02 amrpt says:
Ah, telepathy. Another quality of a USSC nominee.
September 2, 2010, 12:21 amSarcastro says:
shush! You’ll blow my cover!
September 2, 2010, 12:30 amMorat20 says:
I personally belive every incoming US President should be required to throw a dart at a map, then invade whatever country it lands on. He’s allowed “do-overs” if the country in question has nukes or a modern Army or is technically one of those ‘ally’ thingies.
At the very least he should be required to bomb them.
How else can he be taken as a Serious Foreign Policy Person if he hasn’t bombed someone in some hell-hole no one’s heard of?
September 2, 2010, 12:35 amnhertel says:
CheckEnclosed, that’s not how the global malcontents look at our forces. Our military isn’t hurting or tired, we have healthy numbers and stockpiled materiel. Our forces have always been well-trained but, most importantly, Iraq and Afghanistan have put our officers and senior enlisted through the real deal. We have spent a decade perfecting ways to deploy the newest technologies in support of the battle and developing newer arms and armor. Far from being tied down and stretched thin, we’re well-trained, healthy and tested like we’ve never been before.
September 2, 2010, 9:29 amMark says:
Nevertheless that person is not going to be in office for about 3 years. If he is going to convince the Iraqis that he is serious he must make this statement. Over there what is said on private is not considered set in stone until it is repeated in public. This was a message for them too. They deserve the certainty of knowing they are working without a net.
I do not think he was intending to set any global promises of non-intervention with this, but it would be unwise to announce that no matter what happens in Iraq we will not be doing anything about it either.
September 2, 2010, 3:23 pmBenjamin Davis says:
OK I get it. There is something happening here, but what it is ain’t exactly clear. Don’t buffalo me with this analysis.
September 3, 2010, 3:19 pmBest,
Ben