Pres. Obama should highlight his Iraq withdrawal in every speech. He owns it.

[bigtree]

There is NO way ANY republican president would have let go of their Iraq prize during their term in office. The occupation represented the totality of their response to the 9-11 plane crashes. It was the 'center' of their response to 'terror'. It was the manifestation of their bleating about 'democracy' and 'freedom'.

The only reason Bush forged an 'agreement' with Iraqis at the end of his term was an attempt to make it look like he was leaving while exploiting the loopholes in SOFA (still in there) which would have allowed him to claim that Iraq wasn't ready to stand on their own and linger longer. Hell, McCain/Palin would have our troops stay and nation-build for 100 years. There's no way they would leave themselves without a country to exploit for their defense industry benefactors.

There's no way a republican administration would have abandoned the self-perpetuating political foil in Iraq they created out of Bush's whole cloth like this Democratic president has. Just one of the dozens of bombings, or just one of the dozens of hiccups in the political fabric of their enabled Iraqi regime that have occurred in the past year would have erased any hope of a republican president abandoning their pet occupation.

This Democratic president has stood fast to his withdrawal plan in the face of 'setbacks' and disruptive violence in Iraq, and he and VP Biden deserve a great deal of credit for that steadfastness. Every assertion by this administration that Iraqis can handle their own affairs without our military occupying their country indefinitely is a repudiation of Bush's self-perpetuating farce. Every troop reduction in Iraq is a repudiation of republican nonsense about 'defending freedom' and 'spreading democracy' there (if anyone forgot the rhetoric that kept our troops bogged down in Iraq).

This president can see as well as anyone that there has been little (or nothing) accomplished by our military worth the sacrifices in Iraq that will endure long past our leaving. The determined exit in the face of continued turmoil there is proof enough that Pres. Obama is no fan of opportunistic nation-building behind the force of our military.

The follow-through in fulfilling his promises in Iraq give hope that our new president is not going to be willing to invest his political capital in perpetually defending the unpopular military campaign in Afghanistan at the expense of a focus on his domestic priorities and ambitions at home.

I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or, in some way, you know, sending a message that America is here for the duration," Pres. Obama said in 2009.

“The burdens of a young century cannot fall on American shoulders alone,” Mr. Obama wrote in the introduction of the national security strategy released in May of this year. “Indeed, our adversaries would like to see America sap our strength by overextending our power.”

That's the promise this Democratic president offers those of us who wish these occupations were over yesterday; a hope that he's not so enamored of warring that he won't stick to his promise to draw down his escalated troop deployment in Afghanistan. The mixed results of the Afghan elections and the almost negligible effect on the balance of power outside of Kabul (a majority adhering to the tribal leadership of the Taliban and others over the influence and control of Afghanistan's central government) have already exposed the administration's nation-building attempts behind the force of our military as the crap-shoot almost everyone expected it to be.

We can leave Afghanistan much the same way we're leaving Iraq . . . with our Democratic president leading our troops home. This promise kept in Iraq in the face of the country's ongoing turmoil and political uncertainty makes that commitment to eventually exit a more believable prospect.

[derby378]

1. The other side is already trotting out the argument...

...that the SOFA mandates that American troops must leave Iraq completely by the end of 2011, and since Bush signed the SOFA, he should be given credit for the withdrawal.

Bush had over five years to pull our troops out of Iraq on his own, and he never did.

[TheWraith]

11. And unfortunately, some DUers are once again spreading the Republican talking points.

Does ANYONE seriously believe that Bush would have withdrawn from Iraq? Ever?

[Parker CA]

2. Great post. K&R!!

[cbdo2007]

3. same thing with health care

I love Obama and the only problem I have with him, is that he isn't vocal enough to get the FACTS out there about stuff and explain to the everyday person how he is helping them.

He should have held a prime time press conference to announce the withdrawal of these troops. He should have a prime time press conference to explain the changes/benefits to Medicare to Seniors. Etc.

[zipplewrath]

4. To own it, he should have accelerated it

He's left himself in the limbo land between executing the SOFA and "owning" this. I agree with you that it is very unlikely McCain would have stuck with the SOFA. But to clearly separate this withdrawl from Bush's plan, he should have sped it up. He still can I'll point out. He should announce soon that he will be out by next July or something. As you say, it will be a signal not just to the Ameerican public that he is serious, but to Afghanistan as well. It will clearly separate him from Bush, it will tell the Afghans that he's serious, and it will put the military on notice that he ain't foolin' around either.

[bigtree]

7. absent some other CIC emerging from somewhere

. . . he owns it.

The WH strategy I've observed during this transition has been a very clever dialing down of their reactions to negative events and outcomes in Iraq. It's not as if they weren't aware that Bush's SOFA was full of holes. President Obama just realized that the 'agreement' provided him enough political cover to leave as he pleased without any significant challenge from the republican opposition.

The foot-dragging is regrettable (and in some cases, tragic), but that was a consequence of seeking support and cover for his withdrawal plan from the Pentagon holdovers. I agree that he should speed it up. He likely will; the present withdrawal is slightly ahead of the schedule he set . . .

[EFerrari]

5. May I ask those of you who watch the corporate media

how it's going today?

[robdogbucky]

12. The print/online media is all I've seen.....

US troop strength in Iraq put at 52000
CNN - Jomana Karadsheh, Adam Levine - ‎17 minutes ago‎
By the CNN Wire Staff Baghdad, Iraq -- The number of US troops remaining in Iraq is about 52000, the US military said Thursday. That puts US Forces-Iraq on track to draw down to 50000 troops by September 1, when Operation New Dawn is to begin and ...

Video: New Mexicans react to last major combat brigade leaving Iraq KOBTV4
Pentagon says combat mission in Iraq continues trough end of August Xinhua
The Guardian - Sydney Morning Herald - Christian Science Monitor - Hindustan Times
all 2,107 news articles »

http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn



I have no idea what the TV is saying.




Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[robdogbucky]

13. GEM$NBC is covering it now

On Hardball



Hands off my Social Security!
Hands off Latin America!





rdb

[EFerrari]

16. Thanks. I hope Obama gets some mileage out it, anyway. n/t

[no limit]

6. The agreement and timeline that made this happen was signed under Bush

just sayin

[bigtree]

8. when did Bush ever keep his word on Iraq (or on anything else)?

just sayin'

[no limit]

9. Lets see if Obama keeps his

[bigtree]

10. kick

[Orsino]

14. And the best thing about it?

The country's mood has shifted so far against war that he's actually getting away with it. I haven't heard even one cry of cut-and-run.

The TV doesn't seem to dare try. That's heartening.

[bigtree]

15. noticed that?

. . . some revisionism and some grousing out there, but you're right, I was amazed at the coverage last night. Our party has shifted the debate. A hard slog, for sure, but \we definitely turned the debate away from supporting the Iraq occupation. All of us, the President included. We're moving the polls on Afghanistan right now, as well.

[bertman]

17. I like the way you phrased that, bigtree

"A hard slog, for sure, but \we definitely turned the debate away from supporting the Iraq occupation. All of us, the President included. We're moving the polls on Afghanistan right now, as well."

You prefaced it with "Our party has shifted the debate." I think it would be more accurate to say "the people who have stood against this war have shifted the debate." Giving our party credit for it is stretching it. The American people are fed up with Iraq and Afghanistan. If our party had really been against this from the start we would have been out sooner because they would have starved the war budget, forcing the withdrawal, and we would not have ramped up Afghanistan the way it got ramped up--by a Democratic administration.

I give President Obama credit for pulling the troops out. It is a major step. When he follows with the 52,000 "advisers" and the 150,000-plus mercenaries I will be very impressed and convinced that he is trying to get us out of the Middle East.

The movement of pawns around the board does not mean the objective has changed. But I'm not a chess player.

[Orsino]

18. I would refine that message even further.

I think that the wars themselves have shifted the debate. The Party--with a very few notable exception--has remained utterly silent on the matter, and the media have successfully kept antiwar activists unseen and unheard. The wars and the economic disaster they helped create have done nearly all of the heavy lifting with public opinion. I think that we're simply tired of burying our children for no visible return, and of hearing about the hundreds of billions spent that could actually be accomplishing something here at home.

The TV tried its best to keep us fired up for war, and then did what it could to hide those wars so that we'd let them keep shoveling money and blood into corporate coffers. It's simply not possible to keep us that ignorant forever. We may be years late in our dim realization that we can't afford imperial advantures, but we're getting there.

We just can't admit it out loud, and these stealthy withdrawals may indicate some genius at work. It's just possible that we will let ourselves be fooled into peace--if the television chatterers can't talk us into Iran.

For those of you wanting the president to take some credit, you might consider shutting the fuck up about it. :D

[bigtree]

19. true, events in Iraq drove the debate for a time

. . . but Bush was blind to anything which contradicted his determination to keep troop levels high and remain indefinitely. Most Americans had been opposed to the occupation for years before we elected a president to end it. That's something we should all reflect on and highlight in our discussions as we measure the value of this Democratic presidency.

[Rod85]

20. He needs to stay away from it. no 'Mission Complete'

Bush's 'Mission Complete' didn't work.

President Obama should stay away from proclaiming a troop withdrawal success in Iraq. I have a feeling we will be in that money pit for 50+ years just like South Korea.