Running from Iraq
Ever since Barack Obama confounded reporters last week with vacillating statements on his Iraq policy, the anti-war candidate has been struggling to silence his critics on both side of the political spectrum.
During a press conference last Thursday in Fargo, North Dakota, Obama said, “I am going to do a thorough assessment when I’m there. I’m sure I’ll have more information and continue to refine my policy.”
And with that, the news media and political analysts around the world went into overdrive.
The storm Obama caused should not have surprised him considering that he has fervently opposed the war since the very beginning. As you may remember, in his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Obama railed against Bush and the Iraq War. Since that time, he has been able to build a base of political support among liberals of all backgrounds due to his anti-Bush, anti-war rhetoric.
Once the news wires were transmitting the story around the world, sure enough, Obama hastily called together another press conference that morning to try and settle the uproar. Whatever the Democratic senator had meant to say, he once again reaffirmed his commitment to dovish idealism, and his disregard to the deadly realities of Middle Eastern politics and culture.
Barack Obama’s intellectual recklessness with respect to such a critical foreign policy issue makes it clear that he lacks the leadership and insight necessary to guide the nation through the uncertain times ahead. He has consistently clung to his idealist vision of international affairs, as though beautiful words and a passive-aggressive military are enough to placate America’s enemies.
Obama’s Iraq policy is madness. To advocate complete withdrawal of combat forces in fewer than two years to disregard not only everything we’ve fought for in that country, but the very future of the Persian Gulf region as a whole.
There is no doubt that the war has been plagued by gaps in intelligence, bitter disagreements among policy makers, and faults in our military and political strategy. But after five years of sectarian violence, social turmoil, and bloody street-to-street fighting in Iraq, the coalition’s efforts are beginning to pay off.
Late last week, about the time that Obama was trying to rationalize his Iraq policy gaffe, the Persian Gulf nation of U.A.E. agreed to forgive Iraq’s outstanding debt, some $4 billion in all. The Emirates are also sending a new ambassador to re-establish diplomatic relations after a five-year absence following the U.S. invasion.
This important breakthrough strengthens the democratic Iraqi government’s standing among nations and sends a crucial message to the world: Iraq is headed by a legitimate government that is now ready to reintroduce their nation to the world community.
Just two weeks before that, the Iraqi government announced that it was planning to begin accepting bids on oil production contracts from foreign petroleum companies, including several based here in the U.S. Iraq’s economy has historically been built upon its oil industry, but in the wake of Saddam’s neglect, the lead-up to the invasion, and attacks by terrorists, the country desperately needs foreign investment to get back on its feet. This is absolutely necessary for Iraq revive its economy. For that, it is essential for the U.S. to provide on-going security until full redevelopment is completed.
Having said that, we must give credit to the Iraqi Army for actively engaging militants on both sides of the Shi’ite-Sunni divide. These troops have come a long way in four years, and thanks to their recent successes in Baghdad and Basra, the Mahdi Army, one of the main obstacles to peace in Iraq, is losing not only its military power, but its political influence as well.
Perhaps most significant to our long-term security, total withdrawal and American combat forces from Iraq would be Iran’s dream come true. The mullahs in Tehran see a great opportunity to wrestle power away from the Iraqis–if only we’d leave. This says nothing about al Qaeda’s desire to instigate civil war in Iraq. If we suddenly left after everything we’ve witnessed these past few years, terrorists would feel empowered to reoccupy parts of Iraq and continue slaughtering civilians indiscriminately.
We simple cannot afford to allow Iraq to become one more bastion for our enemies in a part of the world already overflowing with warriors and weapons. Say what you will about the Iraq War and those responsible for it, but we have an obligation to see our mission through to completion. Not just for the sake of the Iraqis and the Middle East, but for our own nation and our security now and in the future.
John McCain is the obvious choice to U.S. national defense and international peace and stability. He is not afraid to deal with the situation in Iraq for what it is, rather than what he would like it to be. Even with his reputation as a maverick, McCain has continually called for the completion of our mission: a return to self-government, stability, and peace in Iraq.
Unlike his Barack Obama, John McCain understands that talk is cheap on the world stage, all the more so in the Middle East. Obama may have enough lofty idealism and eloquent speeches to fill the world’s newspapers, but he certainly doesn’t have what it takes to be Commander-in-Chief in today’s age.
July 9th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
“Obama may have enough lofty idealism and eloquent speeches to fill the world’s newspapers, but he certainly doesn’t have what it takes to be Commander-in-Chief in today’s age.”
Recognizing that Obama has at least a 53/47 chance of being president, if the polls are right, I can’t help but cringe at the notion of him being Commander-in-Chief. This about-face on Iraq fits perfectly with his earlier announcements that he would commit to unconditional talks with Iran but wouldn’t rule out military force in Pakistan. Yikes!