http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/07/04/why-do-we-remain-in-iraq/ n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:15:32 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/07/04/why-do-we-remain-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-12064 Eunomia » It Is A Big Deal Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:14:08 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/07/04/why-do-we-remain-in-iraq/#comment-12064 [...] Quite right, as I was saying the other day.  Crowley continues later in his post: This still begs the questions of what Obama would do about those “more volatile areas.” He says here that he would withdraw from them “later.” Just how much later is the key question.  [...] [...] Quite right, as I was saying the other day.  Crowley continues later in his post: This still begs the questions of what Obama would do about those “more volatile areas.” He says here that he would withdraw from them “later.” Just how much later is the key question.  [...]

]]> http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/07/04/why-do-we-remain-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-12015 Eunomia » Practical Problems Fri, 04 Jul 2008 20:55:04 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/07/04/why-do-we-remain-in-iraq/#comment-12015 [...] While I think the latest remarks did indicate some change in position, it is worth remembering that Samantha Power had already said that the 16-month timetable was a “best-case scenario.”  That had occurred back around the same time as the Goolsbee/NAFTA business, which overshadowed it, and since Power was no longer formally associated with the campaign the remarks did not create that many waves.  In the heat of the Clinton v. Obama contest, journalists were inclined not to dwell on this acknowledgement that the timetable was ultimately meaningless.  If the timetable is meaningless, and withdrawal is contingent on the stability of Iraq, the withdrawal can and will be deferred for many years.  There is a reason why war supporters are happy with Obama’s recent remarks, and it is not purely a matter of partisan spin, just as there was a reason why neoconservatives were very excited by his Council of Global Affairs speech last year and his AIPAC audience was very excited by his remarks about Jerusalem.  They can detect concessions to their position, even if his starry-eyed supporters cannot.  So I suppose you can count me as one of those who never thought much of Obama’s position on Iraq, so for me these latest remarks just confirm that his earlier position was as unattractive as I thought it was.   [...] [...] While I think the latest remarks did indicate some change in position, it is worth remembering that Samantha Power had already said that the 16-month timetable was a “best-case scenario.”  That had occurred back around the same time as the Goolsbee/NAFTA business, which overshadowed it, and since Power was no longer formally associated with the campaign the remarks did not create that many waves.  In the heat of the Clinton v. Obama contest, journalists were inclined not to dwell on this acknowledgement that the timetable was ultimately meaningless.  If the timetable is meaningless, and withdrawal is contingent on the stability of Iraq, the withdrawal can and will be deferred for many years.  There is a reason why war supporters are happy with Obama’s recent remarks, and it is not purely a matter of partisan spin, just as there was a reason why neoconservatives were very excited by his Council of Global Affairs speech last year and his AIPAC audience was very excited by his remarks about Jerusalem.  They can detect concessions to their position, even if his starry-eyed supporters cannot.  So I suppose you can count me as one of those who never thought much of Obama’s position on Iraq, so for me these latest remarks just confirm that his earlier position was as unattractive as I thought it was.   [...]

]]>