McCain Campaign Press Release - "In Case You Missed It": Editorials Raise Questions About Barack Obama's Iraq Position

A Plan For Defeat: Obama's Iraq Doublespeak

Editorial

New Hampshire Union Leader

June 18, 2008

Listen closely to Sen. Barack Obama's talk on Iraq and one thing becomes clear very quickly: it makes absolutely no sense.

Here is Sen. Obama speaking in Michigan yesterday, explaining what he told Iraq's foreign minister: " ... an Obama administration will make sure that we continue with the progress that's been made in Iraq ... that we won't act precipitously, but that we will move to end U.S. combat forces in Iraq."

What progress in Iraq? That would be the progress made under Gen. David Petraeus' "surge" strategy, which Sen. Obama opposed. Back when Obama was criticizing the surge and calling for rapid withdrawal from Iraq (aka, surrender), Sen. John McCain was pushing for more troops and a plan for victory. Now that the policy Obama opposed has turned the tables, decimated al-Qaida in Iraq and made victory possible, Obama says he wants to "continue the progress."

But how? Gen. Petraeus says further troop reductions must come only after certain gains on the ground are made. Obama says exactly the opposite: withdrawals will come, gains or no.

Obama's initial plan was to withdraw within 16 months of his inauguration. But something funny happened on the way to the surrender. The surge worked. Now he is paying lip service to our success by claiming that he wants to continue it. The problem is, he cannot do both.

The United States cannot hold both of Obama's goals simultaneously because they are opposed to each other. One is based on improved conditions on the ground, the other ignores those conditions entirely. The only way to achieve both is through pure luck. Without that, the very troops working to accomplish one goal will be withdrawn to meet the other.

The United States cannot base its defense policy on crossed fingers. (That's what got us into this mess, remember?) It must have a comprehensive plan to win the war, not two competing plans, one to win and one to lose, operating at the same time.

Read The Union Leader Editorial

Mr. Zebari's Message

Iraq's foreign minister has a chat with Barack Obama.

Editorial

Washington Post

June 18, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama told Iraq's foreign minister this week that he plans to visit the country between now and the presidential election. We think that's a good thing, not because Sen. John McCain has been prodding the candidate to do it but because it will give Mr. Obama an opportunity to refresh his badly outdated plan for Iraq. To do that, the Democrat needs to listen more to dedicated Iraqi leaders like Hoshyar Zebari, the foreign minister -- who, it seems, didn't hold back during their telephone conversation.

Mr. Obama laid out his current strategy for Iraq in November 2006, shortly before announcing his candidacy for president. At the time, Iraq appeared to be on the verge of a sectarian civilian war, and Mr. Obama was trying to distinguish himself in the Democratic primary race by offering a timetable for withdrawal. Nineteen months later, the situation in Iraq has changed dramatically, with violence down 75 percent from its peak and the Iraqi government and army in control of most of the country. But Mr. Obama has not altered his position: He still proposes withdrawing most U.S. troops according to a fixed timetable, set to the most rapid pace at which commanders have said American forces could be pulled out.

Mr. Zebari, who has served as foreign minister in every Iraqi government since 2003, finds Mr. Obama's proposal worrying. In a meeting with Post editors and reporters Tuesday, he said that after all the pain and sacrifices of the past five years, "we are just turning the corner in Iraq." A precipitous withdrawal, he said, "would create a huge vacuum and undo all the gains and achievements. And the others" -- enemies of the United States -- "would celebrate."

Mr. Zebari said he told Mr. Obama that "Iraq is not an island." In other words, an American withdrawal that destabilized the country would also roil the region around it and embolden U.S. adversaries such as al-Qaeda and Iran. "We have a deadly enemy," Mr. Zebari said. "When he sees that you commit yourself to a certain timetable, he will use this to increase pressure and attacks, to make it look as though he is forcing you out. We have many actors who would love to take advantage of that opportunity." Mr. Zebari says he believes U.S. forces can and should be drawn down. His point is that reductions should be made gradually, as the Iraqi army becomes stronger.

The foreign minister said "my message" to Mr. Obama "was very clear ... Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress." He said he was reassured by the candidate's response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising a visit, Mr. Obama said that "if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field." Certainly, it makes sense to consult with those who, like Mr. Zebari, have put their lives on the line for an Iraq that would be a democratic U.S. ally. Mr. Obama ought to listen carefully to what they are saying.

Read The Washington Post Editorial