McCain paging Captain Ed: 16 months looks good to me

July 11 - Hot Air » ABC: Obama’s Iraq plan “almost impossible”

We can rotate troops out of Iraq on the kind of timetable Obama suggests, but we’d have to leave all of our heavy equipment in Iraq. Unless Obama plans some kind of nationwide garage sale, that would be a rather large loss for the American military in materiel as well as making our exit look more like Dunkirk.

Obviously, Obama didn’t have any awareness of logistics when he made this proposal — and that’s the point. His lack of experience, …

Wow. “Impossible .. leaving our heavy equipment in Iraq … Dunkirk.” Yikes. I particularly like the reference to Dunkirk, hearkening back to a hasty withdrawal even worse than the frequently-invoked helicopters leaving Saigon. And Obama’s 16-month proposal was evidence of his “lack of experience .. hubris” and general unfitness for command.

I am constrained by the inevitable counter-arguments to point out that there was nothing here about “conditions on the ground.” They were not mentioned. Being not mentioned, it was clearly implicit that “even if Iraqi security conditions permitted, there was a logistical problem as well.”

Now, two weeks later, McCain says 16 months looks pretty good.

July 26 - McCain Gives Qualified Endorsement to Iraq Timetable

First the Iraqi government gave Senator Barack Obama a boost by seeming to embrace his proposal for a 16-month timetable for withdrawing American troops from Iraq. Now could Senator John McCain, who built his candidacy in large part on his opposition to such a schedule, possibly be following suit?

“I think it’s a pretty good timetable,” Mr. McCain said Friday in an interview on “The Situation Room” on CNN, before adding that it should be based “on the conditions on the ground.”

Obviously, John McCain would rather lose a war in order to win an election, since he favors a timetable that is impossible, that would require us to leave our heavy equipment behind in an ignominous rout not seen since Dunkirk, that evidenced a candidate’s inexperience and hubris. Can America afford that risk?

(I hope it’s clear here that I am not really interested in beating up on my old friend Capt. Ed, in particular, but since HotAir is one of the few rightwing blogs I read, and those guys are prolific, I can usually find the points being made generally by right wing blogs over there. The totally transparent 180 degree turn of the right in general, and McCain, in particular, is the point.)

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Latest Fan Of Barack Obama’s Sixteen Month “Timetable” For American Combat Troop Withdrawal From Iraq? Yep — You Guessed It — “Straight Talk” McCain | THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™ on 26 Jul 2008 at 9:26 pm

    […] politburo diktat 2.0: “… Obviously, John McCain would rather lose a war in order to win an election, since he favors a timetable that is impossible, that would require us to leave our heavy equipment behind in an ignominous rout not seen since Dunkirk, that evidenced a candidate’s inexperience and hubris. Can America afford that risk? …” […]

Comments

  1. Allah wrote:

    I wrote about it last night, made the same point you did re: the stupidity of McCain letting that opportunity to criticize the logistics pass. There’s still space between them — McCain clearly emphasized conditions as the main factor — but in a soundbite age it’s a silly unforced error.

  2. Redhand wrote:

    Obviously, John McCain would rather lose a war in order to win an election, since he favors a timetable that is impossible, that would require us to leave our heavy equipment behind in an ignominous rout not seen since Dunkirk, that evidenced a candidate’s inexperience and hubris. Can America afford that risk?

    The absurdity of our nor being able to remove our “heavy equipment” in 16 months has to be worth 16 extra hysteria points in and of itself.

    I almost pity John-boy at this point. It must really suck being outflanked by the incumbent, the Maliki government, you opponent and the facts all at the same time. The biggest howler, of course, is his babbling that Maleki’s 16 months is a “pretty good timetable” whereas Obama’s 16 month timetable is not.

  3. Pigilito wrote:

    Things are certainly tumbling Obama’s way. When he made the 16 month claim it was a campaign promise designed to reassure primary voters. Now he looks positively oracular. Will he lift the luckiest politician of the last half century crown from Clinton?

    In any case, Obama has clearly stolen a march on McCain. His campaign is running rings around McCain’s.

  4. John Cole wrote:

    There’s still space between them — McCain clearly emphasized conditions as the main factor — but in a soundbite age it’s a silly unforced error.

    Not sure where people have decided that Obama will not b e influenced by the situation on the ground, as he has stated it all along. For some reason, during the primary, folks on the left ignored that aspect of his message. Then, after the primary, folks on the right suddenly discovered that aspect of Obama’s message, and decided it constituted a flip-flop, or a move the center on the Iraq issue.

    The rest of us, who have, you know, actually listened to what he said, have realized he has always said that everything is contingent on the situation on the ground. It is kind of crazy the way people just interpret whatever they want.

  5. Stephen wrote:

    This piece from Fox captures about a dozen of Obama’s “as careful getting out as we were careless getting in” comments, most of them from Feb. 2007 thru Mar. 2008.

    Taken altogether, trying to avoid the pitfalls of a soundbite age, its very very clear that Obama always said he would consider the advice of military commanders and the situation on the ground.

  6. Davebo wrote:

    What was the saying about tactics versus logistics again?

    Take for instance, the tens of thousands of portable buildings we shipped to Iraq. It’s cheaper to leave them than to ship them back to the US and store them until we ultimately destroy them anyway.

    The same can be said for lots of materials shipped into Iraq. Let them have them. It’s the least we can do considering all the harm we’ve caused.

  7. Davebo wrote:

    Then again, if I was the owner of a steamship line I might have my lobbyist on capital hill selling the line that for only 1 billion dollars (plus bunker) I can ship all those containers to LA and trucked to a boneyard in Nevada.

  8. Pigilito wrote:

    John @ comment 4: I think Obama was simply hedging on the topic. He couldn’t very well say the pull-out plan was written in stone. Political CYA shouldn’t be confused with vision.

  9. Stephen wrote:

    Pigilito,

    Maybe he was just being honest and realistic about the matter from the start?

    It’s only in a ’soundbite, gotcha’ era that the notion of “We will plan to do X in Y months, but if the situation changes, it might take longer,” is fodder for deliberate misunderstanding.

  10. Pigilito wrote:

    Stephen,

    He’s a politician who has shown himself to be no better than his peers when it comes to honesty. His 16 month plan was put forward to benefit his primary campaign chances. That things have worked out is fortuitous for him, not the result of realism or foresight.

  11. andrew wrote:

    To say that Obama’s retreat at all costs position is being vindicated now that Iraq’s government is nearing the point of strength where they can talk about removing most American troops is perhaps the most disgusting spin I have ever seen. And it has to be dishonesty, nobody can be dumb enough to believe that.

  12. Michael wrote:

    since HotAir is one of the few rightwing blogs I read, and those guys are prolific, I can usually find the points being made generally by right wing blogs over there.

    Hey, I read your left-wing blog for the same reason. You are not as prolific as Hot Air, but it seems like the main talking points get covered.

  13. Michael wrote:

    I went to Obama’s site, BTW, and checked out his position on Intelligent Design. He says it’s not science, and theology should be taught separately from science. So I checked McCain’s position. It is sort of vague — let local school boards handle the issue.

    So, as a Christian conservative I admit that there is one thing I like about Obama.

  14. Michael wrote:

    For those PD readers who may wonder why I am thread-jacking — years ago, Stephen helped to school me about evolutionary biology. I concluded that ID is interesting conjecture, and junk science.

    I’m still just a hard-core creationist, but as the rational human being that God created me to be, I also think the impressive achievements of evolutionary biology are indisputable.

    How do I reconcile this? I don’t. Christians are no strangers to cognitive dissonance. Forget creation — the Doctrine of the Trinity or the Doctrine of Election can drive you crazy.

    When I get to the Pearly Gates, I’m going to ask St. Peter for an explanation. I think I know what he will say: “Huh? Beats me. Why do you care? You’re home. Go get a beer.

  15. Michael wrote:

    My favorite biblical author, Isaiah, explained the cognitive dissonance this way:

    “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.”

  16. Stephen wrote:

    Sounds like a fair resolution of the issue.

  17. Michael wrote:

    Man, that really hurt to publicly admit that there is something I like about Obama.

  18. Michael wrote:

    As long as I’m thread-jacking, I will tell you my bottom line on Obama.

    He was the President of the Harvard Law Review, and he didn’t publish anything.

    That means — empty suit.

    I was one of the editors of my law review. I had to get published to get the honor.

  19. Michael wrote:

    In other words, Obama is all style, and no substance. His major achievement in life was a really great speech at the DNC (which brought me to tears). Otherwise, he has nothing in his resume to point at. A “community organizer” in Chicago? An undistinguished Illinois legislator? The most liberal junior member of the U.S. Senate, with no major legislative accomplishments?

    Give me a break. He’s a poser.

  20. Michael wrote:

    Sounds like a fair resolution of the issue.

    Yup. The way I figure, a God worth worshiping should not be understandable to me. God should be outside of space and time, which is what the Christian God claims to be.