Obama's Triumphs In Iraq

National Review: Perhaps McCain Shouldn't Have Been So Emphatic That His Rival Make The Trip

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Byron York.

---

For months now, John McCain has urged Barack Obama to visit Iraq. “It has been 873 days since Sen. Obama’s one and only visit to Iraq,” a McCain campaign statement said on May 30. “Before [he] decides to override the recommendations of our commanders in the field and surrender the fight, he should have the judgment to see for himself first-hand the conditions on the ground.”

Maybe McCain shouldn’t have been so emphatic. What if Obama went to Iraq, decided his position was the correct one, and then, in a major campaign coup, received what appeared to be the endorsement of the Iraqi prime minister? And - extra points - made himself look more statesmanlike in the process?

Obama arrived in Baghdad early this morning, and all that seems to have happened.

There’s no possibility that Obama will change his position in any substantive way. Under fire from the Democratic base for intimating that he might make a more gradual withdrawal from Iraq than previously promised, he reiterated his out-in-16-months position in a major speech before leaving on his fact-finding mission to Iraq. McCain complained that the timing smacked of bad faith. “Apparently, he’s confident enough that he won’t find any facts that might change his opinion or alter his strategy,” McCain said on Saturday. But Obama quieted the rumblings on his left.

Then, hours after McCain’s complaint, Obama appeared to win a trump-card endorsement of his proposal. In the days leading up to Obama’s visit, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was interviewed by the German magazine Der Spiegel, and his words seemed to come straight from Obama’s talking points.

“Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?” Der Spiegel asked.

“As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned,” Maliki answered. “U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

“Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November?” the magazine followed up. “Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?”

“Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic,” Maliki said. “Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans’ business. But it’s the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that’s where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.”

The Iraqi government quickly released a statement saying that Der Spiegel had “misunderstood and mistranslated” Maliki’s remarks, and that Maliki’s words “should not be understood as support to any U.S. presidential candidates.” But the Iraqis didn’t offer any alternate version of what Maliki had said, and the damage was done. The Obama campaign quickly accepted what appeared to be Maliki’s endorsement, and the McCain campaign was left to point out, correctly, that the prime minister of Iraq would not be in a position to make such statements had Obama had his way back in early 2007.

“The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama is that Barack Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders,” McCain national-security aide Randy Scheunemann said Saturday. “John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground. Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view, and did so again today. Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama. The fundamental truth remains that Senator McCain was right about the surge and Senator Obama was wrong. We would not be in the position to discuss a responsible withdrawal today if Senator Obama’s views had prevailed.”

McCain got a boost on Sunday, when Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, criticized the setting of deadlines during an appearance on Fox News Sunday. “If I were to say to you, ‘Let’s set a time line of getting all of our combat troops out within two years,’ what do you think would be the consequences of setting that kind of a time line?” asked host Chris Wallace.

“I think the consequences could be very dangerous in that regard,” Mullen answered. “I’m convinced at this point in time that coming - making reductions based on conditions on the ground are very important…When I have discussions with commanders on the ground, basically - and I did a couple weeks ago - they are very, very adamant about continuing progress, about making decisions based on what’s actually happening in the battle space, and I just think that’s prudent.”

The McCain campaign immediately released another statement, citing Mullen’s comments. And if Mullen’s words helped McCain, so did those of Gen. David Petraeus, head of the U.S. military effort in Iraq, when he made the case against timetables in an interview with NBC. Asked whether a 16-month schedule would be “reasonable,” Petraeus answered, “It depends on the conditions, depends on the missions set, depends on the enemy. The enemy does get a vote and is sometimes an independent variable. Lots of different factors I think that would be tied up in that.”

But Petraeus stressed two other factors as well. One, Maliki can say what he wants. “For a long, we used to say ‘when is this sovereign government going to make some sovereign decisions,’“ Petraeus said. “Well they have done that…” And two, events on the ground in Iraq will affect the U.S. withdrawal schedule. And so will events in the United States. “You do have to understand the factors and the background in which all of this is taking place in Iraq,” Petraeus said. “As well as in our own country and coalition countries.”

[veteran188]

Obama has done more for the USA in one day in Iraq

than Bush/McBushCain have done in eight years,

we lost this war thanks to the neocons, lets get out of the occupation without any more killing

[patriot12436]

test

[ausus-2009]

Name-calling and unfounded accusations do not give credit to anybody''s argument. This is a fault of both the right and the left.

How about discussing future policies and the possible outcomes of these policies?

[mcvet]

Yep this pretty much put McSame and Bush in the same Trash Can.

[stn_sage]

My comments are as follows:

1. There''s an old saying that McCain evidently forgot, ''be careful what you ask for, you might GET it!'' He wanted Obama to go to Iraq in the hopes that he would stumble; instead, he''s looking like a stateman the likes of which we haven''t seen from the Bush administration!

2. His so-called triumphs are triumphs the Republicans could have had at any time if they had really wanted to! That''s what is truly sad about these events!

[tonyd_31]

I think Obama is showing why he would make a great US President. Word to the wise for McCain, "Be careful for what you wish for." :) You just might get it!

[tonyd_31]

I think Obama is showing why he would make a great US President. Word to the wise for McCain, "Be careful for what you wish for." :)

[rayuk-2009]

Give it up NRO! McCain has no chance, like in zero, goose egg, zip, etc, etc.

[ov442]

if Obama had his way back in 2003, we would never have gone into this fraudulently forced-upon us war by republican money grubbers who are currently profiting at Record levels from our taxes with thousands of no-bid contracts handed out from the pentagon.
If Obama had his way back in 2003, we''d long Ago had aprehended or killed Bin Laden and wiped out the Taliban and AL Quaida by using all those forces that invaded and occupied Iraq - poorly managed, and all those resources we used chasing red-herrings to give big profits to more Republican officials and appointees gone into the private sector.

The Difference between John McCain and Barack Obama is that McCain if president in 2003, would still have made the Complete BONE-HEAD move of falsely invading a country that had nothing to do with attacking us, had no way to attack us, had no WMD programs, and had no intention of attacking us, and had nothing to do with those that DID attack us.

[joyous88]

Finally an American politician that does something,

one visit to Iraq and Obama has an agreement with the

Iraq''s to get us out of the debacle, the fiasco created by the republicons

[joyous88]

Finally an American politician that does something,

one visit to Iraq and Obama has an agreement with the

Iraq''s to get us out of the debacle, the fiasco created by the republicons

[ramos937]

Mullin and Patraeous are active military. As such, they are obligated to follow the "company" line. So, it would be a mistake to rely on their comments except on purely military matters. Maybe not even then if the comments conflict with administration policy.

[zpolitic]

Surge (the increase in troops) didn''t achieve goals.

[old300d]

Ted Kennedy was asked during the first gulf was what he thought the outcome should be.

He said we should put a democratic govt in place after the war.

Why don''t you tell people that ?

When did the democrats give up on putting a democratic govt in place after the war ?

[old300d]

Ted Kennedy was asked during the first gulf was what he thought the outcome should be.

He said we should put a democratic govt in place after the war.

Why don''t you tell people that ?

[old300d]

In his interview he looked like a schoolboy sitting across from Lara Logan. She knew more about what was going on over there than he did.

One thing we know for sure about Obama. When it comes to the middle east he knows little and is real bad at predicting the future over there.

[hologram5]

yes, he knows how to be a diplomat, not a war monger. This is good for national image in foreign policy.

[ariel133]

This is absurd. 1st- The fact that we question the inexperiance of Obama and hope he gathers full knowledge in the middle east to attempt to achieve the highest office says clearly he is not ready. He is not qualified. 2- Out of the two candidates, it is obvious McCain has what it takes to be the President compared to his opponent, he has served in the government and the military many, many more years. Americans are of the mindset that they should get what they don''t earn or deserve so they support a man they can relate to, ( a man who has not earned such a title) but in supporting Obama it perpetuates the mindframe we are all looking to eventually change. Self reliance, experiance, and ability to make things happen. They call that REAL CHANGE.McCain will create the change people are afraid of, if only they opened their eyes.

[greeneyes222]

While the media falls all over itself covering Obama in Iraq, I just have to ask, where''s the beef? These are staged photo ops a la Britney Spears, not anything of substance. After all this time and coverage the voters should have a clearer picture of who Obama is and what he stands for, but his handlers have him posing and preening instead.

Lots of actors have played the President without actually being one. Watching this juggernaut of hype one can only hope Obama shares the same fate.

[juwboy]

I`ve just been watching an interview with a former CIA employee who worked in with the U.S. top brass.

He said that al-Maliki is biding his time until the U.S. leaves so he can form a military alliance with Iran.

Does that sound far-fetched when you consider that Iraq and Iran fought a long and bloody war in the `80s? Don`t forget that the SHIITE Iranians were fighting against the SUNNI Iraqis led by Saddam Hussein.

al-Maliki and his cronies are SHIITES.

Do you want further proof? The ex-CIA employee also said that whenever al-Maliki et al. attended meetings with U.S. representatives prior to his appointment as Prime Minister, he and every other member of his Shiite gang were each accompanied by their own IRANIAN Shiite "shadow" or minder or advisor.