President Obama, Feb. 27, 2009: "Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end..."
Bush, May 1, 2003: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
I’m not claiming the two statements or their speakers are remotely comparable. Bush was prancing around in a flight suit and cod piece moments before he uttered the most regrettable words of his presidency. Obama was soberly laying out a (hopefully) realistic way out of Iraq. And yet, call me a concern troll, but what happens if August 31, 2010 arrives and the situation in Iraq has worsened from where it is today.
What does Obama do then?
The answer is self-evident, I know. He'd reassess and he'd have to come back to us and say, "Well, it turns out, we have to stay a little longer..." Or, he'd stick to the date and leave behind chaos and I doubt he'd do that.
I know there's really no other way to do what he needed to do today. He's there to give a speech on his plan for Iraq. He needs to be clear and deliberate that he's following through on his campaign promise.
The problem is that saying something doesn’t necessarily make it so, whether it’s General Westmoreland promising the light at the end of the tunnel on Vietnam, Bush saying the war was over when it wasn’t, or, sadly, even President Obama saying that we will definitely have our combat troops out on August 31, 2010.
For those who will say I'm a pessimist, please see "The Best and the Brightest." For those who will say I've completely missed the point, please tell me so.