« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

‘Mission accomplished’ redux – Obama declares ‘our combat mission in Iraq will end’

By: Dan Spencer (Diary)  |  February 28th, 2009 at 08:32 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Today, President Obama visited Camp Lejeune, N.C., to declare his scheduled end to the war in Iraq on August 31, 2010:

Even though 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq, Obama claims “mission accomplished.”

I know, I know; Obama didn’t actually say “mission accomplished.” But then neither did President Bush, when he declared “major combat operations in Iraq have ended” in front of that banner requested by the crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln. Today, Obama said, “Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.”

Mission accomplished or not, we have been telling you for nearly a year that Obama would leave significant numbers of troops in Iraq and that his 16-month withdrawal timetable wasn’t doable.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • bk

    … followed by obfuscation. Brilliant! I guess that’s the new and improved Obama version of “The fact of the matter is” followed by a lie.

  • EagleWatcher

    The Ministry of Truth has spoken.

  • septembergurl

    Obama has moved from his campaign position on the war. To recapitulate, Obama ran against the invasion, the occupation/nation building, AND the surge, taking up the extreme defeatist position.

    In the summer of 2008, Obama was forced by the obvious success of the surge to refine his position to admit the success of the surge militarily (the signing of the SOFA and the elections in January demonstrate that it succeeded politically as well). The surge having brought relativ peace and progress to Iraq meant the paradoxical decline of Ithe war as an issue, and its eclipse by the financial crisis in September brought Obama the presidency without having to focus on his campaign promise (which was, essentially and understood by his followers to be a guarantee of our defeat and retreat from Iraq).

    As always, Obama’s Iraq policy reflects political reality, that is, he will take the position that most enhances his own status and which carries the least risk to that status. Therefore, he delivered a speech which could have been delivered by Bush or McCain (with a few minor changes, of course.) to praise our military forces and to claim victory. Well, of course he didn’t use the v word. That would mean admitting that Bush was right on the surge and Obama was wrong. that’s politics.

    But on sustance:

    He declared the mission in iraq a success.

    He praised the work of Crocker, Petraeus and Odierno (“two of our greatest generals”).

    He praised our troops for their courage and resolve, and the Iraqi people for rising to the occasion by dedicating themselves to their own defense and prosperity.

    He praised the Iraqi government, usually disdained as a puppet by the left.

    And so on.

    As I said at the time of the election — Obma is going to do in Iraq what Petraeus, Odierno and Gates tell him to do. From this speech, and especially the inclusion of Gen Odierno along with his more celebrated peer Petraeus, I think Obama has read Tom Ricks’ book “The Gamble” on the surge (it gives a lot of deserved credit to Odierno, which is one of the few reasons the book is marginally worthwhile…maybe). One of Ricks’ points is how difficult the surge was to execute, both in military terms and in the burden on Petraeus and Crocker to succeed in Iraq while at the same time selling the surge to a Congress that wanted it to fail. Congress does not come off well in Ricks’ book, though he seems to like Obama and overlook his mistakes.

    And so we have the vast majority of the troops staying through 2009, to guarantee stability for the next round of elections and other events. I suspect this was Odedierno’s price for signing on.

    The very high number of residual troops == 50,000 — was no doubt what Petraeus demanded.

    and the 19-month deadline was the compromise given to Obama after asking for 23.

    That’s how it works in our system.

    Meanwhile, the rest of America and the world will eventually know that we won. And we won gloriously.

    Obama knows that. He just can’t figure outhow to take credit for it.

  • septembergurl

    Obama has moved from his campaign position on the war. To recapitulate, Obama ran against the invasion, the occupation/nation building, AND the surge, taking up the extreme defeatist position.

    In the summer of 2008, Obama was forced by the obvious success of the surge to refine his position to admit the success of the surge militarily (the signing of the SOFA and the elections in January demonstrate that it succeeded politically as well). The surge having brought relativ peace and progress to Iraq meant the paradoxical decline of Ithe war as an issue, and its eclipse by the financial crisis in September brought Obama the presidency without having to focus on his campaign promise (which was, essentially and understood by his followers to be a guarantee of our defeat and retreat from Iraq).

    As always, Obama’s Iraq policy reflects political reality, that is, he will take the position that most enhances his own status and which carries the least risk to that status. Therefore, he delivered a speech which could have been delivered by Bush or McCain (with a few minor changes, of course.) to praise our military forces and to claim victory. Well, of course he didn’t use the v word. That would mean admitting that Bush was right on the surge and Obama was wrong. that’s politics.

    But on sustance:

    He declared the mission in iraq a success.

    He praised the work of Crocker, Petraeus and Odierno (“two of our greatest generals”).

    He praised our troops for their courage and resolve, and the Iraqi people for rising to the occasion by dedicating themselves to their own defense and prosperity.

    He praised the Iraqi government, usually disdained as a puppet by the left.

    And so on.

    As I said at the time of the election — Obma is going to do in Iraq what Petraeus, Odierno and Gates tell him to do. From this speech, and especially the inclusion of Gen Odierno along with his more celebrated peer Petraeus, I think Obama has read Tom Ricks’ book “The Gamble” on the surge (it gives a lot of deserved credit to Odierno, which is one of the few reasons the book is marginally worthwhile…maybe). One of Ricks’ points is how difficult the surge was to execute, both in military terms and in the burden on Petraeus and Crocker to succeed in Iraq while at the same time selling the surge to a Congress that wanted it to fail. Congress does not come off well in Ricks’ book, though he seems to like Obama and overlook his mistakes.

    And so we have the vast majority of the troops staying through 2009, to guarantee stability for the next round of elections and other events. I suspect this was Odedierno’s price for signing on.

    The very high number of residual troops == 50,000 — was no doubt what Petraeus demanded.

    and the 19-month deadline was the compromise given to Obama after asking for 23.

    That’s how it works in our system.

    Meanwhile, the rest of America and the world will eventually know that we won. And we won gloriously.

    Obama knows that. He just can’t figure outhow to take credit for it.

  • 1stRichard

    I had an interesting comment from a friend, ?Obama wants to give us a ?pink slip?, we are out of a job? in reply to Obama?s speech at Camp Lejeune. I wonder how many more in our military are discontent with Obama?s policy and I know this is not good for morale of the boots on the ground. .

  • George Claghorn

    • $peciallist

      5

  • Achance

    in the next couple of years. The troubled economy will help them meet recruitment goals, but will the troops stay in, especially those in combat MOSs? I know I started getting nervous about my son’s well-being when the Ds got control of Congress and started actively discouraging him from re-enlisting when it became inevitable that BHO would become President.

    The guys in the gun-toting MOSs aren’t going to want to stay in if they’re being sent to bad places with lawyer-written ROEs that will get them killed – and you know that will be the case.

    • mbecker908

      but the senior NCO corps and the field grade officer corps. Those folks bailed out in huge numbers when BillyBoy was Rex, methinks those will look like the “good old days” in a couple of years.

    • bk

      “To relieve the strain on our forces, my budget increases the number of our soldiers and Marines. And to keep our sacred trust with those who serve, we will raise their pay, and give our veterans the expanded health care and benefits that they have earned.”

      Maybe the recruitment plug will be: “Enlist and I promise you never have to engage in warfare (unless it’s with a blue helmet).” Or given the way we have to carefully parse his every word, maybe he plans to eliminate the Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard.

      • navychick1993

        The Navy fleet was severely reduced during BJ’s time in office and after 9/11, we had to rebuild. This guy is a joke. I don’t know who’s worse…him or BJ, when it comes to the military. I had thought about going back in, at least into the reserves once I had finished school. Now…I just don’t think I could with him as Commander-in-Chief. I pray for the servicemembers and their families.

      • 6eorge Jetson

        and give our veterans the expanded health care and benefits that they have earned.?

        All the while cutting defense spending. And getting them killed.

        Unfortunately, we know that an Obama Promise® comes with an