Obama gave a powerful Iraq speech today calling for the withdrawal of troops to begin immediately. He summarized his plan as follows:
My plan for ending the war would turn the page in Iraq by removing our combat troops from Iraq's civil war; by taking a new approach to press for a new accord on reconciliation within Iraq; by talking to all of Iraq's neighbors to press for a compact in the region; and by confronting the human costs of this war. [...]Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now.
Despite the decisiveness with which he opposed the war back in 2002 and the clarity with which he now declares the urgency of beginning withdrawal, his speech did lack both when it comes to a timeline for the completion of withdrawal and on the issue of residual troops, both of which attracted criticism from his rivals.
On the subject of withdrawal, Obama said:
We should enter into talks with the Iraqi government to discuss the process of our drawdown. We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later. But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month. If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year.
"I was disappointed that Senator Obama's thoughts on Iraq today didn't include a firm, enforceable deadline for redeployment, and dismayed that neither he nor Senator Clinton will give an unequivocal answer on whether they would support a measure if it didn't have such an enforceable deadline."It is clear to me - especially after yesterday's testimony - that half-measures aren't going to stop this President or end our involvement in this civil war. I thought it was clear to Senators Obama and Clinton as well after they finally came around to supporting the Feingold-Reid measure and voting against a blank-check supplemental spending bill this spring. If 'enough was enough' then, why isn't it after the bloodiest summer of the war? [...]
"I urge Senators Obama and Clinton not to backtrack on the need for a firm, enforceable deadline and state clearly and directly whether they will support an Iraq measure if it does not include one."
Is Obama's lack of specificity on the topic telegraphing his openness to a compromise bill without a hard deadline for withdrawal of combat troops? If it is, Dodd's determined to do what he can to make sure he, and the rest of the senate, don't capitulate over at http://chrisdodd.com/StopTheBill.
On the subject of residual forces, Obama said:
We will need to retain some forces in Iraq and the region. We'll continue to strike at al Qaeda in Iraq. We'll protect our forces as they leave, and we will continue to protect U.S. diplomats and facilities. If - but only if - Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we should continue to train and equip those forces.
Bill Richardson went after him:
"Senator Obama promised that he would lay out a different course in Iraq. I am disappointed that he has decided to offer more of the same. Senator Obama has offered to turn the page in Iraq, but I think we need a new book. Leaving behind tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for an indefinite amount of time is nothing new. This plan is inadequate and does not end the war."The question is simple: How does leaving troops in Iraq end the war?"
This is the clearest formulation yet of Richardson's call for no residual troops, although I'm still unmoved by it to the extent that some American troops remaining in Iraq for anti-terrorism and security missions appears inevitable and indeed seems to be a consensus view even among pro-withdrawal Democrats. That's not to say Richardson isn't onto something here, but the real question should be 'how many troops will you leave behind?' That's a fair question. Anyone with a hypothetical withdrawal plan should be able to deliver a hypothetical residual troop estimate.
In his speech, Barack Obama followed through on his repeated call to be as "careful getting out as we were careless getting in." He thoughtfully addressed the realities of the region and the logistical realities of withdrawing hundreds of thousands of troops from Iraq. But what appears to be missing is a sense of the political reality of having an intransigent president and an unyielding minority and Dodd and Richardson in different ways called him out on that. I do think Dodd scored today because just as he successfully distinguished himself from the front-runners, he also drew a line in the sand between standing strong and capitulating in order to incentivize his colleagues to do the former. Hopefully they'll listen.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 21 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
