Iraq Speech Dust Settling

Last week in a major speech, Senator Obama announced his plan for ending the war in Iraq. Predictably, Obama has again set the standard for other candidates as each now look to issue their own Iraq policy statement. Just as predictably, he has taken incoming fire from both Democrats and Republicans alike -- which, in the 2008 U.S. Presidential campaign, seems to be a cost of leadership.

For Democrats like Chris Dodd, the fact that Obama will not unequivocally state he is against any war funding bill going to Bush which does not contain timelines for withdrawal makes the plan a non-starter. From the other side of the aisle, any plan which presents Iraq withdrawal scenarios is tantamount to renouncing the War on Terrorism and a global surrender to Al-Qaeda. Appeasement. Capitulation.

Both sides, however, seem to be overlooking Obama's strategic point, which is mainly to provide cover for Republicans signing up onto his plan, exploding the current grid-lock over troop withdrawals, and providing a veto-proof majority. How?

Republicans have operated with three major objections to drawing down troops from Iraq:

1. Surrenders the Iraqi battlefield to Al-Qaeda, exposing the US to the possibility of having to re-engage a stronger enemy in Iraq than it left behind
   
   
2. Establishing a "date-certain" for withdrawal telegraphs to the enemy precisely how long they have to hold out
   
   
3. Manipulating troop levels essentially amounts to micro-managing the war effort, by depriving on-the-ground commanders with personnel resources that may be needed to execute various tactical plans
   

Obama's plan brilliantly undercuts these reservations, paving the way for the 67 votes needed to institute a veto-proof withdrawal plan.

Firstly, the battlefield is not surrendered, even after the final combat batallion has returned home in late 2008. Under Obama's plan, the US would maintain a sizable contingent of special-ops forces to help maintain "over-the-horizon" strike capability, in addition to providing training support to the Iraqi Army. US troops would no longer be used for routine patrol operations, but rather as supplemental muscle for Iraqi operations against Al-Qaeda.

If that government breaks down, the primary role of US forces are to try and keep the conflict from spreading over the border and destabilizing the whole region. This is an entirely different mission from nation-building, a role US military officials have distinctly tried to avoid, but in the current situation have it thrust upon them. Once a new government emerges from the conflict, the US support role will be no different than it was with the previous Iraqi government.

Secondly, no "date-certain" is established for the withdrawal of US troops. While regular combat troops are projected to be out of Iraq by late 2008, the US is expected to maintain a significant military capability within the region. The new American capability carries a much smaller footprint than today's force, leading to virtually zero-presence of US personnel on Iraqi city streets (other than Embassy protection). With the label of "occupier" invalidated, propoganda campaigns against US presence lack traction, credibility, and targets.

Lastly, Obama's responsible, phased withdrawal plan (1-2 combat batallions per month) results in troops being redeployed no faster than Bush's currently-proposed plan up to June, 2008. Consequently, there can be no calls of "micromanagement" before next summer that could not similarly have been levelled at Bush's plan. The difference is Obama's plan continues the slow drawdown beyond that date, while Bush has made no such commitment.

No one would contend that if Bush's plan has yielded no measurable progress by summer 2008 (e.g. no measurable progress in the Iraqi government arriving at the political accomodations necessary to insure the well-being of all Iraqis), that enough Republicans would vote to "continue the course" to save a presidential veto of troop drawdowns in the next round of funding (only 17 out of 49 Republican signatures needed). So, from the micromanagement standpoint, there is effectively no difference between Bush's current plan to reduce to pre-surge levels by the summer and Obama's plan. The pace of the withdrawals have to be agreeable to Republicans, while the goals of the plan have to be agreeable to Democrats.

Obama has removed the typical Republican resistance points, so they can sign on with a clear conscience and Dems can get some sort of genuine veto-proof withdrawal underway. It's not an extreme solution that folks like Kucinich or Richardson are calling for, but it's a workable solution that both sides of the aisle can get on board with and feel like they came away with something.

Vintage Obama.