Senator Obama And Iraq

Fareed Zakaria has written a thought-provoking (and, to my mind, quite compelling) article in the June 30, 2008 edition of Newsweek magazine regarding what type of Iraq-oriented speech Senator Obama should give relatively soon to avoid "being prescient about the war in 2002 and yet being overtaken by events in 2008." In fact, Mr. Zakaria provides his own lengthy, in-depth example of such a speech. The following are exerpts from the "speech," which, among other things, seeks to placate both the left-leaning American viewpoint as well as the growing, pragmatic center-oriented American viewpoint:

"...The surge has produced a considerable decline in violence in Iraq. General Petraeus has accomplished this by using more troops and fighting differently. Perhaps more crucially, he reached out and made a strategic accommodation with many Sunni groups that had once fought U.S. troops. To put it bluntly, he talked to our enemies. These reversals of strategy have had the effect of creating what General Petraeus calls 'breathing space' for political reconciliation. And he has always said that without political progress in Iraq, military efforts will not produce any lasting success.

"He is right. All today's gains could disappear when American troops leave--and they will have to leave one day. The disagreement I have with the Bush administration is that it seems to believe that time will magically make these gains endure. It won't. Without political progress, once the United States reduces its forces, the old mistrust and the old militias will rise up again. Only genuine political power-sharing will create a government and an Army that are seen as national and not sectarian. And that, in turn, is the only path to make Iraq viable without a large American military presence....

"...I have often said that we cannot give a blank check to the Iraq government. And I believe that congressional pressure--the growing frustration of Democrats and Republicans--was an important factor in getting the Iraqi leadership to start moving on outstanding political issues. I believe that we must continue to keep that pressure on the government in Baghdad. The best pressure remains the threat of troop withdrawals. But the obvious corollary is that were the Iraqi government to take decisive action, we should support it by altering the pace of our drawdown...."

Now, some people on the left will surely complain if Senator Obama gives a speech in which he suggests both that the Iraq invasion was indeed the wrong move (such a suggestion appears in Mr. Zakaria's "speech") and that, given the conditions today, we need to take a view similar to the one provided above. Indeed, there has been a lot of recent complaining by left-leaning bloggers that Senator Obama has become "too conservative" in the last few weeks. This is, of course, ridiculous. Democrats lean left during their primary process (just as Republicans lean right during theirs), and the nominees run to the political center-ground during much of the general election season. That's part of how elections are won in this big, politically-diverse country. It's a very integral part of American history and politics, it's happened time and again, and anyone who doesn't understand it, though potentially clever, is nonetheless politically ignorant and myopic.

Just look at a calendar and watch the news--we're now in the general election season. So "lefties" and "righties" are bound to get a bit angry at Senator Obama and Senator McCain for "pandering" to more independent-minded voters. But while such "pandering" does happen, it is also the case that taking a proactive, pragmatic, and in some ways centrist view regarding such issues as Iraq, health care, energy, and the economy will most likely not only increase a given candidate's chances to win the general election, but also open the door a bit more widely for bi-partisan support once the election is over, and therefore action can be taken more broadly and quickly than if a candidate tacks too far in one political direction or another on one of those critical issues.

Senator Obama was right about Iraq in 2002. But that does not mean that simply re-delivering the guts of his 2002 Iraq speech is the right move, politically and otherwise, in 2008. If he is to prove to wavering "independent" voters that he is "presidential," he will indeed need to take some firm stands on difficult issues, but he will also need to recalibrate some of his political stances so that they are legislatively viable. The Iraq war is a case in which the latter scenario would benefit him greatly, particularly if he reminds voters that his judgment was correct six years ago, but he recognizes that reality is reality, so by voting for him one would be voting for someone who can bring his solid judgment to bear on a very complex issue. In a sense, reminding folks of his mindset combined with re-calibrating his stance to deal with the changing situation will allow more people to put their faith in his ability to pull off something very tricky indeed: bringing U.S. troops home (and concentrating on fighting al Qaeda elsewhere), while also avoiding a catastrophic fallout in Iraq.

Senator Obama did not wish to start the Iraq war in the first place, so we know that his judgment is solid. If he plays his cards right, he could eventually help end it, given much patience (his and ours), intelligence (his and ours), and a new sort of judgment: the judgment to know when to put pressure on the Iraqis via the threat of accelerated troop withdrawals, and when to reward them for progress with a temporary slowdown of troop withdrawals. Very few people will be thrilled with the process (certainly the far left and far right will hate it), but it may--just may--turn into something most folks might think of as being rather miraculous: a relatively acceptable end to a misguided and tragic enterprise. The fact that such a possibility even exists is reason for us to (very carefully) employ Senator Obama's favorite word in the context of the turbulent Middle East: hope.

For the text of the entire "speech," go to: http://www.newsweek.com/id/142642