Decision ‘08

Listen To The Generals, Senator Obama

The Washington Post notes that NOT everyone on Obama’s Iraq trip agreed with his 16-month timetable:

THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of Barack Obama’s visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama’s own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq’s principal political leaders actually support his strategy.

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of the dramatic turnaround in U.S. fortunes, “does not want a timetable,” Mr. Obama reported with welcome candor during a news conference yesterday. In an interview with ABC, he explained that “there are deep concerns about . . . a timetable that doesn’t take into account what [American commanders] anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions.”

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki’s timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama’s. More significant, it would be “a timetable which Iraqis set” — not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki “wants some flexibility in terms of how that’s carried out.”

Other Iraqi leaders were more directly critical. As Mr. Obama acknowledged, Sunni leaders in Anbar province told him that American troops are essential to maintaining the peace among Iraq’s rival sects and said they were worried about a rapid drawdown.

Mr. Obama’s response is that, as president, he would have to weigh Iraq’s needs against those of Afghanistan and the U.S. economy. He says that because Iraq is “a distraction” from more important problems, U.S. resources devoted to it must be curtailed. Yet he also says his aim is to “succeed in leaving Iraq to a sovereign government that can take responsibility for its own future.” What if Gen. Petraeus and Iraqi leaders are right that this goal is not consistent with a 16-month timetable? Will Iraq be written off because Mr. Obama does not consider it important enough — or will the strategy be altered?

That’s the question, all right - and given the high likelihood of his election, a lot will be riding on the answer…

5 Responses to “Listen To The Generals, Senator Obama”

1 Fargus Says:
July 24th, 2008 at 5:23 am
I don’t know if you realize this, Mark, but Obama is running for President of the United States. It’s not the President’s job to uncritically do whatever the generals say. In fact, that’s the generals’ job. Obama’s not the President yet, sure. But if he were, he’d be setting the strategy. What about when the generals disagreed with Bush’s strategy? Did you think that he should have uncritically done whatever they said? I’d assume not, as you’re a vociferous supporter of the boondoggle in Iraq.
2 Bob from Ohio Says:
July 24th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Mark is saying that Obama SHOULD listen. I though listening to experts was what you guys accuse President Bush of never doing?

He is not a child Fargus, he understands that civilians make policy.

Listening to Petraeus in particular is in PRESIDENT Obama’s interest.

Petraeus is the widely admired winning general in Iraq. He is the leading US expert in counterinsurgency tactics. He is CENTCOM commander so is responsible for Afghanistan.

Obama is going to “surge” in Afghanistan. He needs Petraeus or the risk of failure is going to go up.

Failure in Afghanistan will not only be bad for the US, it will make Obama a one termer.

Obama also needs an orderly withdraw from Iraq. Petraeus is
going to be useful in making that happen.
3 Ryan Says:
July 25th, 2008 at 8:07 am
I’m sort of with Mark and Bob on this. Obama will be needing Petraeus, who by all accounts (and some evidence) is a bright guy who is awfully good at his job. I have a feeling that unshackling him from the lunatics in office right now will only increase his effectiveness.
4 Ryan Says:
July 25th, 2008 at 8:15 am
That said, two things:

1. It’s important to separate Petraeus the general from Petraeus the political appointee. There are positions he holds because they are the policy of the guys he works for, and there are positions he holds because they are the right strategy for the military. Trying to disentangle those threads using only what he says to reporters is only going to be mildly successful. (That is, he’s obviously not going to call for a timetable if the President doesn’t want one. That he now says it’s not a good idea doesn’t actually tell us anything about what he thinks.)

2. It’s also/even more important that we pay attention to what Iraqis want. They very clearly want a withdrawal and if “listening to the generals” means ignoring the pretty well-documented wishes of the people of Iraq, I would say ignore the generals as fast as you can. The military is a tool and its officers will say/do what they need to do in order to win battles. Foreign policy, whether Republicans believe it or not, is about a lot more than just shooting people you don’t like. It’s also about things like respect for sovereignty - and supposedly we fought a war so the people of Iraq could have some of that.
5 Mark Says:
July 26th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I’m still waiting to hear from the person who thinks we shouldn’t respect Iraq’s sovereignty…but glad we can at least reach partial agreement on the fact that Petraeus seems to be a person worth listening to…