Quickly retreating from Iraq could destroy the presidencies of Clinton or Obama

A must-read column from David Brooks in today's New York Times:

"Both Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have seductively hinted that they would withdraw almost all U.S. troops within 12 to 16 months. But if either of them actually did that, he or she would instantly make Iraq the consuming partisan fight of their presidency.

There would be private but powerful opposition from Arab leaders, who would fear a return to 2006 chaos. There would be irate opposition from important sections of the military, who would feel that the U.S. was squandering the gains of the previous year. A Democratic president with few military credentials would confront outraged and highly photogenic colonels screaming betrayal.

There would be important criticism from nonpartisan military experts. In his latest report, the much-cited Anthony Cordesman describes an improving Iraqi security situation that still requires “strategic patience” and another five years to become self-sustaining.

There would be furious opposition from Republicans and many independents. They would argue that you can’t evacuate troops just as Iraqis are about to hold national elections and tensions are at their highest. They would point out that it’s insanity to end local reconstruction and Iraqi training efforts just when they are producing results. They would accuse the new administration of reverse-Rumsfeldism, of ignoring postsurge realities and of imposing an ideological solution on a complex situation.

All dreams of changing the tone in Washington would be gone. All of Obama’s unity hopes would evaporate. And if the situation did deteriorate after a quick withdrawal, as the National Intelligence Estimate warns, the bloodshed would be on the new president’s head.

Therefore, when a new Democratic administration considered all these possibilities, its members would part ways. A certain number of centrists would conclude that rapid withdrawal is a mistake. They would say that the situation had changed and would call for a strategic review. They’d recommend a long, slow conditions-based withdrawal — constant, small troop reductions, and a lot of regional diplomacy, while maintaining tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for the remainder of the term.

The left wing of the party would go into immediate uproar. They’d scream: This was a central issue of the campaign! All the troops must get out now!

The president would have to make a terrible decision."

Brooks goes on to discuss the nightmare tensions that might erupt between Democrats on federal spending.  Read it all here.

Comments

[Alan S]

Barack may say that he'll quit Iraq but I guess he won't.

This from The Politico blog:

This is, I think, more or less the position of both candidates. But it's not exactly what you hear in the stump speech.

From 60 Minutes, on Iraq:

"And you pull out according to that time table, regardless of the situation? Even if there’s serious sectarian violence?" Kroft asked.

"No, I always reserve as commander in chief, the right to assess the situation," Obama replied."

[Tony Makara]

The idea behind the surge was, in fact, to make withdrawal more difficult. The US army in Iraq is an army of occupation, it will remain so no matter what the rhetoric from Clinton and Obama. The only long-term solution for Iraq is to break the country up.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Your editorial is a point of view I suppose. Equally a Clinton or Obama presidency might force the Iraqi government to try to make the political progress that has eluded it for so long. At the moment there is political paralysis in Iraq and whilst casualties have sharply declined the situation in many parts of the country is by no means good.
If withdrawal from Iraq is unpoular in the USA then the repulican candidate will win the election so none of this matters.Equally if a majority of Americans wish to withdraw then a decision to get the troops out won't cause a problem for a Democratic President internally.

[anon]

Will this kill Obamas campaign?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY

[jdun]

The Democrats lost Iraq. The surge shut them up for good.

[Frogg, USA]

I don't think any President is gonna be able to spend a lot of money of dream projects because the American people aren't in the mood for more fiscal irresponsiblity.

About Iraq--I doubt Hillary would withdraw troops. She may make some slight gesture to give an illusion; but, she would probably continue Bush's plan. I can't say what Obama would do. He's clueless. He could just withdraw troops; but, I suspect he is smart enough to know better.

Hope Hillary beats Obama. Hope McCain beats Hillary.

Ugh! It's gonna be a long political season to zap that 'beam of light' away from Obama supporters and kncok some sense back into them:

“… a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany … and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama”
- Barack Obama Lebanon, New Hampshire.
January 7, 2008.

http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/

-------------------------------------

And Obama Wept

By: Jack Tapper, ABC News
February 07, 2008 9:43 AM

Inspiration is nice. But some folks seem to be getting out of hand.

It's as if Tom Daschle descended from on high saying, "Be not afraid; for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all the people: for there is born to you this day in the city of Chicago a Savior, who is Barack the Democrat."

Obama supporter Kathleen Geier writes that she's "getting increasingly weirded out by some of Obama's supporters. On listservs I'm on, some people who should know better – hard-bitten, not-so-young cynics, even – are gushing about Barack…

Describing various encounters with Obama supporters, she writes, "Excuse me, but this sounds more like a cult than a political campaign.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/and-obama-wept.html

[mamapajamas]

I've been reading a lot of scuttlebutt here and there on the net and hearing callers on the talk shows saying something that I find utterly hilarious...

What I've been hearing about is that a lot of the surge of Obama support is coming from Republicans and Independents who tend conservative who are disgusted with the McCain success, and in open primary states are voting for Obama to mess with the Democrat primaries the same way the Democrats and liberal-leaning Independents in open primary states messed with the Republican nomination.

This retaliation that I'm hearing about is aimed at messing with the Hillary campaign, partly to take away McCain's plans to run his campaign in opposition of Hillary, and partly toward building up an appearance of support for Obama that will be yanked out from under him in November (which is one of our main suspicions concerning the Democrats and Independents who voted for McCain in open primaries).

This is getting VERY Byzantine, people!

[mamapajamas]

PS: In discussion with a Hillary-supporting Democrat co-worker, who originally thought all states should have open primaries, he has ALSO heard this scuttlebutt and is suddenly in the "closed primaries only" camp that I told him back in October should be the norm. Now that his candidate is being scuttled, all of a sudden he's reversed his position on the open/closed primary issue! ROFLMAO!

[jdun]

Open primaries are stupid. The people that supports them are mainly liberals and idealist. In other words bunch of screwed up people.

Primaries should be close. Only party members can vote for their party candidates. Party candidates aren't running for government offices. They are running to get elected to run for government office. It basically a private affair.

Open primaries always leads to corruptions from outsider of a given party.

[jdun]

Open primaries are stupid. The people that supports them are mainly liberals and idealist. In other words bunch of screwed up people.

Primaries should be close. Only party members can vote for their party candidates. Party candidates aren't running for government offices. They are running to get elected to run for government office. It basically a private affair.

Open primaries always leads to corruptions from outsider of a given party.

[jdun]

Open primaries are stupid. The people that supports them are mainly liberals and idealist. In other words bunch of screwed up people.

Primaries should be close. Only party members can vote for their party candidates. Party candidates aren't running for government offices. They are running to get elected to run for government office. It basically a private affair.

Open primaries always leads to corruptions from outsider of a given party.

[jdun]

Open primaries are stupid. The people that supports them are mainly liberals and idealist. In other words bunch of screwed up people.

Primaries should be close. Only party members can vote for their party candidates. Party candidates aren't running for government offices. They are running to get elected to run for government office. It basically a private affair.

Open primaries always leads to corruptions from outsider of a given party.

[Frogg, USA]

I don't think the scuttlebutt you guys are hearing about amounts to much. It could account for some votes; but, Obama draws huge crowds at his rallies. His support is real. National polls also show his support is real. I have no idea why people support a one term Senator with no accomplishments; but, they have been hit by that Obama "beam of light".

I will admit, I voted for Hillary. My candidate was out of the race (Romney). McCain was sure to win my state (and did). I voted for Hillary for two reasons. I think Hillary is both the better of the Dem candidates; and, also easiest for McCain to beat.

[mamapajamas]

Frogg... maybe, maybe not. But it COULD explain why so many of the pollsters have been wrong in their prognostications of the primaries.

[Andy]

It is quite revealing that Obama's support staff in Texas work under the banner of media-glamourised thug Che Guevara:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/02/17/what_would_jfk_do/

[Andy]

Sorry having trouble posting that link, try Googling: boston globe jfk guevara

[writing a dissertation]

Blogs are good for every one where we get lots of information for any topics nice job keep it up !!!

[Term paper]

Nice blog, its great article informative post, thanks for sharing it. Thanks for the information!

[Dissertation Examples]

Excellent post and wonderful blog, I really like this type of interesting articles keep it up.

Fantastic wrok again!

[Dissertation Online]

Hi,
Thank you for sharing information in the blog. You are really doing a good work. I personally like this blog and appreciates your efforts.

Dissertation

[Custom Essay]

Hi,
This is really a great stuff for sharing. Keep it up .Thanks for sharing.

[Coursework help]

Hi,
Very interesting article will bookmark your site to check if you write more about in the future.

Assignment Help

[Custom Essays]

Hi,
This is really great work. Thank you for sharing such a useful piece of information here in the blog.

[Term Paper Help]

You made some good points there. I did a search on the topic and found most people will agree with your blog. Thanks

Term Paper Help

[Research Proposal Writing]

Many institutions limit access to their online information. Making this information available will be an asset to all.