data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3f8d8/3f8d86d551a0ad244547a1464b6b982f36f00a2a" alt=""
BARACK OBAMA yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of
rigidity on Iraq: “They said we couldn’t leave when violence was up, they say we
can’t leave when violence is down.” Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish
consistency. Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic
candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in
slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since
the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this
month that he might “refine” his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and
listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his
arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic
changes in Iraq.
...
“What’s missing in our debate,” Mr. Obama said
yesterday, “is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq.” Indeed: The
message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the
war’s outcome — that Iraq “distracts us from every threat we face” and thus must
be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That’s an irrational and
ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East,
with some of the world’s largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a
mistake, Iraq’s future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected
president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to
that reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment