WaPo: Clinton, Obama Iraq Plans “Unrealistic”
The Washington Post published a hard-hitting editorial describing both Obama’s and Clinton’s plans for Iraq “unrealistic” and dubbing them “fantasies.”
The Washington Post published a hard-hitting editorial, calling both the plans of Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton for a quick withdrawal from Iraq “unrealistic” and “fantasies.” According to the WaPo, both plans aren’t grounded in reality. The American newspaper concludes that it hopes that both Senators don’t take their plans seriously.
When it comes to Obama and Clinton, the WaPo opines that “their speeches suggest an understanding of the conflict and the stakes for the United States that is as detached from reality as they accuse Mr. Bush of being when he decided on the invasion.”
The editorial goes on to say that the Democrats are busily trying to ignore the obvious; the surge has payed off, at least in so far that Iraq has seen a significant reduction in violence. This development is quite obvious for any objective person, yet Clinton and Obama “barely acknowledge” it.
Furthermore “[b]oth Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton propose withdrawing U.S. troops at the most rapid pace the Pentagon says is possible — one brigade a month. In the 16 months or so it would take to remove those forces, they envision the near-miraculous accomplishment of every political goal the Bush administration has aimed at for five years, from the establishment of a stable government to agreement by Iraq’s neighbors to support it,” the editorial argues. “They suppose that the knowledge that American forces were leaving would inspire these accords. In fact, it more likely would cause all sides to discount U.S. influence and prepare to violently seize the space left by the departing Americans.”
As if that’s not enough, the Washington Post argues, both Democrats promise Americans that they’ll leave some troops behind in Iraq “to prevent Al Qaeda from establishing bases.” That’s a nice idea, the editorial says, but it’s - once again - only possible to promise something like that if you ignore reality. “They assume that an Iraqi government that had just been abandoned by the United States would consent to the continued presence of American forces on its territory. In all, Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama speak as if they have no understanding of Iraqi leaders, whom they propose to treat as willing puppets.”
The conclusion: the Washington Post hopes that both candidates “understand reality,” “behind their wildly unrealistic campaign rhetoric.” For a quick withdrawal is not possible nor good.
This is one of the major problems I have with both Democratic candidates, and I think that many American moderates, centrists and moderately conservatives share this concern: you can’t abandon Iraq. Whether liberal Americans like it or not, the fact of the matter is that their country invaded another country and that you can’t just leave that country because things don’t go as you hoped and planned. Not from a moral, nor from a political perspective.
Abandoning Iraq will be bad for the US in a variety of ways; one of the main ways is that America’s image will be hurt even more. Yes, many Europeans opposed the war, but they oppose a premature withdrawal even more.
"Having visited Iraq, I’m also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops,
driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground,
will not undo the mistakes … It could compound them.
It could compound them by plunging Iraq into an even deeper
and, perhaps, irreparable crisis." (
Sen. Barack Obama, Congressional Record, 6/21/06, p. S6233)
I suppose that the Congressional Record will now be accused of being a racist organization.
Some people are simply unwilling to peel back the layers in order to conduct an
honest evaluation of Obama, his thinking and plans for the Nation.
Obama’s plans for America are for America, hopefully they won’t continue to NATION BUILD. or some OTHER Nation.Jerry Bee… get over yourself. Obama welcomes and is tough enough to hear it, without crying.But who is the media and Washing Post to tell what is realistic. The problem is in the thinking. This is a broader war on terror, and if we choose, we can pick and choose where we want to fight it. Unfortunately, the Bush Adm. thought through Iraq was the better route. It might have been there was no vision or reasonable plan. Terrorism is not communism, you cannot contain. You have to address from a reasonable and idealogical perspective. Terrorism is more rooted than Nazism. Obama is the best candidate, like an Eisenhower.