July 16, 2008

Can Senator Obama Avoid His Iraq Trap?

By Ray Robison
One of the most persistent and pernicious myths about the Iraq War, proffered by leading Democrats and propelled by the media, is the accusation that the President and his top aides  "won't listen to the generals." Both President Bush and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld were tainted by this fallacious narrative.

If you need proof of that then read this interview
from October 12th, 2002 conducted by New York Times reporters Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt. The journalists told Secretary Rumsfeld that the initial press reports about Rumsfeld not listening were incorrect and that they could not find a single senior officer who disagreed substantially with the plan for the war.

Not least among the purveyors of this myth is Senator Barack Obama who told a crowd at the Chicago History Museum last March that he would "listen to the generals" where President Bush had not, preferring instead to push dissenters aside. The reference he makes to pushing generals out includes the former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Shinseki, whom leading Democrats and media pundits claim was "fired" or "forced into retirement". This despite the fact that he finished his four year tenure and retired just as his last three predecessors had done. 

Now Barack Obama has detailed his plan for not listening to the generals in a statement before his upcoming visit to Iraq. He has reaffirmed his commitment to an arbitrary 16 month time-table for withdrawing combat troops. Yet he also claims he will listen to the generals. The two positions are not congruent if the generals tell him that such a time-table is a mistake. All evidence points to the fact that they will do just that.

Even a press which has been deemed by many to be gaga for Obama will likely report what Gen. Petraeus, the outgoing senior commander in theater and General Odierno, his replacement will advise. And that will be to not set an arbitrary date certain. They won't point out directly that Obama is doing exactly what he has charged Bush with doing, but anyone paying attention will know.

So what will Senator Obama do? On the one hand he doesn't want to set up a situation in which he appears a hypocrite by ignoring their advice after making so much about the value of it. To do so might satisfy his extreme left base, the MoveOn.org crowd which sees the war as immoral and doesn't care what promises have to be broken to get out of Iraq. It won't matter to them that Obama is doing exactly what they charged the Bush Administration with doing since even before the war.

But for the political center it will matter. Recent polls show that above all other government institutions the military is respected and trusted. Petraeus is seen by the majority of Americans as a real, live hero. MoveOn.org found that out the hard way when a move to vilify Petraeus was met with a powerful backlash. However, Petraeus is the outgoing commander having been reassigned to take over CENTCOM later this year in a nearly unanimous Senate vote.

Will Obama claim a special dispensation from his own critique of the Bush Administration because of a public mandate? It is possible, but the mood on the Iraq War is shifting. Many maintain that the anti-Iraq War sentiment grew not out of a shift in how Americans perceive the war on moral terms, but in practical terms. Many Americans gave up when it became clear to them that the war was doomed to failure.

But successes over the last year are starting to move the public back to a more supportive stance for winning at this point, even if they have not shifted much on turning against the original reasons for the toppling of Saddam. Simply put, they would rather we hadn't done it in the first place but since we did, and victory is now achievable, they would just as soon we win it.

They are turning around slowly for good reason. In the first half of July '08, four servicemen have died due to hostile action in Iraq. By comparison, in mid-July '07 that number was 30. That's an 87% drop. 

Another way for Obama to keep from tripping into his own trap carries great risk. Petraeus' replacement has already been the target of the fringe left for not being cerebral enough and appearing the brute because of his overbearing size and aggressive warfighting command style. General Ray Odierno, who was just granted a forth star and confirmed by the Senate, may well be Senator Obama's escape hatch.

Obama needs the generals to agree with him. Most likely, Odierno won't. So he would need to get rid of Odierno: bad luck for the general. Of course, Senator Obama can't fire Odierno, but he can unleash his surrogates against him to attack him in the court of public opinion -- just as Wesley Clark derided Senator McCain's military leadership experience. By vilifying Gen. Odierno, then Senator Obama could say that he intended to seek the counsel of the military leadership, but that his hand was forced by the General's own incompetence.

If this course is going to be followed, in the coming weeks we may see a mainstream media blitz to portray Gen. Odierno as the bad guy. And that would be a shame. The General has spent years in Iraq fighting to salvage this nation's position in the war on terror.

A victory in Iraq for al Qaeda would have swelled its ranks and reputation and the threat would have increased exponentially. Instead, al Qaeda fighters have been mostly defeated and remnants have been forced into an untenable position back in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. That's not where they want to be. Odierno had a large role in making that happen.

It would be the height of hubris for a politician with not a minute of high school ROTC under his belt to assert his military expertise over Odierno. General Odierno was just approved almost unanimously by the Senate. If/when Obama pursues this strategy, then Democrats in the Senate may not like having their judgment called into question for Obama's political expediency.  Will the Democrats in the Senate stand up for the Generals when it is their guy who is "not listening"?

Ray Robison is co-author of Both in One Trench.

Comments

as always, the media will just explain it as obama being "flexible". lately, all the liberal forums have been writing off his never ending back flips with simply stating he's being "flexible".

Dems defend the military?
That's like asking dems to be
honorable.
Waste of time.

How did Obama vote on approving General Odierno's fouth star?

I'm not sure the left will listen to anyone, much left Generals. I hope you consider:Obama's Left - A Trojan Horse (Donkey) Approaches Found at:
http://zachjonesishome.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/obama%e2%80%99s-left-a-trojan-horse-donkey-approaches/

Senator Obama would listen to Generals? I don't think so. Maybe long enough to get elected. I hope you will consider:Obama's Left - A Trojan Horse (Donkey) Approaches
Found at:
http://zachjonesishome.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/obama%e2%80%99s-left-a-trojan-horse-donkey-approaches/

Military families, particularly those who children serve, live in fear this man, the big O, will be elected. You will see mass exodus from the volunteer army if he is. For those of us who children still have commitments, from Academy or elistments, we will be on our knees praying for the safety for our loved ones.
Barrak is to be feared as he is a man small in knowledge and proud and vain. Those kind of men are the ones to be afraid of.


East Texas Rancher whose son is serving

'Will the Democrats in the Senate stand up for the Generals when it is their guy who is "not listening"?'
Of course they won't. They'll rally behind 'their guy' and throw the general under the bus

Military families, particularly those who children serve, live in fear this man, the big O, will be elected. You will see mass exodus from the volunteer army if he is. ..
East Texas Rancher whose son is serving Posted by: BevGunn | July 15, 2008 08:45 PM

Truer words were never spoken. Would you want your children to risk their lives for a country that throws a war for political reasons?

If this idiot is elected it's the end of the United States as we know it.

It's too bad that the first black candidate with a chance to be President is so unfit.

"How did Obama vote on approving General Odierno's fourth star?"

Short answer: HE DIDN'T.

Given Obama's voting record in the Senate, somebody should hang an "MIA Flag" on the front of his desk.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00172

Having failed to show us he's a "different kind of politician," is Obama trying to show us he'll be a "different kind of Commander in Chief?"

I say: Support the Troops. Vote McCain.

YES.

But he needs to lie more to his fans. Surely that's a hollywood tactic that has been proven so effective over time.

As a recently enlisted member of the U.S. Armed Services I can agree with previous comments, I truly dread the idea of Obama being elected president. He's never served his country (and no, political careers do not count as service) so he can not honestly possess the compassion, love, and sense of sacrifice needed to truly lead the country. Obama's own statements (not to mention votes...when he was there to actually vote) show that for him America is not the top priority.
Normally, I try not to be confrontational but I feel that the time has passed from trying to be polite and "politically correct". I once heard Dennis Miller say on Bill O'Reilly's show, "Taking the moral high ground gives you a great view of your own demise". I don't know if that's an original quote by him or not and if it's not I'd like to know who originally said it. I fear that the longer conservatives sit around and try and be "polite" and considerate, the more we seal our own defeat. So I'll say this... anyone who supports this man does so for four reasons;
a)because he or she is ignorant, uneducated and easily led
b)because they see Obama as the perfect advocate for their unpopular and dangerous views
c)because Obama is black and that's all that matters
d)because he or she hates Republicans/Conservatives...period
I have yet to find one Obama supporter who can actually voice any coherent understanding of Obama's position. They constantly try to justify his "flip-flopping" as being "not that bad" yet voice complete an unwavering faith in his desire for change and honesty. Whether we want to recognize it or not we are now in the battle of our times, a battle for this country's survival.

Remember:

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare"

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle"
Edmund Burke

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
Author: Not Readily Known

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke

Of course, he can get out of Iraq trap. He is a Dr. Spin after all. He can come up with all kinds of spins you and I can't think of. No matter what he says or refine, my deep blue state for him.

Here's everything you need to know about Obambi's principles...

Flip : Obama promised to filibuster the FISA bill to make sure it would not pass.
Flop: Obama has now voted for the FISA bill.

Flip: Obama promised to repeal the Patriot Act.
Flop: Obama has now voted for the Patriot Act.

Flip: On Iraq, Obama's website has stated ""Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."
Flop: Obama now says he will "continue to refine" his Iraq policy as events dictate.

Flip: Obama said he supported the DC handgun ban.
Flop: Obama now says he supports the Supreme Court decision striking down the DC handgun ban.

Flip: In Sept. 2007, Obama pledged to use public financing for his presidential election, even signing a promise to do so in a photo-op campaign stunt.
Flop: Obama has now reneged on his signed pledge.

Flip: Last year, after the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on late-term abortions, Obama said he "strongly disagreed" with the ruling because it "dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women."
Flop: Now, in opposition to pro-choice groups and "precedent", Obama says, "Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother."

Flip: In Jan. 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro."
Flop: Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in Aug. 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change."

Flip: During the primary, Obama was against naming Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
Flop: Obama now says that Iran's Revolutionary Guard should be labeled a terrorist organization.

Flip: Obama badmouthed those that wear an American flag lapel pin, saying "[lapel pins] became a substitute for - I think - true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest."
Flop: Obama now wears a flag pin daily.

Flip: In a speech to AIPAC, Obama stated that Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," to rousing applause from the 7,000-plus attendees at the policy conference. Flop : The very next day, Obama then clarified that he believes "Jerusalem is a final status issue", as part of "an agreement that they both can live with."

Flip: On 60 Minutes, Obama said "I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us, the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us."
Flop: A few months later, Obama says "Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's existence. It denies the Holocaust."

Flip: In a Mar. 2004 questionnaire, Obama was opposed to government crack downs on businesses that hire illegal immigrants.
Flop: In Jan. 2008, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."

Flip: In Jan. 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use.
Flop: In Oct. 2007, Obama said he opposes the decriminalization of marijuana.

When it comes to flip-flops and being a disingenuous liar, this a$$hole makes Kerry look like the Rock of Gibralter. I find it utterly infuriating and frightening that American society has degenerated to the point that a man this hollow and dangerous has been elected to the US Senate, MUCH LESS that he has a chance to become President. Unbelievable!

OK, Yobama said he will listen to the generals. He didn't say which generals.
So don't go jumping to conclusions.
Give the man some room. Under the bus.

Sigh. It's a lazy hazy morn in CA.

Success has a thousand fathers but failure is an orphan. Plenty of JFK style wisdom there. We are just entering the period wherein the Dems collectively are about to break their necks switching onto the winning side. It matters not (to them) that they have lied and slandered the better men (yes, that definitely includes Bush) who have conceived and prosecuted this revolution in human affairs. Their protestations for human rights and international order are shown to be the hollow mockery they always are. The Dems, to survive, must do as Barry has done: pull a 180 and claim they were headed this way all along. It is not as tough as you might think and for a simple reason; Bush/McCain and the neocons will help them. It makes me sick but historically we know it must happen. The happy collateral effect will be that the truly HARD Lefties will be out in the cold. For a bit. These pukes are never done.

To rvastar:
Way to sum it up. What's even more infuriating is the fact that none of what you posted is even that "secret" or clandestine. It's not like anyone had to break into DNC headquarters in a manner reminiscent of Mission Impossible and steal secret recordings of meetings where Obama contradicts himself. He's been blatant about it, open and completely unrepentant. Add to that the fact that it is all documented by the media and all that can be concluded is that those who still support him do so because they willfully refuse to see anything negative about him.

My comment is to BevGunn and Justin - thank you both for the sacrifice of service. Folks such as you deserve better than Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama states that on his first day in office he will give the generals a new mission. Should he become Commander-in Chief, that may be his duty or at least his prerogative, but how does that show any regard for their opinion at all. He will dictate first and listen second and that admission speaks volumes about his character, integrity, judgement and ability to perform politically expedient double-speak.

Obama's slogans to rise to stardom:

"Change we can believe".

"Judgment to lead".

"Yes, we can".

And all have been shown to be fraudulent. And especially "judgment to lead". When he has the courage to claim that, it shows that Obama's narcissism knows no bound.

Ah, look. The results are in. Following his visit to Iraq, Senator Obama appears to have become enlightened a bit as to the deficiencies of his previous policy. And he has changed. Right-wingers will be sure to convict him of "flip-flopping" in the court of the MSM. It is as if there is no possible way that a political candidate can ever change his mind on something once he is the recipient of additional facts to enlighten the matter. Of course, in my own experience, that isn't true. New facts cause me to change the way I think and act all the time. Construction along my regular route to work causes me to take a new route with less hassle. Cheaper diesel fuel at a gas station causes me to change where I shop. Sitting and watching the Bush administration destroy this country one policy at a time makes me regret that I didn't know enough about politics and policies to recognize a dangerous president when I saw one. It's not "flip-flopping"...it's simply getting smarter. The last thing the Republican party needs is to resort to more name-calling and childish mantras of "flip-flopping". Enough is enough...grow up.

@Tom Z.
Wow, how completely intellectually dishonest.

Newsday: "Bush's flip-flop on Iran is better late than never"

Daily Kos: "BUSH Flip-flops on IRAN Nuke talks "

democratic underground: "Bush flip flops on Iran and continues to follow Obama"

Slate: "Bush FLIP FLOPS on talks with Iran!!"

Oh that clever Karl Rove! How'd he get all this liberal democrats to cry flip-flp when Tom knows that only republicans use that charge.


To Geoff Gale:
Many thanks. I chose to do it because this is my home and this is my family's home, what more of a reason could anyone ask for...

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

at-store.gif