Posted by
Reeson on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 4:18:27 PM
By Greg C. Reeson
Barack Obama said today that overall U.S. interests have suffered as a result of President Bush's decision to surge American troops in Iraq in January 2007. At the same time, he vowed to implement his 16-month withdrawal plan if he becomes president. There's only one word for this kind of thinking: dangerous.
Notice I didn't say stupid, ignorant, or naive. Obama is none of those. He is, however, inexperienced and reckless in his rhetoric, and if he is to be believed, in the actions he will take as commander-in-chief.
Toeing the leftist line that Iraq is a distraction from the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda remnants in Afghanistan, Obama ignores the dangerous consequences associated with our failure in Iraq. There is no question that the security situation in Afghanistan is becoming more precarious by the day. But this is not an either or situation we find ourselves in. It's not like we could just pack up our toys, leave Iraq, and all would be well in Baghdad and the various Iraqi provinces.
President Bush ordered the "surge" in Iraq because we were in danger of losing the war. He took bold, aggressive action that improved security, routed al-Qaeda in Iraq, gave the Iraqi government breathing space, and forced Iran to relook its position as U.S. strength in Iraq grew and Iranian operatives were targeted.
Granted, the surge in Iraq did commit ground forces that otherwise could have been sent to Afghanistan, but it is important that we not overlook the failings of our allies in the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Our NATO partners have consistently failed to live up to their promises in Afghanistan, both in terms of troop commitments and in terms of national limitations imposed to keep allied troops out of harm's way.
When President Bush ordered the surge in Iraq, it was because the deteriorating situation there posed a strategic threat to us and to our regional allies. Should we have ignored that threat, allowed the continued ethnic cleansing of Iraq's Sunnis, ceded crucial influence to Iran, and abandoned the Iraqi government?
Senator Obama maintains that our standing in the world has been diminished by our presence in Iraq. Does he really believe that our international clout would be enhanced by retreat? By the abandonment of the more than 20 nations still standing by our side in Iraq? By allowing a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions? It is hard for me to see how a retreat from Iraq would have helped America on the international stage.
Still, despite the speech reiterating his commitment to the 16-month withdrawal, I do not believe Senator Obama will do anything that would allow Iraq to disintegrate on his watch. The potential ramifications are too great, and he knows it. As I said, stupid he is not.
It remains to be seen if there will be a substantial shift in Senator Obama's rhetoric once his trip to Iraq is complete. It will be hard to dismiss the very real security gains, and the fact that reconciliation and political accommodation are occurring from the ground up, even if the government in Baghdad has been slow in coming along.
To travel to Iraq, meet with our commanders, view the political and security situations first hand, and then maintain a get-out-at-all-costs strategy is unfathomable to me. We'll have to wait and see if Senator Obama will feel the same.