Barack Obama is clearly concerned that the victory emerging in Iraq –the victory Obama worked against and would have prevented if he had been in power or had mustered a majority in Congress to stop the surge– threatens his election.
Thus this “I am not a flip flopping surrenderer” op-ed in the New York Times assuring us that Obama will start the retreat from Iraq within days of his taking office, and that the U.S. will be gone two years from today except for the “residual force” that “would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces.”
An interesting “residual force” that, since in the same piece Obama announces that all “combat brigades” would be gone by the summer of 2010. The “non-combat residual force” will certainly strike fear in the hearts of Al Qaeda and the Iranian-backed special militias. August 2010 will mark the renewal of the al Qaeda push in Anbar if Obama is elected.
His plan, Obama assures us, “would not be a precipitous withdrawal.” Well, yes it would be. Denying the obvious doesn’t make the obvious any less obvious. Cutting and running over 24 months is still cutting and running.
Obama denounces “false charges about flip-flops and surrender,” but such charges are not false. They are in fact accurate and they need to be amplified and repeated again and again. A vote for Obama is a vote to wish away the bad guys and run away from the front line in the war against Islamist extremism.
“We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability,” which is exactly what Chamberlain pursued with Germany vis-a-vis Czechoslovakia in 1938. Obama appears to be dreaming of a Tehran Pact to rival the Munich Pact of 1938.
Obama can and has conned the MSM but our enemies know retreat when they see it. Obama disingenuously cites the Iraqi demand for a timetable as proof that he is following the same path as the Iraqis, but of course an unknown timetable negotiated with us by the Iraqis over an unknown number of years to an unknown number of troops and subject to their revision if they see the need to slow or halt it is completely different from the defeat on a schedule penned by Obama today. It is a testament to the op-ed’s dishonesty that Obama asserts that it is “good news” that “Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops,” as though that somehow supports his proposed jam-down of defeat.
“[W]e seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea,” Obama asserts, which is the most revealing line in the piece. If the Iraqis wanted such a ten year presence as a long term guarantee against Iranian aggression? Nope. We are out of there under Obama –no matter what crises convulse the region.
Obama’s risky plan to run away and hope for the best underscores just how inexperienced and untried he is when it comes to national security matters. Telegraphing surrender in this fashion –in the pages of the New York Times which can be e-mailed to all the jihadists around the globe in need of assurance them that the defeat of the U.S. is but two years off– is proof that an Obama presidency would be an utter disaster for the U.S. and the world.
“Obama Backtracks On An Undivided Jerusalem” is the headline in the Jerusalem Post story today, a reminder that a wired world knows a weak and double-minded candidate when they see one. Obama’s gyrations on Iraq and his many twists and turns on a host of other issues telegraph to our enemies that the Dems have nominated an inexperienced lightweight who will be easily bullied, and for who retreat will always be option #1. If Obama is elected and the jihadists’ offensive begins in Iraq and elsewhere, Obama will no doubt write another op-ed urging them to stop.