Iraq — Why Obama Has Gotten it Right from the Very Beginning

It is hard to believe that the McCain attack dogs are nipping at Obama’s heels on the battle against terrorism.

First, Obama had it right when he opposed the war while McCain was claiming that we would be greeted as liberators and would bring peace to the Middle East in short order.

Second, Obama’s speech this week was totally on point when he reminded his audience that all the money, lost lives and harm caused to the real fight against al Qaeda constitutes one of the worst foreign policy blunders we have engaged in over the last 50 years.

Third, Obama correctly separated out McCain’s focus on tactics with a misplaced strategy. This is all about ending this war in the proper way — not “winning” in the traditional sense of some surrender on a battleship. Even the Bush administration acknowledged that, while McCain was still trying to avoid defining what would constitute a “win.”

Fourth, the people of Iraq want us out (73 percent in a poll last March), Maliki has called for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, the American people want a plan to end the war, yet McCain refuses to put forth any kind of plan other than to say that Iraq is a war without end. That is not a strategy — that’s a black hole.

Finally, Obama has a proposal that is very reasonable — 16 months from next January of transition. That is nearly two years from now. That provides ample time to train Iraqi forces, hold the provinces they now have and put the Iraqis in charge of the others, and move toward a political system and solution that moves Iraq forward.

In the meantime, we can begin to focus on the real issues of global terrorism, bring our allies back on board, deal with the crises in Afghanistan and Pakistan and rebuild our relations around the world. In short, we could strengthen America, militarily and politically — not a bad result when Obama takes over.