Somewhere On The Horizon
Posted on July 19th, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
On the main blog, Leon Hadar notes the administration’s new “time horizon” language, and I agree with those who are saying that this is a way of claiming that the administration is not interested in an indefinite presence in Iraq without making any meaningful commitment as to when that presence will be ended. This is not really a shift, as the NYT would have it, so much as it is yet another rhetorical dodge. Officially, the administration has always wanted to leave Iraq as quickly as possible, and we all know that this claim is not credible. The difference between such a horizon and a firm timetable is clear enough: the former can be revised and allowed to recede far off into the future, while a timetable ought to mean that there are certain dates by which such-and-such a number of troops must be withdrawn with a final target date for removing all combat troops. To the extent that anyone links a timetable to conditions, as Obama has done, he is leaving the door open to the same kind of perpetual revision and delay that the “time horizon” concept already allows. In this, he is not really doing anything new, but that isn’t really reassuring, as The Nation noted earlier this week:
That said, Obama’s Iraq plan has always left the door open for what could become an “occupation of undetermined length” under a Democratic President. Even as he rejects permanent US military bases in Iraq, Obama has said that no timetable should be “overly rigid.” He has indicated that he would “work with our military commanders” to determine a withdrawal plan. He has supported the presence of residual troops, which could number as many as 80,000, to guard a militarized embassy, combat terrorism and provide training and assistance to the Iraqi government.
These positions, which he echoed in his Iraq speech on July 15, are not new, but they do raise the concern that Obama’s pledge to end the war on a timetable could become subordinated to a shifting landscape of worst-case scenarios that impose new and unachievable conditions for withdrawal.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
Is this objection to Obama’s timetable plan anything but a face-saving gesture on your part. Of course Obama has always said his timetable is conditionally based, as if there is really any other kind of timetable in the real world. You have always tried to suggest he’s doing this because he secretly wants a long-term US occupation, and will jigger up conditions which will allow this. That has always seemed like hogwash, but in light on the recent agreement by Maliki that Obama’s timetable is precisely what he wants, what the people of Iraq want, and if anything, a little faster, it sure makes it look like the “conditions” in Iraq will fully support Obama’s timetable for withdrawal. So basing withdrawal on conditions favorable to withdrawal when those conditions already seem to be met doesn’t much seem to indicate that Obama will find some way not to withdraw troops from Iraq. Wherea’s McCain’s clear desire for endless occupations suggests quite the oppostie, that even if he seems to go along with the notion of withdrawal, he will be looking to find ways and to create conditions that will justify staying anyway, because that’s what he’s always wanted to do. Your theory of Obama seems to failing at every new development. When do we get any mea culpas, and admissions that you have just been cooking the books against Obama because you simply don’t like him, regardless of what policies he pursues or advocates?
You have always tried to suggest he’s doing this because he secretly wants a long-term US occupation, and will jigger up conditions which will allow this.
Got a quote?
I don’t know what Obama “secretly wants,” neither does anyone else, and that has nothing to do with my objection to his premising withdrawal on Iraqi stability. Tying withdrawal to conditions in Iraq makes our policy hostage to anyone who wants to cause disorder, and it gives priority to Iraqi stability (however that ends up being defined) over what is in the national interest.
As the editorial from The Nation said, “Obama’s Iraq plan has always left the door open for what could become an “occupation of undetermined length†under a Democratic President.” That is the extent of what I am saying–he leaves the door open, which he does, and that worries me because so long as that door is open to staying for a long period of time there will be a great temptation for a sitting President simply to stay for many, many years. You have no problem with that, and I do. I assume all politicians at this level are not to be trusted, and I think all of them should be judged with as much scrutiny as I would judge the current President.
You want to give him a pass on all serious criticism because you think he is trustworthy. That’s nice. The point I keep trying to make on this is that he always leaves himself room to delay withdrawal from Iraq, and so long as he premises that withdrawal on stability his policy is overwhelmingly controlled by events. That seems likely to produce a prolonged U.S. presence in Iraq for many, many years. This isn’t because Obama “secretly wants” this, but because he has set up his policy in such a way that it may be unavoidable. Which is what I said the first time.
Also, if his working group actually thinks that the “residual forces” could be as many as 80,000 soldiers, the “residual forces” are really just a slightly smaller version of the current presence under a different name. As I have said several times before, this half-a-loaf approach is arguably the most unsatisfying of the three basic alternatives, and it could end up being the most dangerous one for all involved. If that is what “pragmatic” policymaking yields, I’m not interested.
Saying that Obama has left the door open to possibilities other than total withdrawal is merely stating what is obviously true for any President. No President can close the door on all possibilities, and it’s foolish to expect a candidate for President to categorically rule out such things. It would make Obama look like a doctrinaire fool, a Democratic Ron Paul, and condemn him to similar irrelevance. To insist that because Obama won’t be a doctrinaire fool on this, that he’s therefore likely to go in entirely the opposite direction, is fallacious reasoning in the extreme. Obama has stated countless times, and very recently, that he’s committed to withdrawal. Certainly there are extreme circumstances in which this would change, but he’s said repeatedly that he sees no such thing at this time, or on any horizon. His working group’s statement that residual forces could be as much as 80,000 only refers to an extreme and unforseen circumstance, and far from the most likely one. Furthermore, you are repeatedly suggesting that Obama could be held hostage to a worsening of circumstances, when in reality a greatly worsened circumstance is just as likely to call for total withdrawal as a greatly improved circumstance. Certainly there is no circumstance in which Obama will call for a long military presence against Iraqi wishes, and it’s very clear that Obama has been right all along that the Iraqi don’t want us there for a sustained presence. So the circumstance would somehow require Iraqi public opinion and political will to somehow radically change, which seems not to be happening, regardless if things get better or worse. As he’s said, some small force might remain simply to continue fighting any actual Al Qaeda in the area, but Iraqis themselves seem determined to weed out any Al Qaeda in any case, and it may be far from a necessity. The point being that Obama is determined to withdraw, and find a way to make that as smooth as possible, and that’s pretty much that. Skepticism is fine, but making skepticism the sole criteria for evaluating even a politiician’s plans is simply foolhardy if it continually is contradicted by the actual facts of the campaign and the realities of the situation in Iraq.
I’m not closed to serious criticism, but you just aren’t making any here. I take seriously your evaluation of Obama’s political character as being averse to confrontation, but the conclusions you come to from that seem utterly irrational and contradicted by both facts and the evaluation itself. Again, your strength seems to be in analyzing basic matters in the present. Your weakness is in making hugely irrational projections into the future, where your basic good observational skills are overwhelmed by poor prognostication that seem heavily influenced by emotional factors.
I have no problem with the basic fact that you don’t like Obama, but your dislike of the man seems to get in the way of your judgments about him. If you had good arguments to support your predictions about Obama it would be one thing, but the arguments you make actually support the opposite conclusions about what Obama will do.