Not many pundits think it was smart of Barack Obama to try to lock in his position before going to Iraq. The Wall Street Journal casts Obama’s Iraq positioning as a failure of judgment:

Mr. Obama has made a central basis of his candidacy the “judgment” he showed in opposing the Iraq war in 2002, even if it was a risk-free position to take as an Illinois state senator. The claim helped him win the Democratic primaries. But the 2007 surge debate is the single most important strategic judgment he has had to make on the more serious stage as a Presidential candidate. He vocally opposed the surge, and events have since vindicated Mr. Bush. Without the surge and a new counterinsurgency strategy, the U.S. would have suffered a humiliating defeat in Iraq. . . Mr. Obama does promise to “consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government” in implementing his plans. But he would have shown more sincerity on this score had he postponed Tuesday’s address until after he visited Iraq and had a chance to speak with those generals and Iraqis. The timing of his speech made it appear not that he is open to what General David Petraeus tells him, but that he wants to limit the General’s military options.Mr. Bush has often been criticized for refusing to admit his Iraq mistakes, but he proved that wrong in ordering the surge that reversed his policy and is finally winning the war. The next President will now take office with the U.S. in a far better security position than 18 months ago. Mr. Obama could help his own claim to be Commander in Chief, and ease doubts about his judgment, if he admits that Mr. Bush was right.

But maybe the issues is one of nerve. David Paul Kuhn, also in the Journal, questions the timing of Obama’s policy flip-flops, positing that he should have shifted earlier on the host of issues he has only recently revised and trusted the Democratic base to follow him. He writes:

Mr. Obama would have been braver and shrewder if he shifted to the center on some issues months ago. As early as mid-February he had the electoral math to assure the nomination. He could have then taken one big and bold stance that would have irked and even infuriated some liberals. If he had done so, he would have remained politically alive, offered evidence he was larger than liberalism and thus improved his general election positioning. He would also look brave. After all, despite John McCain’s shifts on issues like taxes, Mr. Obama has long known he would face the man who built his franchise on grit.

Well, this is equally true of Iraq. If Obama had let on during the primary that he understood and appreciated the success of the surge he likely still would have won the nomination, but he would have taken some heat. Even now, with the nomination in hand, he seems utterly incapable of challenging the deeply held beliefs of the netroots (e.g. nothing has been gained in Iraq, no political progress has been had, Al Qaeda hasn’t been wounded) rather than face up to reality. Unless he is entirely shielded from reality he must know that much of what he says, including the irrelevancy of Iraq to the wider war against Al Qaeda, is just poppycock.

So while his former opposition to the surge might be characterized as the result of poor judgment, his current disinclination to modify his now-proven faulty views and challenge his own party smacks of political cowardice. If he wants to prove the critics wrong, he’ll ask some real questions of commanders on the ground and the Iraqi leaders. Then he’ll use that information to seriously re-examine the policy fantasyland he has constructed for himself. He made that nearly impossible by his behavior this week, which maybe was the point. What better way to avoid the temptation to reconcile with reality than to fix your views in the New York Times and a major policy speech?

+ A A -
You may also like
Share via
Copy link