Senator Obama, Please Give a Straight Answer
I’m going to be somewhat hypocritical. I suggested a week or so ago that folks here stop creating new threads addressing the same question (all within a day or two), and instead offer their arguments as comments on one of the threads that already existed (for the sake of clarity and efficiency of discussion/debate).
That was then, this is now. And in fairness to me, after much debate, those threads are probably stale at this point, yet this question – perhaps the most important question of this election – still has not been answered, not by Obama, nor by those seeking to answer on his behalf here.
Reporters have, on some occasions, asked Obama this question (one recent example http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=2704231&referralPlaylistId=c985e69916535a2170b2b18ab0ab7eb60401f9bb), yet, upon receiving deliberate, carefully crafted talking points from Obama in response, have failed to point out the absence of an actual answer and to ask again for one.
Here’s the question, which I’ll actually split into two questions:
1) Senator Obama, you have promised to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq immediately upon taking office. If you come to believe that doing so would jeopardize stability in Iraq, would you still do it, or would you delay it (or at least consider delaying it), and begin withdrawals either only when you believed that doing so would no longer jeopardize stability or at least after waiting a substantial period of time for this condition to change?
2) Same question as #1, but with regard to sticking to the timetable once withdrawals have begun, if you find at some point between when you begin withdrawals and roughly 16 months later that proceeding per the timetable would jeopardize stability?
And I’ll add a third – another “wriggle room” question:
3) What would be the largest possible “residual force” that you would leave in Iraq (how many troops)?
And please, Senator Obama, do not tell me you will “make tactical adjustments based on conditions on the ground” and please don’t tell me “we have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in”, and spare me any other vague, deliberately ambiguous non-response responses. Also, please don’t tell me that you don’t expect to face that scenario, unless you are contending that you consider that scenario virtually impossible, in which case I’d really like to hear how you can be so sure that you need not even contemplate that scenario, let alone take a public position on what is arguably the most important issue in this election.
My questions are clear, Senator Obama (and Obama supporters/apologists). What are your answers?
--
- Brooks and B Rational's blog
- Login or register to post comments
I've never seen a diary put in the public stocks and humiliated before. It's bracing, sure. But also a little scary.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
)I've never seen a diary put in the public stocks and humiliated before. It's bracing, sure. But also a little scary.
If I write a diary that says that 1+1=2 and all commenters on a blog disagree and insist that 1+1=3, and some make snarky comments in the process implying that I'M the one not getting it, I haven't been humiliated. And neither have they, except possibly if and when someone (successfully) explains to them that they were wrong all along (or they figure it out themselves) and they think others, about whose opinion they care, are (or will be) aware of this fact.
Oh, by the way, a diary cannot be humiliated, only a person can. Oversight on your part? Sloppy writing? Probably not. You probably just didn't want to say that you thought I had been humiliated because that might trigger the posting rules alarm (although it seems to get stuck sometimes depending on which "side" is doing the violating). And you probably think your real clever for phrasing it as you did, however oddly and awkwardly, to give yourself plausible deniability ("I was just commenting on the diary.").
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Nah, it's just a metaphor or somesuch. But look, if you find yourself in a spot where you believe you are right and *everyone* else is wrong? You might want to consider that your math may not be the only way to solve a problem.
And your inability to describe that divide without resorting to insults isn't helping.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )indulge me a bit and point to the places in your diary where you believe you said something as simple as 1+1=2.
--I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )No, I'm afraid at this point I'm not willing to spend the time to explain. But believe me -- or don't, or check with your local university logic professor -- the replies I've gotten on this thread have generally contained obvious logical errors reflected in obvious non sequiturs.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Oh well, BlaiseP underwent a similar period of ...uh ...adjustment at the beginning ...
--I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The two are not remotely comparable. Most of us run afoul from time to time, or in my case much of the time, but this one here is quite special.
--Me: We! -- Ali
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ). . .but hardly at the same Butch/Sundance finale levels of this. Which goes to show that learning from experience is one of the more noble human traits.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...and perhaps as you'd expect, I've got a different take. You see, the decision to topple Iraq, for entirely elective reasons, was a monumentally bad and evil decision made by politicians that I consider to be war criminals. I'm certain that none on the right side of the fence, and few on the left side of the fence truly understand the depth of this evil. BlaiseP does. I respect that.
It's interesting to me that since Ken White has left us, the small group of us that actually fired our weapons in anger and who watched friends die in war all line up against this war and the criminality that started it.
Edit: Now that I think about it, there are a few of our right-leaning posters who served our country in war, and either fought or would have fought if given the opportunity. My side still outnumbers theirs.
--Me: We! -- Ali
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )There's no changing anyone's mind. Might as well be Timothy preaching. Best just to lay out your own point, stipulate to the other guy's facts and get on with life. Take that route and they'll stipulate to your facts and sometimes you'll agree, you never can tell. I'm often surprised to find the other guy doesn't conform to the stereotype I have of him.
I repeat myself (I always do) in saying the veterans I know sort themselves out into two camps: the Bitter Enders who look back in anger to un-spill the milk and un-cry the tears and re-fight the battles and snidely curse those who Lost Faith in America. Then there's the WTF Brigade, who saw the madness and stupidity and pointlessness of believing prescriptive war solves anything. They argue with the Bitter Enders to this day, my VFW is divided into two camps. Then there are the old Korean War guys, who sorta stay out of it, they were thrust into a meatgrinder of unparalleled savagery, the like of which was seldom seen in RSVN or Iraq. They're just silent. Their war never really ended, and we seldom talk about the Korean War. Their memorial says it all: men in ponchos, endlessly marching through a cold rain.
When the elephants fight, the grass gets trampled. I'm not so sure but what the only valid viewpoint for any war is the civilians who were trampled underfoot in these battles. For them it was a different war. They do most of the suffering and dying.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )begs to be read in the Jon Lovitz Master Thespian voice.
--Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )if the phrase "high dudgeon" didn't exist it would have had to be invented for that thread.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I remember back in 2003, when they were so conscientious about pinning Bush down on how many troops we would commit, what our long-term objectives would be, how long we would stay, what conditions would lead to partial or complete withdrawal, etc.
Snark aside -- you want to know why politicians don't give straight answers about Iraq? Because the only possible straight answer is that we f***ed up. We are not going to emerge with anything we (or the Iraqis, for a great many of whom it is already too late) could reasonably consider "success". The best we can hope for is the pseudo-dignity of Pee Wee Herman squeaking "I meant to do that!" after wrecking his bike for the umpteenth time.
Obviously, no politician can say this. Therefore, neither Obama nor McCain will ever, under any circumstances, give anything resembling a "straight answer about Iraq". This is not the media's fault, except insofar as the members of the media are as credulous and knee-jerk-nationalistic as the rest of the human race.
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
)You guys are just not making sense. Whether due to (1) genuine confusion, (2) deliberate evasiveness / spin, or (3) bias-driven cognitive obstacles (e.g., not stopping to really listen and think, and instead responding reflexively/defensively), your comments on this thread are pretty much just a big bowl of non sequiturs.
Does the fact that I'm just one guy and you're a whole bunch disagreeing with me mean I'm more likely wrong than right on the above? Nope. Logic is not a matter of democracy, any more than is math. I see clearly the various (and numerous) logical errors you guys are making. If I thought they were all due to cause #1 above, I'd probably keep pointing out your errors, explaining/correcting, and trying yet again to move toward a rational, responsive, substantive, productive discussion/debate, but I can't help but think that causes #2 and #3 are major contributors here, and I'm just not going to waste more time explaining stuff to folks whose minds seem fairly impenetrable on this subject -- or for that matter on ANYTHING that touches a partisan nerve these days, with seems to be EVERYTHING.
I was (and to some extent still am) hoping that Forvm was different than the partisan echo chamber blogs of right and left, respectively, not only in Forvm's relative ideological diversity, but also in the degree to which people were seeking genuine, responsive, substantive, logical, open-minded, discussion/debate, the kind of discussion/debate from which people can possibly learn and grow.
I have to say that at this point I'm disappointed. It seems like most folks here are heavily driven by partisan bias and/or see their role as unfailingly, reflexively, and unshakably promoting their respective candidates in all matters large and small, and attacking the opposing candidate on all matters large and small, and apparently use Forvm as the community dump at which to drop off their partisan trash, have some people tell them it smells great, and others tell them it smells terrible, and then for each side to claim that the other's trash smells worse, and then do it again tomorrow, with no one having learned anything new, and no one modifying their beliefs or opinions one bit. Graphically, here's what the above looks like http://theforvm.org/diary/brooks-and-b-rational/the-unfortunate-hyperpartisan-mindset
Additionally, it seems that a large majority here are Obama supporters, so, while I'm not saying that one side behaves this way more than the other, the balance of partisans is such that there is a bit of liberal blog echo chamber dynamic here, too.
To be clear, I'm not saying everyone here fits the description above exactly, but I am saying that it seems to me that most folks here fit it to a great enough degree that it's making discussion/debate here rather uninteresting, tedious, and unproductive in terms of either learning from others or educating/influencing others. As I mentioned on another thread, it's like that old joke about the couple whose way of having oral sex is to stand in opposite corners of the room and yell "F-ck You!" at each other. Why bother?
But if you guys prefer it that way, hey, it's your playground. And it's nothing personal; you guys seem like a bunch of good guys in general, particularly the guys I met for beers (and I'd still be up for beers again, if I'm still welcomed after this undiplomatic comment). I'm just looking for a different type and level of discussion/debate than many of you apparently prefer.
So I'm gonna cut back quite a bit, at least on anything that touches on this election and probably partisan matters in general, which I assume will be most threads. Hopefully there will be some diaries on topics that will be unrelated to or sufficiently distant from these partisan matters that the partisan reflexes and mental blocks won't kick in and dominate, and quality discourse will be possible.
- Login or register to post comments
)If you asked me what I thought should be done, I could give you an answer.
But you want a very specific answer to what Obama would do and the answer, which has been repeated to you many many many many times, is that no one knows. Probably not even Obama. Yet this answer does not seem to satisfy you.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )As I said repeatedly, if someone is saying that we just have no idea what Obama's answers are, because Obama has NOT been clear at all as to if he WOULD, would NOT, or even if he MIGHT (i.e, would even consider) substantially delay/suspend withdrawals if sticking to the timetable would jeopardize statiblity -- then I AGREE. He has not been clear at all, not even on the MAYBE. So we simply have no idea if his position is that:
- he is committed to sticking to his timetable even if he comes to think it would jeopardize stability
- he is committed to abandoning the timetable if he comes to think sticking to it would jeopardize stability
- he would be open to (i.e., would consider) abandoning the timetable if he comes to think sticking to it would jeopardize stability
Is that what you're saying?
Note that the above is CATEGORICALLY DIFFERENT from saying that Obama has been clear that he "MIGHT" -- that he'd consider -- abandon the timetable. The above is saying that he's not even being clear that his answer is "maybe". Big difference. HUGE difference. And if you (plural you) don't see this categorical difference, please stop and think about it before you say so, and maybe you'll get it. And if someone does say there's little/no difference, I hope someone else who gets it will explain it to that person.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )But it seems only you see this CATEGORICAL difference.
The rest of us see something different.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You might want to speak for yourself in essentially saying that everyone here thinks 1+1=3. You're wrong. It's not opinion; it's logic.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )And I can read. There are over 90 comments in this diary and nobody agrees with you. Nobody.
You see a categorical difference and no one else does. Maybe there's a reason for that?
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )with Gabriel.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )well, there's a surprise.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Geez, Louise. You say you speak for yourself while simultaneously saying essentially, "This is what everyone else is thinking and saying". I'm looking around for Rod Serling. This is about when he makes an appearance.
ok, I'm gonna go ahead and break this down for you via illustration, and maybe then you'll get it, and will even admit that you were wrong, or someone else will point out to you that you are wrong, although I won't hold my breath for either:
Suppose:
I show up outside your home holding a baseball bat. Maybe I'm just stopping by after a softball game. Maybe I intend to crack your skull with it. You don't know.
I ask you to open the door and let me in.
You say "Before I let you in, tell me if you are definitely not going to crack my skull with the bat if you find me annoying."
Here are my potential responses:
1) I'm definitely NOT going to crack your skull with the bat even if you annoy me.
2) I definitely AM going to do so if you annoy me.
3) I may or may not do so if you annoy me. I'll consider it at that time if that occurs.
4) Silence / avoidance of an actual answer / explicit refusal to answer.
You are saying that # 3 and # 4 are not categorically different. They are. # 3 tells you that I will actually consider cracking your skull with the bat if you annoy me. # 4 tells you nothing (except whatever you can infer from the avoidance/refusal to answer, which is NOT the same as # 3, which tells you that I WILL consider cracking your skull if you annoy me).
Get it now? Anyone get it?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )No, I doubt anyone understands what you are trying to say. But I'll be happily proven wrong.
You seem to think that since Obama has, like EVERY OTHER politician, been vague about the specifics of his withdrawal plan from Iraq then any and all options are equally possible. Which is pure nonsense.
Obama has clear policy preferences regarding Iraq (thinks its a bad idea, wants to get out ASAP) just like McCain does. But both, being rational human beings, will adapt their preferences, as needed, depending on what's going on when they need to make a choice.
That's it. There's no more. Obama can't give you the specifics you demand but neither can McCain or ANY OTHER politician. Because IT ALL DEPENDS on conditions on the ground.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'll try again, just for the heck of it.
Are you saying that Obama's public position is that, if he comes to believe that initiating/continuing with withdrawals would jeopardize Iraqi stability, he would consider forgoing/abandoning withdrawal of troops from Iraq -- delaying/suspending withdrawals indefinitely and only initiating/resuming withdrawals if and when doing so would not jeopardize stability?
Or are you saying that Obama is not indicating if he WOULD, would NOT, or even if he MIGHT (i.e., even if he would CONSIDER) forgoing/abandoning withdrawal from Iraq under those circumstances?
I don't have much hope at this point of getting a straight answer from you or anyone, but I just thought I'd give it another shot.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )With some caveats. It's a mix of what Mac ('triangulating') and BN ('careful going out as were careless going in') say. He wants out but has given himself as much room as possible knowing circumstances can change.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Ahh, maybe we're getting somewhere -- maybe.
Just to try to be painfully clear.
Are you saying that Obama's public position is that he MAY not withdraw from Iraq at all if he comes to believe that doing so would jeopardize stability?
[edit: Or are you saying that Obama's public position is that in such a scenario, he MAY delay/suspend withdrawals for a very substantial period of time in hopes that he can eventually initiate/resume withdrawals without jeopardizing stability?]
If not either, please be VERY clear about what you are saying his public position is regarding such a scenario (i.e., his coming to believe that withdrawal would jeopardize stability). Please stay away from vague phrases/wording and answer as directly and clearly as you can.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Iraqi Security is NOT merely a function of the presence of US combat troops.
That is the "question begging" you are engaged in and that is what is precluding meaningful discussion.
= = =
If we begin to withdraw and "instability" increases we first need to establish whether fewer US troops is the cause of that instability.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Obama has ever said anything so definite. So no, the first option is probably wrong. The second one is closer.
Which is what I, and everyone else, have been saying from the beginning.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Sen. Obama won't provide a direct answer because he's triangulating. End of story
He's given a wink and nod to the anti-war 'get out now regardless' crowd, and they're confident his equivocating is just an electoral strategy. This group is certain, that once he's elected, he'll end the war forthwith.
He's giving a wink and nod to the 'bad idea, but pottery barn rules' crowd, and they're confident that his prior unconditional withdrawal promises were just a 'rise up through the ranks' and primary strategy. This group is certain, that once he's elected, he can ignore the antiwar extremists.
He's even started to try and pretend he thinks victory is possible.
Since everyone who supports him, also thinks they know the "real" him, you aren't going to answers any different that what you've already gotten.
If it all works out, Sen. Obama could be America's first black Bill Clinton.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the non-partisan dinner party interlocutory standard amongst the characterizations contained within your comment. But I'm having trouble locating it.
Second, I would rate triangulation as a decided improvement over the kind of bold decisive leadership that committed the nation to the invasion and occupation of Iraq and it's still not too late for John McCain to change course should he desire to appeal to that large slice of the electorate which retain fond memories of the Clinton presidency. YVMV.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If so, why? Foreign occupations always provide a rallying point for unhappy folks within the occupied country.
Of note: It appears the US Navy shall provide blue water naval security to Iraq within the Persian gulf essentially forever.
Unless we wish to occupy Iraq forever, someday the training wheels will need to come off. Only then shall we learn whether Maliki can ride the bike, or not.
Obama has been very clear. We will draw down the presence of combat forces. If security is threatened AND if our troops are able to assist with security, that time table can be stretched out.
But, in the long run, internal security is fundamentally an Iraqi problem not an American one.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )What do you mean by "stretched out". Would he / might he delay/suspend withdrawals INDEFINITELY and initiate/resume withdrawals only if and when doing so would no longer jeopardize stability? Would he / might he wait a substantial period of time (let's say, delay/suspend for a couple of years) for this condition to change before initiating/resuming withdrawals?
"Stretched out" is a vague, weasel word that skirts the question.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )as being willing to stay "indefinitely" BECAUSE our presence / and/or withdrawal is not relevant to Iraq's long term stability.
Short term? The timing of withdrawal matters. Long term? Our military is POWERLESS to create security of the Iraqis do not desire stability.
= = =
Long term, Iraqi security is IMPOSSIBLE unless we end the occupation. The Iraqi national security adviser wrote this in 2006:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43339
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )As the Fonz would say, exactamundo!
As I've been saying all along (on the several threads addressing this question this month), Obama is being deliberately vague and ambiguous in order to (1) have it both ways -- for people to see in his statements/answers what they want to see, in the way you describe, (2) to avoid the vulnerability that would come with taking a clear position (and lest folks here again get confused, when I say clear position, I mean even saying "MAYBE" he'd substantially delay/suspend withdrawals in the interest of stability, in other words, that he'd CONSIDER it), and (3) to avoid legitimate charges of flip-flopping.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )OK, B and B, I've got your number. Your whole diary was a "gotcha" diary. You wanted people to respond more or less the way Mac did so you could deliver your "coup de grace"and tell them that they were supporting a candidate who was being deliberately "unclear". Unfortunately, no one gave you the answer you craved so you threw a hissy (of sorts). In future, I would advise you to not use that technique in a diary. Even when mixing it up in the comment section it is rare for the "gotcha" stratagem to pan out. Just sayin' ...
--I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )that one is in contention for the most absurd comment on this thread, but the competition is tough. (and no, just to preempt a not-so-witty reply, my comments are not contenders nor any of them the clear winner)
[edit: Oh, and many comments on this thread have reminded me of the following line, but this one sure seems fitting: Fellow prison inmate, referring to Virgil Starkwell (Woody Allen) in Take the Money and Run:
"One day he told me he was a gynecologist. He couldn’t speak no foreign languages. Who’s he kidding?" ]
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I was not trying to provoke only to offer sage advice on how to survive here at The Forvm™. But again, why don't you just state in the diary what you think Obama's answers to your questions would be instead of us trying to "guess" what you want to hear. We can then, agree or disagree with how you arrived at that conclusion.
--I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and address the issue of whether the substantial presence of US troops promotes Iraq's long term stability, or not,
then we can get somewhere.
Mayor Daley got it exactly right -- we continue our occupation, not to create disorder but to preserve disorder.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Do we not all agree BO has a general policy (withdrawal) with a caveat (tactical adjustments) which buys him options enough so as to not be either handcuffed to a specific course of action or branded as a flip flopper when he has to alter the timeline?
If these are the facts, all there is left to argue about is whether this tactic makes Obama wise or venal. Or possibly both.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Wrong. Obama's term, "tactical adjustments", was carefully chosen by him or someone in his campaign to provide exactly the sort of ambiguity that is working so well with you guys and with others. It sidesteps the fundamental question of the Iraq policy debate; it does not answer it.
I've stated my question a gazillion times on this thread and others, and it's quite clear. If he came to believe that withdrawals would jeopardize stability, would he delay the initial withdrawals and/or suspend further withdrawals either (1) indefinitely -- initiating/resuming withdrawals only if and when doing so would no longer jeopardize stability -- or (2) at least for a SUBSTANTIAL period of time (say, a delay/suspension of withdrawals for a couple of years) waiting for that condition to change?
And the answer to #1 or #2 can be "yes", "no", or "maybe" (that he'd consider it).
So let's drop the vague terms like "tactical adjustments". What are you saying is Obama's publicly stated position to #1 and #2: yes, no, or maybe?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You've been breaking everyone's rocks about whether Obama's saying "maybe" he'd consider delays, or he's only hinting he'd consider them.
The difference is infinitesimal. Talk about splitting hairs!
Here's the point that matters: Just about everyone on this thread is satisfied that there's a reasonable chance Obama would delay if circumstances called for a delay. There's nobody here who thinks he's going to withdraw pell mell so as to cause a meltdown in Iraq. Unless you'd like to stand up and be counted as one.
There's a very good reason most people seem to think that's Obama's position. And it's that Obama's language has implied it is. He hasn't as they say, taken any options off the table. But he has indicated a strong policy preference.
So I'm sticking with "maybe." You stick with "none of the above," and go on as if nobody has any idea what Obama might do about Iraq.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )No, you are misunderstanding. I'm not by any means splitting hairs. On the contrary, I'm talking about a categorical difference.
Let me try yet another approach to explaining this.
Imaginary Obama press conference tomorrow, and imaginary Obama, one who wishes to give reasonably clear answers on central questions regarding his Iraq policy, and assuming (for illustration) that his answer is "maybe".
Press: Senator Obama, if you get elected, and if at the time you take office you have come to believe that initiating withdrawal from Iraq would jeopardize stability, would you delay the initiation of withdrawals?
Obama: Maybe. I'd consider it.
Press: Well, for how long might you delay initiation of withdrawals?
Obama: I might delay initiating withdrawals for a couple of years unless conditions change such that initiating withdrawals would no longer jeopardize stability.
Press: And after that "couple of years", if conditions have NOT changed such that you think initiating withdrawals would no longer jeopardize stability, would you initiate withdrawals anyway, even though you think doing so would jeopardize stability?
Obama: Maybe. Or maybe I'd delay withdrawals further, and so on.
Press: So Senator Obama, you're saying that you may not ever initiate withdrawals from Iraq if you think that doing so would jeopardize stability?
Obama: Correct. I may not ever initiate withdrawals from Iraq*. I don't think that scenario is likely, but it's possible and plausible.
OK, I ask you (all of you), would you be surprised to find out that the above was Obama's position? Shocked even? And I don't mean surprised that he gave such clear answers (when being deliberately vague and ambiguous perhaps would have benefited him politicially and perhaps would also be wise from a policy perspective), I mean would you be surprised to find out that that was his answer? In reality (not my imaginary press conference) has "Obama's language implied" this position? Has his language implied this position all along?
And Jordan, I have to say that your view now is the third view you've had within a couple of weeks. First you argued at length that it was perfectly clear that Obama's publicly-stated position was that his answer to the delay/suspend (withdrawals) question was "yes" and had always been clearly "yes", so he hasn't flipped. Then a few days later you said that you changed your view and that his answer is, in effect, "no" because he rejects outright the premise of the scenario that he could come to believe that delaying/suspending withdrawals could jeopardize stability, and that his publicly stated position has always been clearly "no", so he hasn't flipped. And now you're saying his answer is "maybe", although you're still fudging on what "maybe" is referring to so as to avoid the question (you say "would delay" with no reference to magnitude [i.e., length of time] or to whether or not initiating/resuming would be contingent upon doing so no longer jeopardizing stability, both of which are what the question is all about), and I guess you're saying that his answer has always been clearly maybe, so he hasn't flipped. Believe me, I don't think there's anything wrong at all with changing one's assessment/conclusions on some matter, but it seems to me that you've been doing so in a grasping at straws manner fixated (consciously or not**) at reaching some favorable, supportive conclusion regarding Obama in one way or another. I'm not saying that to be a pr*ck, but at this point I just have to be frank.
* Alternative answer from Obama: "After a couple of years, I would initiate withdrawals even if conditions hadn't changed and I still thought that initiating withdrawals would jeopardize stability in Iraq." For this alternative answer, my question to you guys is the same. Surprised that he might delay intiating withdrawals for a couple of years?
** I'd guess mostly not consciously. And I'm not questioning your sincerity.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )*never* withdraw troops. I believe he's made it clear that there must be some upward limit to troop engagement in Iraq. I would find it no surprise at all that he might feel compelled to delay the beginning of withdrawals for any number of reasons.
I would be far more surprised to see him use such future-deterministic language. It would give his political enemies an easy cudgel with which to bludgeon his every change or alteration (or failure to change or alter) his Iraq plan. Because, you see, it would allow them to handcuff Obama to *their* definition of 'stability,' which could of course be endlessly mutable.
Example 1: June 2009, three car bombs kill hundreds in three Iraqi cities. Obama & Maliki swear to track down the cells responsible. The Republicans spend weeks flaying Obama alive for breaking his 'promise,' because Iraq is clearly becoming 'unstable' and withdrawals should halt.
Example 2: Jan 2010. Republican Guard troops mass on the Iranian border. Their aim is to distract the world from IAEA demands that they halt uranium enrichment. Obama orders two armored divisions to take up overwatch duties, backing up Iraqi brigades, letting the Iranians know we mean business. Republicans spend weeks flaying Obama alive for halting withdrawals, despite the fact that there's no actual 'instability' within Iraq.
Example 3: September 2010. Withdrawals have to be halted so as not to interrupt Ramadan in Basra. Democrat anti-war groups castigate Obama for halting withdrawals, since there's no instability. Republicans tear into him for his wussy sense of respect for foreign culture.
Example 4: April 2010. AQI coordinates several weeks' worth of suicide bombings. Rather than halting scheduled withdrawals, Obama calls up a special forces unit that works hand in hand with Iraqi units to roll up the organizers and track down their financial backers. Several hundred arrests are made, and the Iraqi government puts the terrorists on trial. Republicans scream bloody murder in the press, because Obama "promised" to halt withdrawals in case of instability, now redefined as a shortlived but intense terror campaign.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )OK, I'll try again for answers.
First, once again, let me be clear on an important distinction that the Obama campaign (and you) want to avoid via vague, ambiguous language. I asked a couple of very clear, straight-forward questions. You answered one of them, but as for the other, you use the vague, ambiguous term "delay" to avoid the other question, saying, "I would find it no surprise at all that he might feel compelled to delay the beginning of withdrawals for any number of reasons." Again, I'm not talking about minor delays; my question very clearly referred to Obama's position being that he "might delay initiating withdrawals for a couple of years". So why not answer my actual question, after all the efforts I've made to make this distinction? Also you
Second, you write:
I would be far more surprised to see him use such future-deterministic language. It would give his political enemies an easy cudgel with which to bludgeon his every change or alteration (or failure to change or alter) his Iraq plan. Because, you see, it would allow them to handcuff Obama to *their* definition of 'stability,' which could of course be endlessly mutable.
I was very clear that, while I was using the imaginary press conference for illustration, I was NOT asking if you would be surprised that he would actually publicly STATE these answers, just if you'd be surprised to learn that those WERE his answers (i.e., if that WERE his position). I wrote:
So please answer the questions I actually asked, rather than responding to something I explicitly said was NOT what my question was.
Lastly, I wrote:
So, same press conference, but with that alternative answer at that point. Are you saying that Obama has implied that the above IS his position -- He MIGHT delay for a couple of years, but then WOULD begin withdrawals even if doing so would jeopardize stability? Or are you saying he MIGHT delay further yet, even after a couple of years? Or are you saying you have no idea if he would, would not, or might not delay further, after a couple of years, if he still thinks that beginning withdrawals would jeopardize stability?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The answer is I have a sliding scale. I would not be at all surprised if withdrawals are delayed a few months for no particular reason at all -- political negotiations plus logistics planning plus the old negotiating tactic known as 'playing chicken' all conspiring to cause delay.
I would not be surprised if Obama delays for several months if Iraq suddenly becomes more violent before/during Jan. 09-Feb. 09.
I would be mildly surprised if delays stretched up to a year, and quite surprised if two years went by without any sign of a drawdown of troops. I would be equally surprised, it's worth noting, if actual events in Iraq seemed to necessitate any such delay.
I do not believe Obama has implied he might delay withdrawals for a couple of years (half the length of WWII major combat, notably). I think only a disastrous & unforeseen set of circumstances would lead him to make such a choice.
For your alternative answer, are you sure you worded that the right way? I do not understand the distinction.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I had to read that one over several times to myself-out loud. I believe he is saying that while the date for the withdrawal is not set once the withdrawal begins it will be considered a "mandatory" withdrawal-i.e. one which slowly reduces American Troops in Iraq regardless of the consequences to the future stability of Iraq.
--I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )ok, I appreciate that answer.
First, to be clear, I'm not asking you what would surprise you in terms of what actually happens. I'm asking you what would surprise you to learn is Obama's position NOW regarding what his decisions would/would not/may be in potential future scenarios.
As for your answers:
You write:
I do not believe Obama has implied he might delay withdrawals for a couple of years... I think only a disastrous & unforeseen set of circumstances would lead him to make such a choice.
So are you saying that Obama has implied that he would NOT delay withdrawals for a couple of years -- in other words, based on what Obama has said, it's fairly clear that his position is that, if, upon taking office, he thinks beginning withdrawals would jeopardize stability, he MIGHT delay withdrawals, maybe delaying them as much as a year or so, but that after roughly a year, even if he still thinks that beginning withdrawals would jeopardize stability, he WOULD begin withdrawals anyway?
Or are you saying that he has indicated/implied that at that point (after about around a year) he MIGHT continue to delay withdrawals, perhaps even for a couple of years, but only in an extreme (and in his view, highly unlikely) case of stability being jeopardized by beginning withdrawals, if that's what you mean by "a disastrous & unforeseen set of circumstances"?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I just realized something -- this discussion is like the opening credits of Get Smart! :)
I'll take the second option. I think it's implied that in a case of extreme & dangerous instability, and if no other options were available, he'd delay the withdrawals. I think it's also implied that he wouldn't continue withdrawals if doing so would directly impact stability. But the assumption is troops will be redeployed sooner rather than later, and, since wars don't last forever, it seems solid.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Here's my best effort at representing what you're saying is Obama's reasonably clear public position (by statements and/or reasonably clear implications) regarding beginning withdrawals:
If, when he takes office, he believes that beginning withdrawals immediately would jeopardize stability in Iraq, he MIGHT delay the initiation of withdrawals. If that condition persists (that jeopardy), he MAY delay for up to around a year. At that point, even if he still thinks that beginning withdrawals would jeopardize stability, he WILL begin withdrawals anyway (he would not even CONSIDER further delay), UNLESS doing so would jeopardize stability in a way that could lead to "extreme & dangerous instability", in which case he would NOT begin withdrawals even after a year or so, and WOULD instead delay further.
Have I got it? If not, help me out here, guy.
If yes, the obvious next question is what (or what kinds of scenarios) are you talking about when you refer to "extreme and dangerous instability" or "disastrous & unforeseen set of circumstances" -- in other words, the scenarios in which you think Obama WOULD or MAY delay the beginning of withdrawals for a couple of years (or possibly for his entire term(s)) -- and how are those scenarios different from the "stability jeopardizing" scenarios you have in mind in which Obama's position (stated or implied) is that he would NOT even consider delaying initiation of withdrawals beyond around one year?
Oh, by the way, "redeploy" is a partisan weasel word* that made my Official 2007-2008 Guide to Euphemistic Political Bullsh*t. What we're talking about with regard to withdrawing troops from Iraq is withdrawal, which is called "withdrawal", so let's call a spade a spade.
* even if some would indeed be redeployed to Afghanistan or even if the technical term is redeployment (and I don't know if it is)
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Although most people would take your long bolded paragraph and condense it to a simple "the policy is flexible withdrawal."
I'm not going to answer your next hypothetical, mostly because I'm afraid once I do you'll ask me to go on to yet another stage of future conditional mindreading. I can't tell you exactly what the threshold for delays versus further delays would be, should be, or might be. I can't tell you what Obama thinks about it all either. You've got a general policy goal, that's as good as it gets this far out.
I did not know "redeploy" is a partisan weasel word. Thanks for letting me know. Someone should alert the CENTCOM general staff -- partisan weaselry has no place in mobilization plans -- as well as the soldiers, sailors & airmen who will be "withdrawing" to combat zones in Afghanistan, "withdrawing" to other bases in the Mideast or around the world. Some of them might be surprised to know there's only one combat zone in the world, and that they're either in that fight or they're in withdrawal. If there's another war in the Balkans next year, or Central Africa, or an Islamist coup d'etat in Pakistan, or a major terror attack originating in Yemen, they might even have to "withdraw" into those combat zones whether Iraq is stable or not. The weasels.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Although most people would take your long bolded paragraph and condense it to a simple "the policy is flexible withdrawal."
lol, oh I'm SURE that a lot of people (particularly in the Obama campaign and among it's supporters/apologists) would like to keep things plenty vague and ambiguous to avoid answering important questions.
As for "redeploy", I was plenty clear. With regard to getting troops out of Iraq, other than those using technical terms as part of their job (if "redeploy" is the technical military term), those who use "redeploy" rather than the obviously more straight-forward term "withdraw" do so just because "withdraw" can come across as negative term (on some level, conscious or not) to some people, indicating "running away" or something to that effect. Come on, you know that's true.
As for your preference to drop this exchange at this point, fine. I'm just about out of patience, too. For what it's worth, out of around 186 comments I did get one actual answer to my actual question (from Elagabalus http://www.theforvm.org/diary/brooks-and-b-rational/senator-obama-please-give-a-straight-answer#comment-106457)
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The answer to your question in bold is "yes" I would be surprised to hear Obama say that he "may not **ever** initiate withdrawals".
--I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )At this point I'm only responding to comments here and on my "Hyperpartisan Mindset" thread selectively at this point because it's mostly an ongoing non sequitur-fest that seems unlikely to change despite any further efforts of mine.
But since you answered one part of my question...
To borrow a phrase, OK, one more time, a question from the comment you just responded to, but one you conveniently overlooked:
So, same press conference, but with that alternative answer at that point.
Would you be surprised?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I would be surprised.
--I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I assume that the part that would surprise you would be the part about possibly delaying a couple of years (not the part about him beginning withdrawals after that couple of years even if he thought it would jeopardize stability), correct?
If so, it sounds like you are saying that Obama's public position (statements or at least fairly clear implications) is that if, upon taking office, he has come to believe that beginning withdrawals immediately would jeopardize stability, he might delay briefly, say for a couple of MONTHS, but after a couple of months if he still believed that beginning withdrawals would jeopardize stability, he WOULD begin withdrawals anyway -- not that he MIGHT, he WOULD. (He would NOT delay withdrawals for a couple of YEARS waiting for that jeopardy to subside.)
Is that what you are saying?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Yes
Yes*
*I interpret a "brief delay" as meaning a couple of months to a year maybe a year and a half.
--I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )ok, thanks. So just to state it clearly, you are saying that Obama has been reasonably clear that his position is the following:
If, when he takes office, he believes that beginning withdrawals immediately would jeopardize stability in Iraq, he MIGHT delay the initiation of withdrawals. If that condition persists (that jeopardy), he MAY delay for up to around a year and a half, but at that point, even if he still thinks that beginning withdrawals would jeopardize stability, he WILL begin withdrawals anyway (he would not even CONSIDER further delay).
Is that what you're saying?
If I get a "yes" (without anything added that muddies it up), than you'll be the first person on this thread to give a straight answer to my question re: delay.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Yes
--I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )thank you. Nice to see it's possible to get a straight answer, even if it takes 182 comments on a thread.
I'll put aside the question in my diary of Obama's position on the maximum possible size of the residual force. I just don't feel like getting into it.
And for the same reason I'll put aside the question of whether or not the view you are saying is Obama's public position (at least by implication) is reasonably consistent with his public position during the primaries. I've debated that (or at least a closely related question) on other threads and I'm just not interested in getting back into it here.
But again, thanks for showing everyone that it's possible for someone to give a straight answer to a straight-forward question.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )nothin' vague 'bout that, eh?
Sure.
--Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The answer is maybe. As we've told you several times already.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )So Obama's public position is that he MAY not withdraw from Iraq at all, or at least may not do so in a time frame anywhere even close to his 16 month timetable, beginnning immediately?
Is that what you're saying?
Again, if not, tell me what you're saying.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You gave me three options, yes, no or maybe. Given that I chose maybe. AFAIK he has never said anything definite about this and likely never will.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Until you engage that issue, you shall remain confused.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Learn to separate the relevant from the extraneous (if such things can be learned). By the way, more and more I think that basic logic should be a mandatory part of high school curricula and a core course for all students in college. This thread could be Exhibit A for making the case for it.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )No matter, since personal insults are usually the sign someone is "out of ammo"
Whether the substantial presence of US combat troops [helps] or [harms] long term Iraqi security and stability simply is the MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION we can ask concerning our future policy in Iraq.
If you cannot see that, then you are the fellow who needs to go back to school.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )A continuing US occupation and long term Iraqi security /stability are incompatible objectives.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43339
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )A continuing US occupation and long term Iraqi security /stability are incompatible objectives.
duplicate post
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Kirkuk is going to hell in a handbasket right now. I don't have the time to do a full Arabic translation, but at least 23 people were killed in a suicide bomb in the middle of a huge protest, and several officials are besieged in their houses. Election reform laws have caused a full on donnybrook in that fair city.
The north of Iraq is in serious trouble. Coalitions are breaking down. Long-promised reforms are going sideways. Everyone's sick and tired of waiting, and they're on the streets now, especially the Turkoman minority.
It's going to get worse. A lot worse. Give it a week, maybe things will die down. Maybe they won't. We don't have any say-so, and we don't have many troops up there in Kirkuk anymore, matter of fact, I don't think we have any. Like Bill says, Iraq has GOT to sort this out for themselves, we have nothing to say. McCain can blether on about Security and Stability and all that happy horseshit, and you can go on carrying water for this line of baloney until the sun burns down to a cinder, and we will still be outsiders, and any stability we provide is at best temporary and at worst putting a band aid on a tumor.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )for Obama. But it is a factor to consider.
Also, he has clearly stated that the substantial presence of US combat troops may well contribute to instability. If a substantial occupation makes stability impossible and if we declare we cannot leave until there is stability we arrive at a logical paradox: "The beatings shall continue until morale improves."
I believe POTUS Obama would delay the withdrawal time line IF he were persuaded (based on evidence from US troop commanders and Iraqi officials) that a delay would enhance security and the cost/benefit analysis came out favorably.
However, that is not indefinite and stability is not an ironclad pre-condition for withdrawal
= = =
Now I see the source for much of the confusion.
It appears you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that the presence of US troops might very well make achieving stability impossible.
If we NEVER take off the training wheels, the kids will never ride bikes by themselves.
= = =
Remember the first Mayor Daley:
"The police are not here to create disorder. They are here to preserve disorder."
Continuing occupation of Iraq by US combat troops might very well make genuine stability and political reconciliation impossible.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )LINK
But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Oh man, here we go again.
So...what are you saying is his public position? That even if he comes to believe between now and January that initiating withdrawals would jeopardize stability, he will initiate withdrawals anyway, and that even if at some point between then and about 16 months later he comes to believe that proceeding with withdrawals more or less per the timetable would jeopardize stability, he would definitely continue per the timetable anyway?
Or that he'd consider substantially delaying/suspending withdrawals in that scenario and would initiate/resume withdrawals only if and when that condition changed (or after a substantial period of time waiting for it to change)?
Which are you saying is his public position?????
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...and quoted his public position so you could hear it from Obama directly.
Obama's public position is "we are leaving Iraq no matter what." Is that the answer you want?
--But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The precise details as to how & when haven't been worked out yet. Clear, concise and unambiguous to anyone not looking to play language games.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It is one objective and if delays will promote security then delays can be considered.
But again, YOU are begging the question by assuming a direct causal connection between the presence of US troops and Iraqi security. Obama disputes whether that connection exists, in the long term.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )But again, YOU are begging the question by assuming a direct causal connection between the presence of US troops and Iraqi security. Obama disputes whether that connection exists, in the long term.
The "Who's on First" routine continues, and for some reason I'm still playing along. No, Bill, pay attention. My question assumes no such thing. My question -- which I've stated clearly many, many times -- presents a scenario in which HE (Obama) comes to believe that initiating/continuing withdrawals would jeopardize stability. ok, so pay attention so I don't feel compelled to waste even more time pointing out the obvious.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If Obama comes to believe . . .
If you came to believe you were a giant rabbit would you eat carrots?
The core question is this -- Does a long term occupation assist or hinder long term Iraqi security and stability?
Obama has taken a clear and unambiguous position on that. Maliki agrees with Obama.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Double dare ya.
--