Barack Obama's Plan for Iraq

Barack Obama has an Op-Ed, "My Plan for Iraq" in today's New York Times. He concludes with.

"In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

It's not going to work this time. It's time to end this war."

Here is my reaction.

I think that getting rid of Saddam & Company was a positive step. Obama's prediction in 2002 of what would ensue after we invaded was not inevitable. I did not support going to war, but the "strategic blunder" was disbanding the Iraqi army, dismantling the Iraqi bureaucracy, and the introduction of "supply-side" economics, with the Iraqi people as unwitting "beneficiaries". Add to that Rumsfeld's refusal to recognize the insurgency for what it was and to send in more troops.

What has to end is not the American presence but the American occupation. Barack Obama may want to vindicate his early and continued opposition to the war if he is elected, but that desire must be trumped by the reality on the ground and the need for continuity when he takes office. All intimations of "I told you so" must vanish from his plan for Iraq.

The plight of the Iraqi refugees has been vastly under-emphasized. I worry a lot more about them than about whether or not we are to have a residual military presence in Iraq in the years ahead. Obama is not proposing "unconditional surrender" as some charge, but neither he nor anyone else can turn back the clock, and he should remember that.

I continue not to understand what people mean by "ending the war". I think my "ending the occupation" is a more meaningful phrase. If Obama continues to play the "vindication card", as he seems to be doing, then he may suffer the same fate as George McGovern did in 1972. He does not seem to fully appreciate the fact that, unlike Vietnam, the morale of our All-Volunteer Military Force has remained high, despite all the strategic blunders and the arrogant folly of our leaders. We must allow Bush, Cheney & Company to "save face" as we try to undo all the damage they have done. Otherwise the country will be unable to unite behind President Obama. I do not mean to suggest that there should be amnesty for activities that rise, say, to the level of "war crimes", but the new administration's first priority should be to extricate us from Iraq. There will be plenty of time, and reasons, to "point fingers" later.