First the Post Editorial Board scolded Obama for ducking the townhall debates, after saying he would debate McCain anywhere, any time. Now they think he’s an idiot on Iraq. Welcome to the party boys.
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.
The ridiculousness of his position is heightened since he is widely perceived to have flip-flopped on Iraq anyway. Here are some devastating videos on that. The Post continues.
The real difference between the various plans is not the dates but the conditions: Both the Iraqis and Mr. McCain say the withdrawal would be linked to the ability of Iraqi forces to take over from U.S. troops, as they have begun to do. Mr. Obama’s strategy allows no such linkage — his logic is that a timetable unilaterally dictated from Washington is necessary to force Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.
For a party that loves to invoke Vietnam and quagmires, wasn’t that war largely bolloxed up by exactly that mentality: A war run by politicians in Washington. Turns out that one politician who would have run the Iraq war from Washington would have been wrong.
At the time he first proposed his timetable, Mr. Obama argued — wrongly, as it turned out — that U.S. troops could not stop a sectarian civil war. He conceded that a withdrawal might be accompanied by a “spike” in violence.
So not only was he wrong then, his plan going forward is similarly flawed.
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.
Obama would be a great university president, but he is dangerously inexperienced to be ours.
Also find Bill Dupray at The Patriot Room