The New York Times has a news analysis arguing, once again, that Obama is somehow not going to be ending the Iraq war as he promised. I thought we'd dealt with this. Here's what they say:
“I believe that 16 months is the right time frame, but, as I've said consistently, I will listen to the recommendations of my commanders,” Mr. Obama said at that news conference on Monday. “And my No. 1 priority is making sure that our troops remain safe in this transition phase, and that the Iraqi people are well served by a government that is taking on increased responsibility for its own security.”
An apparent evolution of Mr. Obama's thinking can be heard in contrast to comments he made in July, when he called a news conference to lay out his Iraq policy in unambiguous terms.
“I intend to end this war,” he said then. “My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war — responsibly, deliberately, but decisively.” And in a news conference that month in Amman, Jordan, Mr. Obama acknowledged that the American troop increase had bolstered Iraqi security but declared that he would not hesitate to overrule American commanders and redirect troops in Afghanistan.
I'm not sure there's much difference in those comments, but here's what Obama said Monday:
As I said throughout the campaign, I will be giving Secretary Gates and our military a new mission as soon as I take office: responsibly ending the war in Iraq through a successful transition to Iraqi control.
Later on, during the Q&A:
I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months with the understanding that it might be necessary, likely to be necessary, to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support to protect our civilians in Iraq.
The SOFA that has been now passed by the Iraqi legislature points us in the right direction. It indicates we are now on a glide path to reduce our forces in Iraq. I will be meeting be not only Secretary Gates but the joint chiefs of staff and commanders on the ground to make a determination as to how we move that pace -- how we proceed in that withdrawal process.
I believe that 16 months is the right timeframe. But as I have said consistently, I will listen to the recommendations of my commanders. And my number one priority is making sure that our troops remain safe in this transition phase and that the Iraqi people are well served by a government that is taking on increased responsibility for its own security.
Let me also point to this piece: "U.S. military says it can meet Obama demands."
This Times analysis essentially expresses a desire for people who are against the war to be really stupid. Obama has been pretty clear about what he intends to do about Iraq, and those who are against the war paid attention. Most people who are against the war understand the desire to ensure we leave a stable country behind and accept the fact that it will take time to get out, and may require leaving some troops behind in non-combat roles during that transition, even if they don't like it. Which is why the Times couldn't find anyone to complain about Obama supposedly changing position, on or off the record, and instead left us with this lame sentence: "But supporters who keyed on the language of ending the war might be forgiven if they thought that would mean bringing home all of the troops." "Might"! "If"! Let me say, reporters might be forgiven if they stop writing bad stories.
--Tim Fernholz
