by Mark Silva
It seems that Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain have now met in the middle on Iraq:
Obama has long called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months after election, should he be elected president. McCain this week called that a "pretty good timetable,'' and said U.S. forces should be "out of there'' by the end of his first term, should he be elected.
But McCain also has predicated any "horizon'' for troop withdrawals on "conditions on the ground,'' like President Bush. And Obama acknowledges, too, that , after his promised withdrawal of combat forces, the timetable for continuing support from residual U.S. troops in Iraq will be "conditions-based.'' Obama even cited Bush in his remarks in an interview near the end of his vaunted European tour.
McCain has suggested that forces may remain in Iraq in some capacity for a long time - "100 years... fine by me,'' he famously has said - so long as Americans are not suffering casualties. Obama allows that Iraq is "going to need our help for some time to come.''
Near the close of Obama's widely touted tour of Afghanistan, Iraq and Europe, Newsweek's Richard Wolfe put a few questions to the senator from Illinois on their way into Paris. See what Wolfe is reporting today about Obama and his evolving stance on the U.S. military presence in Iraq, a stance which in some ways appears to be meeting McCain's own evolving position in the middle.
"it's not new that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has wanted to take control of his own country,'' Wolfe noted in his talk with Obama. "But there's always been this gap between his assessment of his abilities and American commanders' saying he's not up to it. As president, faced with that difference between what he says he can do and what the commanders say he can do, how would you choose between them?
"Iraq is a sovereign country,'' Obama replied. "Not just according to me, but according to George Bush and John McCain. So ultimately our presence there is at their invitation, and their policy decisions have to be taken into account.
"I also think that Maliki recognizes that they're going to need our help for some time to come, as our commanders insist, but that the help is of the sort that is consistent with the kind of phased withdrawal that I have promoted,'' Obama said. "We're going to have to provide them with logistical support, intelligence support. We're going to have to have a very capable counterterrorism strike force. We're going to have to continue to train their Army and police to make them more effective.
"You've been talking about those limited missions for a long time,'' Wolfe noted. "Having gone there and talked to both diplomatic and military folks, do you have a clearer idea of how big a force you'd need to leave behind to fulfill all those functions?
"I do think that's entirely conditions-based,'' Obama replied. "It's hard to anticipate where we may be six months from now, or a year from now, or a year and a half from now.''
Now, Obama's 16-month withdrawal involves combat troops, leaving at the pace of one-to-two brigades per month in his promised scenario. And he maintains that he has not wavered from that. He could be addressing the question of the "residual'' support and training forces that remain afterward in this "conditions-based'' scenario. But then, the terms of the debate are starting to align -- McCain warming to 16 months, Obama talking about "conditions.'
Debate over? Not likely.
• 
Comments
Anybody who was really paying attention (which means not very many people) always knew that Obama's 16 month pledge is as firm as meringue.
Posted by: MJ | July 26, 2008 9:30 PM
Now they all three sound alike..Bottom line..Whatever, just bring our Soldiers Home..
Posted by: typical texas | July 26, 2008 9:31 PM
Why don't you call a spade a spade - McCain has flip flopped. Now that the Iraq leaders are saying 16 months draw down, which is in sync with Obama's long standing proposal to bring the troops home, McCain is jumping on the band wagon. Welcome aboard, flip flopper.
Posted by: GEEP | July 26, 2008 10:12 PM
Yearh, right, Silva. Obama is just like McCain and Bush.
You're being dishonest and misleading, as usual. The only reason McCain is talking about timetables, or "horizons," is because Obama is leading the conversation now, and McCain has no choice but to follow. It has nothing to do with Obama "moving to the center." Obama is exactly where he has always been, and McCain is moving toward Obama's position.
Posted by: JLE | July 26, 2008 10:23 PM
With McCain's apparent flip-flop yesterday on timetables for withdrawal from Iraq, and given his frequent attacks on Barack Obama's call for a 16 month timetable (or if you prefer, horizon), McCain's own words are rather stunning:
WOLF BLITZER: So why do you think he said that 16 months is basically a pretty good timetable?
McCAIN: He said it's a pretty good timetable based on conditions on the ground. I think it's a pretty good timetable, as we should ? or horizons for withdrawal. But they have to be based on conditions on the ground.
But why don't we just add this to his ever growing list of flip-flops since McCain will dismiss any questions on this about-face and the media will go along with whatever he says because he is the foreign policy expert (despite his confusion or outright lies about his past statements on the war, Sunnis, Shiites, Iran and the Anbar Awakening). But since McCain has spent the past week whining about the press, perhaps the media could oblige him with some primetime coverage and ask him to clarify a couple of other comments he made during yesterday's interview. None that would call into question his foreign policy expertise, of course. After all, he was a P.O.W. nearly 40 years ago. But just to have him clear up a couple of points he made. For instance, as McCain said: " I will not discuss hypotheticals and I can't".
But earlier in the day, McCain went all hypothetical while imagining a world without the surge:
McCAIN: "The Iraqi Army would have collapsed. Civilian casualties would have increased dramatically," he said. "Al Qaeda would have killed the Sunni sheikhs who had begun to cooperate with us, and the "Sunni Awakening" would have been strangled at birth. Al Qaeda fighters would have safe havens, from where they could train Iraqis and foreigners, and turn Iraq into a base for launching attacks on Americans elsewhere. Civil war, genocide and wider conflict would have been likely."
Perhaps the media can ask him why he will not, cannot talk about hypotheticals when it comes to foreign policy questions that concern all Americans, but he can describe a hypothetical scenario of the Middle East engulfed in flames if he thinks it helps him politically. And heck, maybe ask him what "victory" in Iraq means...hypothetically. After all, McCain keeps saying "we're on the road to victory," so it would be nice to know if he knew where the hell that road is. And while they?re on the subject of Iraq, maybe they could have him clarify that whole birth of the secret surge thing.
-
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9111.html
Posted by: another McFlip-Flop | July 26, 2008 10:39 PM
Recent quote from Obama: "You're always more popular before you're actually in charge of things," Obama said. "Once you're responsible, then you're going to make some people unhappy."
I will probably vote for McCain, but I'm not terribly worried that Obama wouldn't defend America, any more than I am that McCain would or that Bush will. Once in office, the responsibility to prevent terrorism and even nukes in Western cities would weigh heavily on anyone. Watching Obama's slow movement from wanting to quit Iraq to now saying any timetable should depend on the conditions simply reflects reality. What I worry about is that America will continue to be disunited and hamstring the effective actions of any president who is elected. I'm disgusted with our media for putting their personal zealous idealism ahead of truly objective reporting and with many Americans for being moral cowards--failing to support any decision which has bad results, even if the opposite decision very likely would have led to worse in time. We as a nation agreed to elect leaders in democratic elections, and if we are a nation, we have an obligation to reasonably unite behind their decisions. I hope we will do so more faithfully in the future, whoever wins in November. Ignore the sound bites, glean the facts, measure the candidate's character, and vote. Then try to support your country.
Posted by: Robert E | July 27, 2008 1:56 AM
Ummmmm.....I'll go with the war hero vs. the community organizer.
Oh! How are things going on south side of Chigago lately...Barack?
Like ummmmm .....death and shootings....
Community organization???
Thanks Obama!
***YOU LOSER!***
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | July 27, 2008 3:43 AM
Posted by: JLE | July 26, 2008 10:23 PM -Obama is right where he always was? SAY WHAT? He says that he plans to leave troops there long after the war, with no time-table, no general horrizon, come on, who are you fooling!? He bad mouth McCain all this time saying>McCain wants to stay there 100 years.
Bush is talking about general time horrizons as well, and Pelosi and the gang are beside themselves at how vague it is.
No one can be specific because it all depends on conditions on the ground. Look aat this story above, Obama was asked how long he plans to keep troops in there after the war, he said he couldn't give an estimate for six month aahead, or longer. He double talks pretty good. How can he ggive time-lines on one and not possibly give them on the other......for your answer, you'll need to talk to a politician ha!
Posted by: Teresa | July 27, 2008 5:15 AM
Obama has become a Republican candidate by now supporting the war. Obama, Bush, McCain...all the same fools.
Posted by: Roger King | July 27, 2008 6:54 AM
The AP has a most interesting article today about how the U.S. is winning the war in Iraq. Hopefully the Tribune will publish it. The lengthy article's lead paragraph reads:
"BAGHDAD — The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost. Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace — a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago." The article goes on to show that parks and business areas are full of people and life is fairly normal.
Posted by: Derrick | July 27, 2008 7:46 AM
Derrik-I heard on the news this am, that they had it in bold print that the war was going great. Well, it's about darn time!
Posted by: Teresa | July 27, 2008 10:54 AM