I have been one of the few conservatives in recent years who had anything good to say about the Washington Post. The WaPo is a solidly Democratic paper, with a healthy liberal bias on almost all political questions. But it seemed to me that they were what the New Republic used to be: a liberal publication capable of thinking without a constant regard for the party line. For that reason, I have been a loyal reader. When they disagree with me, which is a lot of the time, I know they aren't just knee-jerk liberals.
The current editorial on Barack Obama's Iraq policy is one of the best pieces of its kind in years.
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.
Yes. Obama has become the people he has been warning us about. The basic reason for this is that Obama, like most Democrats, seems to be able to hold only one idea in his mind at one time: beat the Republicans. He intends to go to Iraq, but why? To find out what the situation is? No. He announced he is going because it looks good to be going. His policy decisions have nothing to do with realities over there. They have everything to do with realities in the electoral college.
Mr. Obama reiterated yesterday that he would consult with U.S. commanders and the Iraqi government and "make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy." However, as Mr. McCain quickly pointed out, he delivered his speech before traveling to Iraq -- before his meetings with Gen. David H. Petraeus and the Iraqi leadership. American commanders will probably tell Mr. Obama that from a logistical standpoint, a 16-month withdrawal timetable will be difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill. Iraqis will say that a pullout that is not negotiated with the government and disregards the readiness of Iraqi troops will be a gift to al-Qaeda and other enemies. If Mr. Obama really intends to listen to such advisers, why would he lock in his position in advance?
Barack Obama has built his campaign on two claims, a vague promise of change, and his opposition to the war in Iraq. The latter was supposed to prove that he had better judgment and/or was more principled than the recent leadership of the Democratic Party. But his judgment failed spectacularly with regard to the President's surge policy. My SDP colleague Mr. Heppler points out that the Obama campaign has quietly removed his earlier remarks declaring the surge a failure in advance. So much for his shrewd judgment.
Right now Obama is doing a delicate dance. He moves to the right on dozens of issues, hoping to convince independents and moderate Democrats that he is, well, a moderate Democrat. But he has to keep the activist core convinced that he is true Anti-Bush, and will deliver us from Iraq right away in 16 months. He figures it doesn't really matter what he says about any of this, just as it doesn't matter what he said or promised about accepting public financing. He can always say that circumstances have changed.
I actually think that this dancing is the most encouraging thing about Obama. He might, like President Clinton, dance around to policies that actually work, if only because that is the way to win a second term. The trouble is that his administration, much more than Bill Clinton's, is going to be manned by the activist core, and dependent on less flexible interest groups like the teacher's unions. He is going to find a lot of these folks lining up with unpaid notes full of campaign promises. There is no such thing as a free promise in politics.
Recent Comments