The Star is ready, the script written and the supporting cast assembled from the media A-list as the political extravaganza of the summer goes into production. With so much invested on the part of all concerned, can there be any surprises?
The plot of "Obama in Iraq" is foreordained: Scenes of breathless anticipation as the protagonist--young, idealistic but wise beyond his years--undertakes the critical journey, modestly protesting he is there to listen and learn not negotiate ("One president at a time," he says).
Intercut with scenes of Republican scoffers and doubters to heighten the tension. "If Barack Obama believes that visiting Iraq and meeting with commanders will not give him any new perspective," John McCain's spokesman says, "then we can only assume he's going just to smile for the cameras."
Then a montage of waiting Iraqis buzzing with ambivalent excitement: “Every time I see Obama I say: ‘He’s close to us. Maybe he’ll see us in a different way,'" says a government official. “I find Obama very close to my heart.”
But another expresses dread: "It’s a very big assumption that just because he wants to pull troops out, he’ll be able to do it. The American strategy in the region requires troops to remain in Iraq for a long time."
From then on, the story line is clear. The president-to-be bonds with the troops, charms the commanders and promises to honor their valor while elevating their mission to a higher plane.-- ROBERT STEIN
It's a happy coincidence that Barack Obama and John McCain both gave speeches on Tuesday about Iraq and Afghanistan. The big difference between the two is that Obama views the wars as problems, while McCain pretty much does not. In short, while Obama's analysis has some lapses and holes, at least it is an analysis; McCain's is a bit of a fantasy.
-- FRED KAPLAN
Obama will be forced to alter his position, moving closer to McCain on Iraq while moving farther and farther away from the netroots who can do nothing but throw tantrums at how they have been betrayed.
Where will all this dizzying manuevering get Obama? Because the press will not call him out for this monumental flip flop – this Mother of All Campaign Backfills – it is not likely he will be hurt very much at all. More likely, the disillusioned left will grumble a bit and still turn out for him in November. Those on the far left always have Ralph Nader or Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney. For the center, there is only the here and now in politics which is what Obama is counting on with this incredibly cynical move.
Exposing Obama for the lightweight he is will be the challenge for McCain. Hopefully, Obama will continue to lead with his chin on issues like Iraq and make the Republican’s job easier.
-- RICK MORANFirst McCain wanted Obama to go to Iraq; now he's complaining that people care more about Obama's trip than his dog-and-pony show last spring. I think the American people have to admit that they're biased against John McCain.
Let's be honest. Hardly anyone cares about McCain or his campaign. No one's excited about it in any way. I don't think that's an overstatement. Caring or being excited about isn't the same as supporting. Lots of people support McCain -- but as the anti-Obama, the alternative. This isn't to say he can't win; he definitely can. But very little of this campaign is about him. Virtually all of it is about Barack Obama.
Barack Obama yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: "They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down." Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish consistency. Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this month that he might "refine" his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq.
Withdrawal itself is not unpopular among Iraqis; a lot of them would like Americans to leave. Most of them recognize, though, that the Iraqi Army won’t be ready to replace US troops for quite some time. In some Sunni neighborhoods, the mainly Shi’ite IA can’t or won’t patrol to avoid provocations. And while the numbers of IA troops have grown significantly, most of them need a lot of training and seasoning before they can operate completely independently of American leadership and logistics — and the Iraqis have no air power at all.-- ED MORRISSEYLet's see. Iran pressures Iraq's prime minister to push the Americans for a timetable for withdrawal. President Bush resists. And what does presidential candidate Barack Obama do? He writes an op-ed in the NYTimes that calls for abandoning Iraq's civilians, and he makes no mention of Iran's involvement in the region.-- IRAQPUNDIT. . . "What's missing in our debate," Mr. Obama said yesterday, "is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq." Indeed: The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome -- that Iraq "distracts us from every threat we face" and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That's an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world's largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq's future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment