There is an obvious and very important question that Obama has skillfully avoided answering in any way even remotely resembling clarity ever since shifting (a few weeks ago) from the clear answer he had during the primaries (which was a major factor in his winning the nomination). Rather, he has gotten away with carefully crafted, vague, ambiguous statements/answers that are designed to let him have it both ways (people seeing into his answers what they want to see), and also leaving him less vulnerable to challenges to his position (whatever it is) than he'd be if he had a position that was at all clear, and less vulnerable to charges of flip-flopping.
Reporters have, on some occasions, asked Obama this question (one recent example http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&stream...), yet, upon receiving deliberate, carefully crafted talking points from Obama in response, have failed to point out the absence of an actual answer and to ask again for one.
Here’s the question, which I’ll actually split into two questions:
1) Senator Obama, you have promised to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq immediately upon taking office. If you come to believe that doing so would jeopardize stability in Iraq, would you still do it, or would you delay it (or at least consider delaying it), and begin withdrawals either only when you believed that doing so would no longer jeopardize stability or at least after waiting a substantial period of time for this condition to change?
2) Same question as #1, but with regard to sticking to the timetable once withdrawals have begun, if you find at some point between when you begin withdrawals and roughly 16 months later that proceeding per the timetable would jeopardize stability?
And I’ll add a third – another “wriggle room” question:
3) What would be the largest possible “residual force” that you would leave in Iraq (how many troops)?
And please, Senator Obama, do not tell me you will “make tactical adjustments based on conditions on the ground” and please don’t tell me “we have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in”, and spare me any other vague, deliberately ambiguous non-response responses. Also, please don’t tell me that you don’t expect to face that scenario, unless you are contending that you consider that scenario virtually impossible, in which case I’d really like to hear how you can be so sure that you need not even contemplate that scenario, let alone take a public position on what is arguably the most important issue in this election.
My questions are clear, Senator Obama (and Obama supporters). What are your answers?
__________________________
"Semantics of this"
I have been wondering for weeks what Obama's definition of "Combat Troops" is. And now I wonder what the definition of the "residual force in the region" means, could the US bases in Iraq be considered US territories to BHO [and therefore US troops would be in the "region" and not "in" Iraq]?
Are BHO's definition along the same lines of a recent White House Secretary that more or less said "We didn't give Israel the [literal] 'Green Light' to start the assault [but we did give them permission and the metaphorical 'green light' to start the assault]"
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Iraq is a mess
There's no easy answer. I'm anti-war, but I don't expect any miracles simply because there are too many things that can go wrong.
Obama has dug a hole for himself by pretending that there is an easy answer (get out now).
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
I just want for Obama to say
I just want for Obama to say whether or not "get out now" -- even if he came to believe that doing so would jeopardize stability in Iraq -- is his position or not, or at least for his supporters to stop saying his position is clearly "yes", "no", or even "maybe / maybe not" (the latter meaning that he may either withdraw, and do so more or less per his timetable, or may not if doing so would jeopardize stability -- and he hasn't even said "maybe").
It's really something that he's getting away with this deliberate ambiguity on the central question of arguably the central issue of the campaign/election, with his supporters believing he's being clear and many supporters with fundamentally different preferences seeing in his ambiguous words what they want to see.
He wants the Iraqi's to step up to the plate
so they can take responsibility for their own country by withdrawing troops wisely. The withdrawal is a signal that the US isn't going to baby sit and fork over the enabling $$$ forever. The Iraqi people complain that the politicians keep the money and don't spend it on the people's basic needs like reliable electricity. (sounds familiar)
I don't believe Obama has ever said 'get out now'. He did say 'don't go in'.
The goal is a tolerable level of chaos, as the country goes through it's own self determining birthing pains, with an assist from regional allies, in the presumably new friendlier light that would come from co-operating with our allies under a President Obama.
The whole situation is enormously complex and you don't get to have an easy answer..... just a general goal. Since you can't wholly predict the future, the ambiguity is intentional, but the goal is not.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
He did say "get out now"...
In a speech apx 6 months ago, he claimed, (as it suited his needs at the time, and asked people never to forget), he was against the war in 03, 04, 05, 06, & 07, and he then went on to say unequivocally, we must get out of Iraq now, not tomorrow, not next week, and not in 6 months from now, (and that was 6 mths. ago), we must begin to pull or troops out now! I am new to the site and not sure about how to add video's, link's, etc, but will do so if I can.
__________________________"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." ~ B. Goldwater
www.TheRedWing.com
"HTML How-To"
"HTML How-To"
Just make sure to keep quotes within context
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Thanks ;-)
n/t
__________________________"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." ~ B. Goldwater
www.TheRedWing.com
Pardon my ignorance
Iraq is a mess and there is an easy answer. Get out now.
We should be withdrawing troops quickly, but safely. This whole idea that we need troops there to stabilize the region, yet we still need them there permanently in the style of S. Korea or Germany is ridiculous.
The only troops we should have anywhere in the country is in S. Korea because we're (well the UN) is still at war with N. Korea. We should negotiate a peace there and let the S. Koreans defend themselves. We should withdraw from NATO because, last I checked, the Warsaw Pact doesn't exist anymore.
I'm even generally for getting out of Afghanistan. I'll compromise by putting a few hundred thousand troops in Afghanistan to completely remove Taliban influence, but once they are gone it is not our job to police Afghanistan after they have a legitimate, democratic government.
__________________________I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Not easy
Get out now?
The equipment, the contractors, the troops, etc. would make easy targets if their departure is en masse and poorly executed.
Is it really fair for the US to go into a country bomb it to shreds and say bye now. Thanks for everything? Good luck. We broke it now you fix it?
The US already did that in Afganistan using the Taliban to fight the Soviets and deserting the country with a broken promise of helping to rebuild. That tends to generate hostility towards the US. We need to make friends not enemies.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
With all due speed
We should be withdrawing troops quickly, but safely.
We owe them an annual stipend, that's for sure, but we don't owe them a Free Military Force. The apparently sovereign Iraqi government has had enough time to get a standing Army put together. I'm not against helping train the Iraqis, but we don't need to be fighting their battles for them.
__________________________I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Thats Right
The Iraqis have had enough time to get things going, the US gave the Iraqis fishing poles and gave them fishing lessons, its time the Iraqis go fishing themselves. Iraq shouldn't be a military welfare state.
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Well Brutus14, we just got ...
...all the dead bodies the terrorists were dumping in the Tigris River cleaned out.
But the swimming's great, and the fishing is too, especially lately, since we're not getting shot at whilst doing it! LOL!
__________________________"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." ~ B. Goldwater
www.TheRedWing.com
what if...
I fully agree with that second point: Bush and McCain have been really aggravating with their double-talk saying "we don't want permanent bases" even as want to build very nice bases and are willing to trhow around hte idea of...permanent bases (without using that term).
Anyway, on the main point: will we necessarily be able to withdraw quickly but safely?
I'm not saying that any of these are likely, only that they are outside of our control and could determine whether:
In a more general sense, given all of the developments that could occur in the next couple of years, I don't think it is clear that a quick withdraw will necessarily produce a better outcome than a more prolonged presence. This is just an admission that there are some conditions under which a continued military presence will probably generate a better outcome than a quick withdraw (whether "better" is defined in terms of American geopolitical influence, regional stability, Iraqi economic development, or Iraqi lives).
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Answers
I'm not sure of that. Withdrawal is of paramount priority. We should do it as safely as possible. "Safely" is a qualitative measurement, so reasonable people will disagree on what is safe and what isn't. The British seemed to withdraw from quite a few areas without trouble. I don't see why we can't do the same thing, but when all is said and done if we can't withdraw safely, we'll just have to do it "precipitously".
I really don't care. I do not have a stake in what government Iraq chooses for itself and furthermore it is none of my business what happens in Iraq. See the Prime Directive
in the Star Trek universe.
As I said previously, once we're gone they won't be attacking us much. Get our soldiers out of harm's way as soon as possible. Ripping off the bandage is better than slowly pulling out your own hair.
Iraq will have to defend itself. I would assume this would be a war of aggression by Iran, so I'd hope that the UN would pass a security council resolution to help protect Iraq**. We should join that conflict as is consistent with our treaty obligations.
It may also be the case that a majority of Iraqis want to be part of Iran. I really don't know what their political wishes are, but any negative consequences caused by these wishes are not an excuse to allow me to choose their destiny for them.
**That also assumes that I'd have expected the UN to protect Iraq when we invaded. That is indeed the case. Such a conclusion doesn't sit well with me, but it is the cost of being consistent.
__________________________I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Obama didn't make the rules of the game
He's been pretty elusive, granted, but the fact is that our ridicuous political discourse does not allow shifts in positions, which are automatically now considered to be "flip flops", "inconsistent statements", and so forth, so how can you blame the guy for vagueness in the name of maintaining wiggle room? For every person like you and me who yearn for real straight talk and will give a candidate credit for it now even if they end up having to change positions later, there are ten people who will find a simplistic flip-flop charge to be damning if a candidate ties themself down and gets boxed into a corner later.
But that being said, I think he can and would answer your questions if he could: 1) yes, 2) yes, 3) 50k. I think we know these answers from hints in his roundabout answers and from information that comes from surrogates and out of the campaign and that's really good enough for me.
__________________________skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Which are you saying "yes"
Which are you saying "yes" to, that he'd delay/suspend withdrawals in that scenario?
If so, are you saying that Obama and his campaign have hinted (etc.) that he MAY never even begin withdrawals from Iraq? Or that he MAY wait years to even begin withdrawals?
I think that it goes without saying....
...that if situations significantly change, positions may also change. That's really the only way to answer simplified hypothetical questions, because as soon as you tie yourself down to an absolute on a hypothetical, sure enough the real world is going to present you with a complex situation where you have to do something different, and then you've "gone back on your word", "sold out", "lied" etc. etc. etc.
Let's put it this way: if Obama strayed from the phased withdrawal which he has supported all along, there'd be a darn good reason for it, it wouldn't just be on a whim. So if you want to say that he MAY never withdraw, you might be correct on a technicality but his intent based on the current trends and the most likely range of scenarios that he will inherit as president is to proceed with his phased withdrawal plan.
__________________________skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Yes, I understand that, but
Yes, I understand that, but the central question in the Iraq debate is whether or not our policy should be that we will withdraw (roughly) per a (publicly stated) timetable no matter what, which means that we would do so even if doing so would jeopardize stability in Iraq. A candidate's answer, if he chooses to give a clear answer, can be "yes", "no", or "maybe".
During the primaries, Obama gave the strong impression that his answer was "yes". As of a few weeks ago, Obama is trying to have it both ways -- or more precisely, all ways. Four weeks ago he said that "I have always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/03/AR200807... When the left reacted with alarm at this apparent flip, and the right reacted by (correctly) calling this an apparent flip, Obama and his campaign scrambled to get out carefully crafted statements to provide the necessary ambiguity while creating the appearance of clarity and consistency, and they apparently did it very effectively.
Imagine this:
Obama gives a press conference tomorrow, and let's assume that Obama's position is "maybe" -- maybe he'd stick to the timetable even if he thought he'd jeopardize stability, or maybe he'd deviate very substantially from it or even make withdrawals contingent upon their not jeopardizing stability.
Press: Senator Obama, if you get elected, and if at the time you take office you have come to believe that initiating withdrawal from Iraq would jeopardize stability, would you delay the initiation of withdrawals?
Obama: Maybe. I'd consider it.
Press: Well, for how long might you delay initiation of withdrawals?
Obama: I might delay initiating withdrawals for a couple of years unless conditions change such that initiating withdrawals would no longer jeopardize stability.
Press: And after that "couple of years", if conditions have NOT changed such that you think initiating withdrawals would no longer jeopardize stability, would you initiate withdrawals anyway, even though you think doing so would jeopardize stability?
Obama: Maybe. Or maybe I'd delay withdrawals further, and so on.
Press: So Senator Obama, you're saying that you may not ever initiate withdrawals from Iraq if you think that doing so would jeopardize stability?
Obama: Correct. I may not ever initiate withdrawals from Iraq*. I don't think that scenario is likely, but it's possible and plausible.
Would Obama supporters be surprised to find out that the above was Obama's position? Shocked even? And I don't mean surprised that he gave such clear answers (when being deliberately vague and ambiguous perhaps would have benefited him politicially and perhaps would also be wise from a policy perspective), I mean would they be surprised to find out that that was his answer? In reality (not my imaginary press conference) has Obama indicated that the above is his position? During the primaries did he strongly indicate that the opposite was his position?
* Alternative answer from Obama: "After a couple of years, I would initiate withdrawals even if conditions hadn't changed and I still thought that initiating withdrawals would jeopardize stability in Iraq." For this alternative answer, my question to Obama supporters is the same. Surprised that he might delay intiating withdrawals for a couple of years?
Imagine this?
or maybe this
or possibly this
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
No flip flop here at all
Dont be led around by the nose by the hard left and the hard right and their bogus flip flop charges against Obama.
Actually I looked back at Obama's statements from the Senate floor when various plans for withdrawal were being debated, and his statement which you quote above is entirely consistent with what he was saying then-- there's no flip flop at all. Read what Obama said back in June 2006:
So even in 2006 when the war was at its grimmest point, when the cries for immediate withdrawal was the loudest and the political pressure to bring home the troops immediately was the most intense, Obama not only was arguing for a phased withdrawal-- he was also pointing out the importance of flexibility in any withdrawal plan. And if that wasn't clear enough, he directly implied at that time that he would favor leaving troops in longer than the plan under certain conditions.
It's the same position reflected in his current statement-- no flip flop whatsoever. Crystal clear all the way, and right there for anyone to see who wanted to look beyond the shallow TV media controversy whores.
__________________________skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Yes exactly
and I remember this cause he got hammered by the 'left' for not being a part of the 'get out yesterday' crowd.
Crystal clear all the way.
The media whores are out of control lately. I'd say it's reached the full on orgy stage.
(Glad to have you back posting btw. Did they finally let you out after serving your prison sentence for internet gambling. ;-)
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Not in prison for gambling-- yet
...but while I was on vacation, the IRS denied my first appeal on my 2006 tax adjustment in which they are coming back on me for 15% self employment tax on my gambling winnings on which I already paid normal income tax on :-( I'm calling them right now, actually.
__________________________skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
oh, come on now, skymutt,I
oh, come on now, skymutt,
I know about that 2006 speech. But if we're talking about flip-flops, you can't just take something he said pre-campaign and skip all that he said during the primary campaign, right?* What about what he said and implied from, say, summer 2007 through February, 2008 (i.e., prior to when he became the heavy favorite to win the nomination)? VERY different story. Sure he made very vague references to "being careful getting out" yadda yadda, but his clear implication was that any concerns for stability were covered in his 16-month timetable, but that he would begin withdrawals immediately upon taking office and proceed per the timetable, perhaps with minor adjustments, but that proceeding more or less per the timetable was NOT contingent upon maintaining stability, a contingency he did imply on July 3, followed by a scramble by him and his campaign to craft talking points that would ensure ambiguity on that question.
* Heck, if Romney were the Republican nominee and became less pro-life and more pro-choice, someone could point to quotes from several years back of Romney stating how committed he was to a woman's right to choose, and say "See, he's been consistent! No flip-flop!"
What about it?
September 12, 2007: "If commanders came to me and said, "We are making progress in reducing violence," and I see continuing political progress taking place, then obviously that's going to be weighed against the need to, I believe, have some additional troops in Afghanistan."
November 1, 2007: "I want to talk to military folks on the ground... If there is some sense of security, then that means one level of force. If you continue to have significant sectarian conflict, that means another..."
February 4, 2008: "Within those constraints, I think there is going to be some flexibility and, obviously, I would consult with commanders. We have to be mindful of the situation on the ground and what the commanders say."
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
First, please provide the
First, please provide the links for those quotes so I can see what else he said at the same time -- i.e, context.
Second, I'm not saying he hasn't indicated minor flexibility with regard to the timetable and with the number of troops that he'd keep as a residual force. But that's different from saying or implying that he won't -- or even that he MIGHT not -- withdraw troops if doing so would jeopardize stability, or that he'd delay withdrawals for a substantial period of time (say a year or two or more) if withdrawals would jeopardize stability, and would/might then withdraw anyway even if he still thinks doing so would jeopardize stability. That's the central question of the Iraq debate -- do we make withdrawal contingent upon it not jeopardizing stability or not? If the next president, upon taking office, thinks withdrawals would jeopardize stability, how long might he be willing to wait for that condition to change before withdrawing troops anyway? During the primaries, Obama gave the impression that, other than minor adjustments, he would begin withdrawals immediately upon taking office and proceed more or less per his 16 month timetable, and he ducked this question, leaving all to see his plan as NOT contingent upon the need/desire to maintain stability. On July 3 he sought to flip, or to at least create ambiguity on that central, fundamental question, and immediately thereafter he and his campaign have used carefully crafted talking points to ensure the ambiguity.
Re-read the questions in my diary, and if you have quotes that answer those questions, please provide (with links).
I don't see any
links provided in your post however, related to your alleged positions that you imagine Obama has taken.
Oh nevermind. I am now invisible :)
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Just a quick note
I'm on vacation and hopefully won't even turn on a computer again until Tuesday, so this is the end of the discussion for me. Please carry on without me!
All my quotes were cribbed from this page: http://mediamatters.org/items/200807030014
Most have additional context surrounding them on that page. Enjoy!
And now, back to the beer...
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Enjoy your vacation.
Enjoy your vacation. Whenever you have time, if you think you have Obama's answers to my questions, please provide.
By the way, why are you drinking beer? With a name like that, I'd expect you to drink...spirits. (ooh, I think I hurt even myself with that awful pun).
Yep
And I'm sure that there's more where that came from. It's a shame, though, that he even has to remind people that if the situation changes markedly, he might deviate from the plan, because this should be the case with ANY plan.
__________________________skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
It's pretty obvious
that you read with a filter on.
I find it somewhat surprising that you are not being rational in your analysis.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Couple points:
1. 2006 isn't "several" years back, like the Romney statements you're talking about. Obama's clear and concise statement on flexibility in the withdrawal plan was only two years back.
2. As other here are beginning to point out, you haven't provided any Obama comment between then and now that shows that he changed his mind from what he said in 2006.
__________________________skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
First, the point re: the
First, the point re: the 2006 quote was that just because he said something in 2006 doesn't mean that he was expressing a similar position during the primaries. And it so happens that...he wasn't.
As for quotes from the primary season, I don't have a quote in which Obama stated explicitly that he would not substantially delay/suspend withdrawals if beginning/continuing withdrawals would jeopardize stability, let alone that he would delay/suspend them indefinitely and only begin/continue them if and when doing so would not longer jeopardize stability.
BUT -- and I know some of you are going to jump all over this, but you shouldn't -- in the context of the campaign and the statements he did make, his omission of this conditionality during the primaries was a fairly clear indication that his plan contained no such conditionality. (ok, folks, please think about it before firing off a reply simply because I'm asserting that an omission was a fairly clear indication of something)
What is this "context"?
- The central issue of the Iraq debate (itself arguably the biggest issue in the campaign) was the fundamental question: Do we withdraw per (more or less) a fixed timetable or should our withdrawal be contingent upon withdrawal not jeopardizing stability in Iraq?
- It was largely in answering this question that Obama, like other Democratic candidates, differentiated himself from the Republican candidates, and to some extent from Hillary.
- Obama and his campaign stated countless times with great emphasis that he would begin withdrawals immediately upon taking office and that he would withdraw roughly per a 16 month timetable, subject only to the possibility of "tactical adjustments", which seems implies only the possibility of brief delays. Just one example from 11/11/07 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21738432/print/1/displaymode/1098/
- Obama was asked this fundamental question (in one form or another) on at least a few occasions in interviews, and he sidestepped the question, giving the fairly clear impression that his withdrawal plan was NOT contingent upon withdrawals not jeopardizing stability. As examples, see:
- the FoxNews interview link in my diary http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&stream...
- http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/us/politics/02obama-transcript.html?_r...
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/08/obama-slams-mccain-iraq-s_n_955...
- Also, I found that Michael Crowley had a similar impression to mine earlier this month http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/07/07/obama-iraq-a...
Also, I still don't know what you guys think Obama's position actually IS. What are you saying are his answers to my questions regarding SUBSTANTIAL delay of withdrawals, and perhaps even making withdrawal CONTINGENT upon withdrawals not jeopardizing stability?
Again, the question is essentially "Would you delay if you thought withdrawals would jeopardize stability?" And if his answer is "yes", then the next question is "for how long? Until and unless conditions changed such that withdrawals would no longer jeopardize stability? Or after waiting for some period of time for conditions to change, would you proceed with withdrawals anyway even if doing so jeopardized stability, and if so, what is that time limit you are setting?
What are you guys saying is Obama's answer?
At risk of being painfully repetitive, I'm asking you what is his position on the following:
If he comes to believe on Day One that beginning withdrawals would jeopardize stability in Iraq, he WOULD delay withdrawals? He MIGHT delay withdrawls (i.e., he'd consider it)?
And if so, is there a point (some period of time) at which, even if he still felt that withdrawals would jeopardize stability, he would begin withdrawals anyway? Or would he / might he delay withdrawals as long as they would jeopardize stability?
Which is it? Would, would not, or might? Or does no one have any idea what his position is for those very basic scenarios?
And the same questions for continuing withdrawals once they begin.
SL gave you three quotes
...in which Obama expressed the conditional nature of his withdrawal plan, during the campaign. I don't see how you can continue to maintain that he omitted mention of conditionality during the primaries without addressing those quotes.
__________________________skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
ok, let's not go around in
ok, let's not go around in circles. My questions are clear, and it's clear that those quotes do NOT provide answers. Expressing some "conditional nature" is NOT the same as (1) saying or implying that he would make withdrawals contingent upon not jeopardizing stability on an open-ended basis, or (2) saying or implying that he WOULD delay withdrawals for a SUBSTANTIAL period of time (say a year or two or three), but would only wait for some such period before withdrawing even if he still thinks it would jeopardize stability, or (3) saying or implying that he MIGHT do #1 or #2, as opposed to not even considering such substantial or open-ended delay.
Vague, ambiguous statements alluding to some sort of conditionality do NOT make it clear if he's talking about minor adjustments to time frame vs. major adjustments to time frame or even open-ended contingency.
Again, I'm asking clear questions. Obama's position, if he has offered one, should provide the answers of "yes", "no", or "maybe" to my questions. If anyone claims to know Obama's answers to my question, go ahead: what are they?
The reason that Obama has not answered those questions
is because he has not been asked those specific questions. When he has offered comment on his plan, he has been clear and consistent that he would pursue what he determines to be the optimal strategy, taking changing circumstances into account.
BTW, Obama's not the first candidate, nor will he be the last, who seek to avoid getting bogged down in answering hypothetical questions at times, but I look at Obama's answers here and I see someone who is actually somewhat unusual in that he will actually engage a hypothetical question at times. Many if not most politicians in his position would have simply demur on the grounds of the question's hypotheticalness: "Look, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals here." Give the man a little credit, will ya?
__________________________skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
I suggest re-reading my
I suggest re-reading my comment upthread http://swordscrossed.org/node/2324#comment-90777 . First, this fundamental question (degree of contingency on stability) has been at the heart of this huge issue and his answer at the heart of his campaign (and the success thereof). Second, he has been asked directly (see my links) but they have always failed to follow up sufficiently to either get an answer, a refusal to answer, or such obvious evasiveness that it's clear he is avoiding giving an answer. (Give me 10 minutes with him and I'd get one of the above for everyone to see).
When he has offered comment on his plan, he has been clear and consistent that he would pursue what he determines to be the optimal strategy, taking changing circumstances into account.
"taking changing circumstances into account" does NOT come anywhere close to answering the fundamental, central question here, the question I'm asking. It's the same kind of vague, ambiguous phrasing that Obama is using to avoid answering this central, very important question, while creating ambiguity that lets people see in his statements the answers they want to see, and leaving himself less vulnerable to attack.
This isn't just some obscure scenario related to some minor issue this election. This is -- and has been -- the most fundamental question of perhaps the biggest issue of the campaign, and so far no one here can tell me what his answer is based on statements/implications he's made. Would he, would he not, or might he substantially delay withdrawals if he thought proceeding would jeopardize stability? Is there some maximum time he'd wait before withdrawing anyway? These are fundamental -- and fairly straight-forward -- questions. It's amazing to me that people can say that his answers have been fairly clear, yet they can't tell me what his answers are.
What are his answers?
Yes or No
What was the question...... I forgot ;-)
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
I'm crying uncle on this thread
Hopefully someone will ask Obama the question with the all important word "substantially" included, and then we can all get back to sleeping at night :-p
__________________________skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
It's not the word
It's not the word "substantially", it's the truly all important concept of contingency. There's a fundamental difference among the following positions that could be Obama's position regarding what he'd do if he comes to believe that withdrawal would jeopardize stability in Iraq:
A) I will NOT delay beginning withdrawals, even if I think doing so will jeopardize stability.
B) I WOULD delay, but after a few months, I'd begin withdrawals anyway even if I still think it would jeopardize stability.
C) I MIGHT delay, but after a few months, I'd begin withdrawals anyway even if I still think it would jeopardize stability.
D) I WOULD delay for a couple of years if I continued to think it would jeopardize stability, but after that, I'd begin withdrawals anyway even if I still think it would jeopardize stability.
E) I MIGHT delay for a couple of years if I continued to think it would jeopardize stability, but after that, I'd begin withdrawals anyway even if I still think it would jeopardize stability.
F) I WOULD delay as long as I thought withdrawals would jeopardize stability, period, even if that meant NEVER withdrawing.
G) I MIGHT delay as long as I thought withdrawals would jeopardize stability, period, even if that meant NEVER withdrawing.
Does anyone have a very good sense of which of the above is Obama's position? If not, isn't it a question worth trying to get an answer to, in itself and also because he won the nomination largely by strongly implying that his answer was the first regarding beginning withdrawals immediately, and either the second or third regarding sticking to his 16-month timetable, yet as of July 3 he has been cleverly trying to have it all ways via ambiguous statements?
The underlying assumption in this
Is that stability is within the power of the US to provide rather than being something that must originate almost completely from the Iraqi government and people.
If you take the latter perspective, then you have several possibilities
A) The Iraqi government is not able to move towards providing stability on its own, in which case we need to leave or accept being stuck there forever.
B) The Iraqi government is able, but unwilling, in which case we need to leave on time or there is no reason for them to change
C) The Iraqi government does great! In which case we can leave right on time (or even early!)
D) The Iraqi government does really well and meets almost all of their benchmarks, but is just a liiittle bit behind on a few, in which case we can make a minor adjustment to help them (and it takes 20 months instead of 16)
E) Something completely unexpected occurs (massive collapse but not of an internal sectarian nature) in which case, we have to re-evaluate whether our (and the rest of world's) responsibility to prevent genocide takes over.
E) Is the only case where we need to completely abandon any timetable and frankly, you could make the same case about collapse + genocide in any other country.
I wasn't asking about what
I wasn't asking about what would be good policy. I was asking what Obama's current position is for the hypothetical scenario in which he comes to believe that withdrawal per his timetable would jeopardize stability. (Would he delay withdrawals, and if so, is there a limit to how long he'd wait before proceeding anyway even if he still thought it would jeopardize stability?)
As for your scenarios and policy implications, I like your analytical approach and many of your points, but there's one big policy option you missed: making our support contingent upon the Iraqis taking the actions we believe will enable us to leave without jeopardizing stability (or other objectives of ours). Below are diaries of mine from last year advocating such a policy:
4/29/07 diary:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brooksrob/2007/apr/29/iraq_strategy_a_sens...
8/2/07 diary:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brooksrob/2007/aug/02/a_common_sense_iraq_...
8/8/07 comments beginning with this one:
http://archive.redstate.com/blogs/mediahawk/2007/aug/08/the_nightmare_th...
I'm saying that the questions indicated a different view
One where your questions don't really apply and are ambiguous. The issue isn't just level of stability (either the value or the derivative of that value) as much as the cause for that level and change in stability.
Reasonable, rational answers to your questions should have a lot of "Well, it depends" in them. Why is stability threatened? Is it the intrinsic impact of a power vacuum forming as the US withdraws? Well, there is no way to deal with that other than to make that withdrawal slow but steady.
I'd argue (I won't put words in Obama's mouth on the subject) that making our support contingent on Iraqis taking actions we believe will enable us to leave without jeopardizing stability is flawed in that we suck at figuring out what actions will do that. The Iraqis should instead take actions that they believe will enable us to leave without jeopardizing stability and the best way to do that is to give a clear and appropriate timeline for withdrawal that they can count on. Then they can plan to take the steps that they think best.
There are several scenarios where this won't work, but I'd argue that those are the same scenarios where your suggestion fails as well (mostly involving dishonest actors in Iraq) while there is at least one flaw that is eliminated (dishonest actors in the US). I'd also argue that any timetable that gets close to two years is going to be impacted by US elections and as a result, inevitably run afoul of dishonest US actors trying to manipulate it for electoral benefit. In other words, no president can possibly extricate us from Iraq in more than 20 months but less than 6 years without it going horribly wrong.
Well, if someone wants to
Well, if someone wants to give different answers for different types and levels of "stability", that's fine. But that doesn't change the fact that there is a fundamental difference between a candidate saying he will definitely withdraw at least roughly per a particular timetable he has set forth, regardless of whether or not it would jeopardize stabiltiy, and another candidate at the other extreme who says that he would not begin withdrawals unless and until it would not jeopardize stability, as well as a candidate who says something in between. That's what my question is about. And I've found it quite difficult to get Obama supporters to say what his position is, with many contracting themselves as they try to have it both ways on behalf of Obama, something that I, after much frustration, mocked here http://theforvm.org/diary/brooks-and-b-rational/whos-on-first-forvm-obam...
Well if all you want is supporter perspective
Clearly my impression of his stance will be influence by my own stance, so I'd say that nothing he has said has conflicted with this impression.
My impression is pretty much that as soon as he takes office, he'll ask for military plans to complete a withdrawal in approx 16 months in a fashion that will minimize vulnerabilities of troops withdrawing.
His foreign policy team should already be working on a framework for withdrawing in a fashion that maximizes the flexibility that the Iraqi government and people have in providing their own stability in that time, but of course that framework has to remain vague as he can't negotiate for the US with the Iraqi government at this point.
The flexibility he's asking for seems oriented towards the fact that nobody can know where we will be in January. If there are hotspots in the south that require more airlifts or armor to provide more escorts to leave and as a result, the military and his state department say that given needs in Afghanistan it will take 20 months instead of 16, then he'll probably give them the 20.
Short version: My interpretation is that Obama wants to leave Iraq and doesn't seem interested in fixing GWB's mess and somehow convincing America that Iraq was worth it if it had just been done right.
So, what is your answer?
So, what is your answer? Which do you think Obama has indicated is his position regarding how long he would or may delay withdrawals (delay beginning withdrawals or delay them after initiating) if he comes to believe that proceeding per the timetable would jeopardize stability (defined however you think he may define it, and with different answers for different forms/levels of "stability" if you wish)?
Is there a limit to how long he'd wait before withdrawing anyway even though he still thinks it would jeopardize stability?
Which of the multiple choice alternative has Obama indicated is his position. As I've said, his position could be one of those positions from the list for one type/level of stability and another position for another, which is fine, but I think my multiple choice list is essentially exhaustive and mutually exclusive, so if someone thinks he has indicated a position, he/she should be able to tell me which it is from that list (perhaps with a different time period stated).
Again, I think the question's phrasing should be adjusted
"Proceeding per the timetable jeopardizing stability", implies that the withdrawal could jeopardize stability rather than the belief that stability requires a methodical and well defined withdrawal.
So, I'm going to rephrase the question to "What would Obama do if conditions in January convinced him that modifications to the timetable would create a more stable hand-over of responsibility and authority?" I think that he would make minor modifications to the timetable in the interests of significantly better results. i.e. if regional elections were scheduled for December 2009 and providing security for the elections required an extension of two months to give time to properly supply a secure departure, I suspect (and hope) that he'd extend the schedule, but that if the elections were postponed for a year, he'd go back to the original schedule even if it were because of increased instability.I believe that the timetable will not be even somewhat finalized until after he can get input as President from State and the Joint Chiefs.
I don't believe (and hope he doesn't) cancel or make the exit open-ended based on "Things are going to Hell here, so we need to stay until things get better."
We all know the difference between throwing money into an unending effort vs making minor adjustments based on changing conditions. I think that McCain is the first and Obama is the second. I think that his focus is on Afghanistan instead of Iraq so I'm definitely hoping that encourages him to follow through.
We may be misunderstanding
We may be misunderstanding each other a bit as far as the necessity of your adjusting the question, but let me try to clarify what I'm talking about when I say "jeopardize stability".
My question is what has Obama indicated is his position regarding delaying withdrawals in a scenario in which he has come to believe that delaying withdrawals would significantly improve the chances of substantially greater stability (or substantially less instability) vs. if he begins withdrawals immediately upon taking office and proceeds from start to finish per his 16 month timetable. In this scenario he would have a choice: delay withdrawals or proceed with them.
So, what is your answer -- What has Obama indicated is his position regarding what he would do in that scenario? For one thing, if he comes to believe by the time he takes office that beginning withdrawals immediately would jeopardize stability (as described above), is there there a maximum period of delay after which he would begin withdrawals even if he still believed that doing so would substantially reduce the chances of a given level of stability (vs. a substantially lower level of stability / substantially greater level of instability)?
Elections are about motivations and intent
Politician (or business executive for that matter) give their priorities and the motivation for those priorities so we can (hopefully) evaluate how they'll behave under a myriad of unpredictable events.
My answer (one I'm sure you'll find very unhelpful) would be that to bring about that belief; that large delays in that timetable were necessary would only be brought about such a extraordinary series of events (Turkey sends an expeditionary force across the border and Iran and Saudi Arabia and Turkey respond, for example) that we can't reasonably discuss them with a general policy.
Frankly, I consider the two biggest threats to a timely withdrawal to be Capitol Hill and the Pentagon, not events in the Middle East.
Well I have yet to see...
...Barack Obama follow through on any of his primary pledges, even in as much as simply maintaining the pledge itself goes?
This issue has transcended Obama at this point anyway. The war is in a secure closing phase due to the surge he opposed, it was secured by soldiers utilizing equipment Obama voted to deny them, and the bush Administration is negotiating the particulars now, so when McCain gets elected it will be a smooth transition regardless of what BO thought about it, or how many times he took either side of the issue for that matter.
__________________________"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." ~ B. Goldwater
www.TheRedWing.com
BO Knows about the Sunni Awakening
Just because BO is high in the accomplishments of the Sunni Awakening doesn't mean the Sunni Awakening didn't start before The Surge or that the Sunni Awakening cannot of had a very similar impact regardless of The Surge.
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Sure it did...
...Lame response!
__________________________"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." ~ B. Goldwater
www.TheRedWing.com
As I said, different answers
As I said, different answers for different types/levels of potential adverse impact on stability are fine, but are not a reason not to answer the question.
Sounds like you are saying that in an extreme case that Obama presumably considers extremely unlikely (which I think you're implying), such as an outbreak of regional war, the answer is "G". Correct?
Well, what about less "extraordinary" circumstances in which Obama believes that proceeding with withdrawals would jeopardize stability? What if he thinks that delaying withdrawals would likely to make the difference between greater stability (less instability) vs. instability similar to Iraq in 2006 (sectarian violence on a large scale, lack of effective government control, militia domination of some areas, resurgent al Qaida presence and activity that Obama's "residual force" were unable to halt, infiltration across Iraq's borders of Iraqis and non-Iraqis trained in bordering countries as insurgents and brining weapons, etc.)?
Obama quite frankly has no idea what...
...he's doing.
When he is off the prompter, the great orator can hardly speak!
__________________________"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." ~ B. Goldwater
www.TheRedWing.com
Occupation is not a viable long term treatment for instability
No, definitely not G.
I have to keep going back to (imperfect) analogy.
Suppose someone is gong to quit smoking and they give a timetable of 16 weeks. Quitting smoking can cause irritability and lead to ... instability! Can they hold off on quitting if it causes them to be really irritable? No. What if their house is destroyed in an earthquake and they are out of work? Can they prioritize those even if it slows down on quitting the smoking without you accusing them of flaking? Um... sure. For a month or two while they get their life back together.
Transition of defense responsibility to the Iraqi government WILL cause some changes in stability. Minor modifications in the method of departure to minimize that aren't a big deal. However there are plenty of folks, both at home and abroad who have a financial and political interest in keeping us there forever. If you tell them that they can get their way by causing unrest, an unrest that is not in our interests, then they will do so.
So please be clear. Are you
So please be clear. Are you saying your answer is that Obama's position, either stated explicitly or fairly clearly implied by his statements, is "C" (that if he thought withdrawals would jeopardize stability, he "MIGHT delay for a few months, but after a few months, he'd begin withdrawals anyway even if he still thinks it would jeopardize stability) for all but extraordinary and highly unlikely circumstances such as the outbreak of large-scale regional war among neighbors taking place within Iraq, and that his position for such extraordinary circumstances is "G", or are you saying his position is "C" even for such extraordinary circumstances (or something else, but please be clear)?
For a given scenario (what you consider extraordinary or not extraordinary), if he has indicated a position with regard to my question, he has indicated whether or not he has an absolute, unconditional limit to how long he'd delay withdrawals before proceeding anyway, even if he still sees that potential or likely adverse impact on stability from doing so. He either has such an absolute limit on delay (say, a few months) OR he MIGHT or WOULD delay further if he still sees withdrawals as putting stability in jeopardy. A position can't have it both ways -- both setting a maximum delay AND saying he wouldn't (or might not) proceed until it would not jeopardize stability, since it's possibly he would hit any maximum delay without that jeopardy subsiding. It's one or the other. Can't be both for the same scenario.
So please be clear about what you're saying is his publicly stated/implied position. And please pick a letter from my multiple choice list, which is mutually exclusive (for a given scenario) and essentially exhaustive.
You are asking what Obama would do if he changed his mind
Your phrasing is akin to asking what McCain would do if he changed his mind and decided that Iraq wasn't important to our foreign policy and why neither he nor his supporters have explained his stance on 'what he'd do if he completely changed his