George's Legacy Is A Body-Blow To Obama
August 21st 2008 23:04
You can’t say that President Bush isn’t a team player. Because what he and Condi Rice did yesterday was the most unexpected body blow to the Obama campaign yet. It’s been said that Bush and McCain don’t exactly see eye to eye. After all, McCain has been trying for the longest time to differentiate himself from the Bush League and has been trying to deftly avoid the anti-Bush rhetoric. But Bush is a campaigner. Otherwise he never would have beaten Gore and Kerry. And he knew exactly when to release information that he knew would kick sand in Obama’s face. After over five years it just so happens that the Iraqi’s and the Americans have reached a timetable for withdrawal mere days before the Democratic Convention that one can only presume would have shone the focus on Iraq as a major failing of George W. Bush and, by extension, the war’s biggest supporter John McCain. What Bush did was give Obama a swift kick to the guts to show him who is the boss.
Secretary of State Condi Rice revealed yesterday that she and the Iraqi Government had come to terms about the withdrawal of US forces from the Middle Eastern nation. Rice says that by June 30 of 2009 all US troops should be withdrawn from their posts within Iraqi cities and phased back to military bases in the country. From there, a residual force would remain at the base to assist the Iraqi authorities in any major security situations between mid-2009 and the end of 2011 when it is expected all troops would leave. Rather than John McCain’s “could be there for 100 years” and Barack Obama’s “let’s leave as soon as possible” we have what President Bush has promised all along: withdrawal with honour. Bush has been staving off calls for a timetable for withdrawal from the Democrats for years now. All the time he’s said that when he gives a timetable it gives terrorists time to plan and take hold and is tantamount to giving the enemy a blueprint to how you plan to run the war. So why has he done it now? What’s the difference?
There are surely a few different reasons. One, the surge has been working. Even the most strident critics of the Iraqi War can admit that the extra troops have secured the capital that was always such a hotbed of danger. Secondly, General David Petraeus is a master of counter-insurgency warfare. His being put in charge of the troop deployment in Iraq was just the stroke of genius needed to turn the tide. The fruits of his work are beginning to be seen, and it’s resulting in less terrorist bombings and more positive interaction between US troops and the Iraqi people. Thirdly, the Iraqi Government have been at their jobs for awhile now. With the natural kinks starting to be worked out, it’s time they stood on their own two-feet. Then there are the more cynical reasons. Bush is looking for a legacy. Just like Clinton made a last minute grab at the Middle East Peace Process in his last days in office, Bush is looking for something good to make sure his reign isn’t just remember as the war-monger who misspoke all the time. By all accounts Bush has a firm sense of responsibility for Iraq. Don’t get me wrong, he believes it’s the right thing to have done. But he feels it’s his responsibility. This is his last ditch grab at a legacy of positive nation-building.
Then there’s the last reason. Possibly the most cynical reason of all. The revelation of this process that no one seems to have known about while all eyes were on the election campaign comes just before the Democratic Convention. Barack Obama is the most high-profile opponent of the war and is running on a platform that is centred on troop removal from Iraq as soon as possible. What we call in the Australian context “cutting and running”. With a timetable for withdrawal in place that will be safe and cautious that takes a lot of the sting out of Obama’s railing against the war. It will also draw back a lot of the Republican supporters that jumped ship when the war became too messy. It vindicates McCain’s support for the troop surge and shows that he knows the military better than Obama does. The liberals can focus all they want on how Bush has just done what they themselves have been calling for since late 2003. That’s one of the benefits of incumbency. Obama can talk all he wants about timetables but Bush did it. Who knows how long he’s been working on it for, he could come forward at the Republican Convention and say that this deal has been in the pipeline for months and he didn’t want to reveal it in case the media attention damaged negotiations. In that case, Bush would look like a hero. He would look like someone who wanted to get the job done, not the glory. And that bodes very badly for Obama.
It’s hard to be anti-war when the war is slowly ending. And not ending with a bang, ending with a whimper. It’s hard when people care more about their hip-pocket then a war that is going to be over soon and has, of late, turned its fortunes around from dead in the dust to almost successful. Bush has just delivered McCain the best gift he could: he placated the anti-war crowd and made the Republicans look like they can end the conflict justly.
Who would have thought? Bush may have just won McCain the election. No one likes a victory more than the American people.
Secretary of State Condi Rice revealed yesterday that she and the Iraqi Government had come to terms about the withdrawal of US forces from the Middle Eastern nation. Rice says that by June 30 of 2009 all US troops should be withdrawn from their posts within Iraqi cities and phased back to military bases in the country. From there, a residual force would remain at the base to assist the Iraqi authorities in any major security situations between mid-2009 and the end of 2011 when it is expected all troops would leave. Rather than John McCain’s “could be there for 100 years” and Barack Obama’s “let’s leave as soon as possible” we have what President Bush has promised all along: withdrawal with honour. Bush has been staving off calls for a timetable for withdrawal from the Democrats for years now. All the time he’s said that when he gives a timetable it gives terrorists time to plan and take hold and is tantamount to giving the enemy a blueprint to how you plan to run the war. So why has he done it now? What’s the difference?
There are surely a few different reasons. One, the surge has been working. Even the most strident critics of the Iraqi War can admit that the extra troops have secured the capital that was always such a hotbed of danger. Secondly, General David Petraeus is a master of counter-insurgency warfare. His being put in charge of the troop deployment in Iraq was just the stroke of genius needed to turn the tide. The fruits of his work are beginning to be seen, and it’s resulting in less terrorist bombings and more positive interaction between US troops and the Iraqi people. Thirdly, the Iraqi Government have been at their jobs for awhile now. With the natural kinks starting to be worked out, it’s time they stood on their own two-feet. Then there are the more cynical reasons. Bush is looking for a legacy. Just like Clinton made a last minute grab at the Middle East Peace Process in his last days in office, Bush is looking for something good to make sure his reign isn’t just remember as the war-monger who misspoke all the time. By all accounts Bush has a firm sense of responsibility for Iraq. Don’t get me wrong, he believes it’s the right thing to have done. But he feels it’s his responsibility. This is his last ditch grab at a legacy of positive nation-building.
Then there’s the last reason. Possibly the most cynical reason of all. The revelation of this process that no one seems to have known about while all eyes were on the election campaign comes just before the Democratic Convention. Barack Obama is the most high-profile opponent of the war and is running on a platform that is centred on troop removal from Iraq as soon as possible. What we call in the Australian context “cutting and running”. With a timetable for withdrawal in place that will be safe and cautious that takes a lot of the sting out of Obama’s railing against the war. It will also draw back a lot of the Republican supporters that jumped ship when the war became too messy. It vindicates McCain’s support for the troop surge and shows that he knows the military better than Obama does. The liberals can focus all they want on how Bush has just done what they themselves have been calling for since late 2003. That’s one of the benefits of incumbency. Obama can talk all he wants about timetables but Bush did it. Who knows how long he’s been working on it for, he could come forward at the Republican Convention and say that this deal has been in the pipeline for months and he didn’t want to reveal it in case the media attention damaged negotiations. In that case, Bush would look like a hero. He would look like someone who wanted to get the job done, not the glory. And that bodes very badly for Obama.
It’s hard to be anti-war when the war is slowly ending. And not ending with a bang, ending with a whimper. It’s hard when people care more about their hip-pocket then a war that is going to be over soon and has, of late, turned its fortunes around from dead in the dust to almost successful. Bush has just delivered McCain the best gift he could: he placated the anti-war crowd and made the Republicans look like they can end the conflict justly.
Who would have thought? Bush may have just won McCain the election. No one likes a victory more than the American people.
| 31 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
