Flashback

by

by hilzoy


From the NYT:

"On his first full day as president, Barack Obama will meet with high-ranking military officers to discuss the Iraq war, a conflict he has vowed to end after six years of fighting, a top adviser to Obama said Saturday."


On This Week, George Stephanopoulos asked David Axelrod whether, in this meeting, Obama would ask those officers to come up with a plan to withdraw US combat forces in Iraq within sixteen months. Axelrod said, simply: "Yes."

This should not be surprising in view of the fact that Obama has consistently promised to do exactly this. However, it's worth recalling the flap that occurred last July when Obama said: "When I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies." 

To my ear, this just sounded as though Obama was saying: my goal is to withdraw our troops as quickly as possible. But of course I will consult with the commanders on the ground about exactly how this should happen. Which is to say: no big deal. But lots of people thought it meant that Obama was changing his position on Iraq in some fundamental way. My favorite moment from the whole brouhaha came on ABC's This Week (July 6, transcript via Lexis/Nexis):

"GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Mark Halperin, I think it was on Thursday or Friday, you said that this apparent shift by Barack Obama, he denies it was one, is one of the biggest things to happen in the campaign.


MARK HALPERIN: So far."

Imagine: this utter non-story, which existed only in the minds of people like Mark Halperin, was one of the biggest things to have happened in the campaign — a campaign which had included, for instance, Obama's speech on race, his fantastic organization, his string of caucus victories, and the fact that an African-American candidate had won a whole lot of states with very small black populations. 

And it wasn't just Halperin: on that show alone, Ted Koppel claimed that Obama had "come to realize" that we have to keep troops in Iraq because it produces so much oil, and that we were "still going to have 80,000 to 100,000 troops in there three to five years from now." Michelle Cottle of TNR said:

"I think there's no question, I don't think any of the candidates that we were looking at, you know, Hillary or Obama or McCain ever intended to pull them all out to the degree that we were talking about. Now, it's general election time, he has to shift his emphasis."

And that was just one show. Every single person on it agreed, first, that Obama was genuinely shifting his position on Iraq; second, that his protestations to the contrary were just meant to soothe his base; third, that he had never meant what he said in the first place, and fourth, that the reason for this was that it was just so obvious that we couldn't possibly withdraw all our combat troops from Iraq. 

I mean: all the serious people said so. So how could Obama disagree? 

We badly, badly need a new group of commentators on TV, or at least a ban on appearances by Mark Halperin and anyone else who just makes stuff up and then proclaims it the most significant development in the campaign to date.

22 thoughts on “Flashback”

  2. We badly, badly need a new group of commentators on TV, or at least a ban on appearances by Mark Halperin and anyone else who just makes stuff up and then proclaims it the most significant development in the campaign to date.

    The fault lies not in our (media) stars, but in ourselves.
    Cable news thrives on shifting storylines. If a pundit goes on the air and announces that nothing significant has happened that day; that every pronouncement amounts to no more than a reiteration of existing views, then viewers turn off their sets. If, on the other hand, the pundit takes a single statement and inflates it to historic proportions, he triggers a debate. Months later, otherwise reasonable people will still feel compelled to rebut his idiocy which was already apparent at the time. His name will be mentioned on blogs. And there’s no such thing, in cable news, as negative publicity.
    The savviest campaigns rise above the cycle. Obama stuck to his message, day after day, despite flare-ups. But you could replace the entire set of current pundits with people who had never before been on the air, and within weeks, you’d replicate the present dynamic. Consistency makes for bad ratings.

  3. i like to do a longer post identifying why halperin is so grating. it’s not so much that he’s a wanker, or an object of scorn. it’s just that his focus on stupid little things — and the subsequent elevation of those little things to big things — drives me crazy.
    it’s an itneresting question whether halperin drives those things, or merely reflects the CW with all its warts.
    but anyway, halperin kills me

  4. publius: besides the small-mindedness, there’s also the unquestioned assumption that everyone is wholly cynical. Not just willing to compromise here and there for the sake of some larger good, but completely cynical.
    Everything is a ploy. Nothing is genuine. Ugh.
    I think this is a terrible way to understand Obama, not because I assume he is an angel incapable of sin, but because I think one of the things he is plainly trying to do is to demonstrate that we don’t have to accept this mindset; that it is possible that people do, for instance, generally mean what they say, and that we should be willing both to credit this and to insist on it. (“The audacity of hope.” It’s not as though he has kept this particular idea a secret.)

  5. it’s an itneresting question whether halperin drives those things, or merely reflects the CW with all its warts.
    it can’t be driven by Halperin. spend an afternoon going over The Daily Howler’s incomparable archives and it’ll be clear that Halperin is just one in a long line of shallow, cynical villagers who think this is all a game.

  6. To my ear, this just sounded as though Obama was saying: my goal is to withdraw our troops as quickly as possible. But of course I will consult with the commanders on the ground about exactly how this should happen.
    IOW, Obama wants his policies to be strongly influenced by reality, not just ideology. He’d not going to order the troops out in 16 months if it turns out that a slightly longer time table will give better results. It’s an attitude that I think we should be celebrating, not criticizing.

  7. I remember vividly when the overwhelming consensus on this blog was immediate withdrawal of all US forces and anything less was considered treacherous or stupid. What we now have is a plan to remove “combat troops” within a generous time frame that is at least somewhat conditions based. Also the size of the “residual force” as well as the number of remaining private military contractors is still unclear. Yet everybody keeps pretending that this is what they wanted all along.

  8. I remember vividly when the overwhelming consensus on this blog was immediate withdrawal of all US forces and anything less was considered treacherous or stupid. What we now have is a plan to remove “combat troops” within a generous time frame that is at least somewhat conditions based. Also the size of the “residual force” as well as the number of remaining private military contractors is still unclear. Yet everybody keeps pretending that this is what they wanted all along.

  10. Yet everybody keeps pretending that this is what they wanted all along.
    I’ve always figured we’d be there, at a bare minimum, for five to ten years. That’s regardless of who was President, or what anyone *wanted* to happen, because no matter what you have in mind up front, sh*t happens and then, if you’re smart and lucky, you deal and hope for the best.
    And in that part of the world there’s always plenty of sh*t to happen. Plus, we’ve really not had a lot of either “smart” or “lucky” in recent years.
    So, for me personally, there are still about four years left before reality falls short of my expectation.
    A plan to remove combat troops within a generous time frame that is at least somewhat conditions based feels, to me, like manna from heaven.
    It means that many more folks I know, and that many more loved ones of folks I know, will likely make it back alive. It means that many fewer Iraqis will be killed by Americans. It means we’ll stop pouring money and blood into that particular patch of sand.
    Maybe it even means that the Iraqis can have their broken country back, and can then put it back together however they want to. With or without our help.
    I’ll take all of that, and I’ll give thanks.

  11. I am shocked and disappointed to learn that building a plan for withdrawal will take time. I thought all the troops would be home by this time next week. Just like in 2000, there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

  12. I remember vividly when the overwhelming consensus on this blog was immediate withdrawal of all US forces and anything less was considered treacherous or stupid.
    And when was that exactly? Can you cite a specific post or specific comments?
    I ask because I don’t remember a time like that at all. What I remember was a lot of talk about how it was logistically impossible to safely remove all the troops at once.
    What we now have is a plan to remove “combat troops” within a generous time frame that is at least somewhat conditions based.
    I think you have to mention the existence of the SOFA. If you don’t think it matters, that’s fine, but then you have to explain why.
    Also the size of the “residual force” as well as the number of remaining private military contractors is still unclear. Yet everybody keeps pretending that this is what they wanted all along.
    Who is everybody and what exactly are they pretending? I note that you don’t cite anyone and compare their statements now with their previous statements. No doubt that is just an oversight. Indeed, your clever tactic of casting aspersions without bothering to show any evidence whatsoever is likely to be very successful.

  14. Yet everybody keeps pretending that this is what they wanted all along.
    not me.
    i’ve always wanted immediate withdrawal. but, that’s never been one of the options. so i’ll take what i can get.

  15. the CW with all its warts
    I resemble that remark.
    Back on thread. The rub may come when, as we withdraw, we see a less friendly government there. Eric – what’s your latest prediction?

  16. Obama’s change in rhetoric on iraq was quite significant.
    Obama won the democratic primary by outflanking hillary on the issue of iraq. he would not have won the nomination if he didn’t sell democrats on his plan to withdraw troops within 16 months. Remember that one?
    then, in july, two weeks after clinching the nomination, he moves to the center by by saying that he has no withdrawal plan set in stone and that his decisions will be governed by the facts on the ground. if this was always the case, why not level with democrats in dec/jan?
    Agree that Halperin is an idiot, but he is no worse than 90% of print and tv journalists.

  17. he would not have won the nomination if he didn’t sell democrats on his plan to withdraw troops within 16 months.
    IMO, there was a hell of a lot more to Obama w.r.t. Hillary than just his Iraq stance.
    still… i’m disappointed, but not surprised that he’s softened on his original “16 months” rhetoric. he’s pragmatic above all else. and that’s a positive in itself.

  18. if this was always the case, why not level with democrats in dec/jan?
    I don’t really see dishonesty, or an attempt to deceive, here.
    I think Obama has pretty consistently been up front with what his goals are. And, he’s pretty consistently been prepared to adjust those according to the reality he runs up against.
    Sometimes I’ve been disappointed with the results. His FISA vote, for me, was pretty disappointing. His decision to walk back from not taking federal election funds, to me, seemed like a decision taken because a better option was suddenly on the table.
    My guess is that, when all is said and done, Obama’s record will be kind of mixed as far as actual performance vs. campaign promises. If so, he’ll be exactly normal.
    I’m OK with normal.
    If at the end of four years we’re still at 100,000+ folks in Iraq, I’ll say that Obama has failed. If we’re talking about taking 20, or 24, or 30 months to accomplish something he said would take 16 during the campaign, I’m just not going to lose any sleep over it. Or at least, not a lot.
    Here’s my bar for Obama:
    Make things better, rather than worse.
    In the context of the last eight years, that, and nothing more than that, will be an unbelievable gift to the nation. If he manages to achieve that, I’ll be nothing but grateful.
    Anything above and beyond that is gravy.
    Thanks –

  21. Bush and McCain wanted to keep troops in Iraq some time between 100 years and forever. Obama wanted to withdraw them in 16 months. Instead, we get a compromise for withdrawing the troops in three years. That way everyone gets to claim victory and feel vindicated. What’s not to like?

  22. “this is why i don’t watch TV news”
    The straight network evening news isn’t bad, and PBS Newshour is very good, mostly, and BBC World News is also good.
    It’s the cable “news” networks that no one should ever poison their brain with. For god’s sake, spend that limited time reading, rather than making yourself stupid.
    “I resemble that remark.”
    Are you going to renew Smallville for another season?

Comments are closed.