In a diary at MYDD, Senator Barack Obama is criticized for "flip-flopping" on "redeployment" of our troops in Iraq:
That said, lemme ask a question: back in June of 2006, why would a reportedly anti-Iraq war Senator, which had the foresight to oppose the war when he was a state legislator, oppose an amendment that stated the following?
To require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror.
I think the answer is that Obama was shrewdly looking to fix the blame for the Iraq Debacle on the GOP. Ironically, given my current criticisms of Obama's political strategies, I liked his partisan political instincts here. More.
This was a raging debate in 2005 - when should the Dems call for withdrawal from Iraq? I was of the school that all Democratic plans were merely political acts, as Bush would not listen:
My mantra on Iraq - politics first because we cannot effect policy until we change the politics - has led me to urge a Democratic approach of demanding answers from Bush on withdrawal of the troops. I have explained my view ad nauseum on this page. But I must admit General Wesley Clark has presented a political strategy that relies heavily on policy recommendations that really has some possibilities . . . Clark gives what appears to be a policy recommendation but in reality it is a damning critique of BushCo:
From the outset of the U.S. post-invasion efforts, we needed a three-pronged strategy: diplomatic, political and military. Iraq sits geographically on the fault line between Shiite and Sunni Islam; for the mission to succeed we will have to be the catalyst for regional cooperation, not regional conflict.
. . .
. . . Now to take it up a notch:
With each passing month the difficulties are compounded and the chances for a successful outcome are reduced. Urgent modification of the strategy is required before it is too late to do anything other than simply withdraw our forces.
Ahhh. So the onus is on Bush. If he does not do what Clark (and other Dems hopefully) say, then Bush will lose Iraq and be forced to cut and run. Excellent. . . . Clark . . . finishes with this flourish:
The growing chorus of voices demanding a pullout should seriously alarm the Bush administration, because President Bush and his team are repeating the failure of Vietnam: failing to craft a realistic and effective policy and instead simply demanding that the American people show resolve. Resolve isn't enough to mend a flawed approach -- or to save the lives of our troops. If the administration won't adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that it bring our troops home.
There you go General. Bush is losing Iraq and will lose Iraq and have to "cut and run" unless he adopts our winning proposals (which he of course will never do). . .
Digby described this approach thusly:
As I've been pointing out for a while, all Democratic navel gazing on this political. Wes Clark cannot actually implement any policy and neither could any elected Democrats. So, unless you believe that George W. Bush read Wes's column this morning over his bowl of Cap'n Crunch and thought "great ideas! get me Condi and Rummy on the horn!" this whole thing is an academic exercise.
I believe that there is a less than zero possibility that George W. Bush is going to implement any sane plan to withdraw from Iraq, much less one set forth by a Democratic presidential aspirant. And I say this with the greatest assurance that I'm right for the simple reason that George W. Bush has failed on every level, at every moment, from the very beginning to do anything right on Iraq. Why in God's name would we think that he will suddenly become sane and do something different today?
I believe Barack Obama understood this and that is why he was a hardheaded shrewd politician when he said:
. . . I am a cosponsor of the Levin amendment, which gives us the best opportunity to find this balance between our need to begin a phase-down and our need to help stabilize Iraq. It tells the Iraqis that we won't be there forever so that they need to move forward on uniting and securing their country. I agree with Senator Warner that the message should be "we really mean business, Iraqis, get on with it." At the same time, the amendment also provides the Iraqis the time and the opportunity to accomplish this critical goal.
Essential to a successful policy is the Administration listening to its generals and diplomats and members of Congress - especially those who disagree with their policies and believe it is time to start bringing our troops home.
The overwhelming majority of the Senate is already on record voting for an amendment stating that calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security, creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq. The Levin Amendment builds on this approach.
Obama knew Bush was not going to listen to anyone. His was an exercise in fixing the blame of the Iraq Debacle on Bush and the Republicans. I hope this smart, partisan Obama comes back. We could use him.