Why Obama is "refining" his Iraq position

[walidm]

Originally Posted by sanrene

Are you referencing the LATEST report from May, which said 16 out of 18 benchmarks are satisfactory?

I prefer to listen to what the Generals on the ground are saying, in addition to the Iraqi government/military.

I know why you'd rather believe some pencil pusher or the dems/libs who are crying and wailing that "we have lost", "we have lost". Good news in Iraq is really bad news for the dems/libs who have invested in defeat.

All is not perfect there, probably won't be for a while. But they are moving in the right direction.

Are you happy things are going well? Violence is down? Oil is flowing? People starting businesses and children going to school?

Now that Al Qaeda is almost vanquished in Iraq (Good news, right?), of course the can start withdrawing and setting timelines for that. In fact, troops have already been coming home based on the conditions on the ground.

Please post a link to the report and I will review it. In the meantime to answer your question - NO.

I am referring to a report from June, and in fact I was incorrect in one of the statements. Clearly the assessment submitted by the GAO is counter to every position you have stated thus far and in fact provides a detailed assessment of the failure to not only take advantage of the troop surge, but also sheds light on why the Iraqi's as well as the Democrats have taken the position that the surge has not accomplished it's intended purpose.

"DOD cited the MNF-I/U.S. embassy-Iraq Joint Campaign Plan as a comprehensive, government wide-plan that guides the effort to achieve an Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself. In our review of the classified Joint Campaign Plan, however, we identified limitations to the plan, which are discussed in a separate, classified GAO report—Stabilizing Iraq: DOD Should Identify and Prioritize the Conditions Necessary for the Continued Drawdown of U.S. Forces.1

Further, we believe that the Joint Campaign Plan is not a substitute for an updated strategic plan for Iraq. As we stated in our report, a campaign plan is an operational, not a strategic, plan, according DOD’s doctrine for joint operation planning. A campaign plan must rely on strategic guidance from national authorities for its development. For example, the April 2006 MNF-I/U.S. embassy Baghdad Joint Campaign Plan relied on the NSC’s prior strategic plan, the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, as a basis for the plan’s development.

The classified campaign plan does not provide Congress or the American people with the administration’s road map for achieving victory in Iraq."

Perhaps you can shed some light on how this is considered a success and why we should believe it so -

"According to DOD, MNF-I and the U.S. embassy recently assessed the security line of operation and determined that the goals for the phase ending in summer 2008 have been met. We disagree with DOD’s statement that the security goals for this phase have been met. For example, The New Way Forward stated that the Iraqi government would take responsibility for security in all 18 provinces by November 2007, but only 8 of 18 provinces had transitioned to Iraqi control at that time. As of June 18, 2008, only 9 of 18 provinces had transitioned."

Yep, Great news that a terrorist organization that didn't have a foothold in Iraq is now nearly vanquished. Great job. Now perhaps we can proceed to the Countries where they have increased strength and get to work. I repeat - when 4.5 million refugees start walking back home, we'll know it's safe.

Some light reading

[Sunshine Chick]

Code Pink has developed a slogan moveobama and they are trying to force Obama back to being against the war.
They are huge and have lots of money and are not too happy with boy wonder anymore. He took their money and ran with it.

[texdav]

Originally Posted by LordBalfor

Indeed.
Obama called for a timetable and now the Iraqis themselves want a timetable - because they fear that an open-ended occupation is just that - an OCCUPATION, not a LIBERATION.

Obama was right all along about the war being a bad idea (and I was one who was in favor of the initial invasion - with the stipulation that there had BETTER be WMD's found there) - and Obama is right about setting a timetable for the withdrawl.

He's also right in that his initial timetable may need some minor adjustments - but the timeable MUST remain.

Ken

No he has now gone from not promising a withdrwl during his first term in the firsdt debate to 16 months most combat troops withdrawn to no exact time table to we wil have some trops for years. At the same time he voted in favor of funding biills that would force =Bus=h to withdrawsal troops before he left office.That would mean that he should be in favor of withdrwing trops immedaitely aftyer taking office since he want ed bush to do it ven quicker.Bit now he is the one that will ahve toi order it and I thnik is having second thoughts because he will live with the consequences of too early a withdrwal as its on his watch if elected. Its like balming toehrs for the economy if elected he wil be the one getting the blame same as the democratic lead house and senate are now be blamed and have the lowest rating of any congress in history; even lower than Bush;s approval ratings.