It came as no shock or surprise when Sen. Obama did a sudden flip-flop on the war in Iraq. While his left-wing supporters touted his firm opposition to the war, it became apparent to all that the candidate knew this position was no longer acceptable to the mainstream voter.
The most telling indicator of Obama's flip was the sudden change on his Web page. The Obama Web site previously showed the senator's feeling about the surge of U.S. forces in Iraq. The senator not only doubted the success but also opposed the surge in statement after statement.
"The surge is not working," stated Obama's old page.
In early 2008, Obama responded to President Bush's State of the Union address with a specific comment on the surge.
"Tonight Pres. Bush said that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that's just not true, " stated Obama.
"Yes, our valiant soldiers have helped reduce the violence. But let there be no doubt — the Iraqi government has failed to seize the moment to reach compromises necessary for an enduring peace. That was what we were told the surge was all about. So the only way we're finally going to pressure the Iraqis to reconcile and take responsibility for their future is to immediately begin a responsible withdrawal."
Now, it would appear that Obama would rather forget the surge and his own history of bad-mouthing it, since the offensive succeeded in bringing military stability to Iraq. Obama did not say he was wrong in opposing the surge; instead he elected to dodge the issue by grudgingly admitting the military move worked as planned.
Today, Obama swears he will stick to a timetable of rotating troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan. There are several things wrong with his new proposed strategy.
First, while Obama is playing armchair general, second-guessing why there is an Taliban offensive in Afghanistan, the reality is that this is a result of the U.S. success in Iraq. Al-Qaida forces fleeing Iraq have been redeployed inside Afghanistan staging a last desperate stand in its own back yard.
Secondly, the offense in Afghanistan is a failure for al-Qaida because it was a trap that they have fallen into. The Taliban and al-Qaida forces have not been successful in anything but short spurts and withdrawals. They have been forced from all the gains that they made with the extra forces, taking great numbers of casualties. In fact the terrorists have lost several top members of the leadership.
Third, redeploying the forces from Iraq is not only a logistic nightmare but also the wrong kind of tactics for the Afghan theater. The heavy armor and tank forces deployed in Iraq are not only useless in the mountainous Afghanistan; they would be easy targets for insurgent attacks. The Army ground mobile units in Iraq are designed to fight in the open desert and in crowded cities, neither of which are the main battlegrounds of Afghanistan.
Finally, there is the political factor at home. What Obama does not say about his supporters is the fact that they not only oppose the war in Iraq but they also oppose the war in Afghanistan.
The anti-war supporters that so strongly back Obama oppose all U.S. led efforts worldwide. They do not want U.S. troops fighting al-Qaida in Iraq or Afghanistan. The hard-core Obama backers are more anti-military than pro-Obama, thus supporting any withdrawal from any theater is in their agenda.
All this points to several key factors about Obama. His inexperience in things military is more than obvious. Yet, his flip also shows the freshman senator is barely out of diapers politically. Instead of negotiating to a new position, Obama has withdrawn in a hasty and clumsy retreat from a core election promise.
While this fact has not been pushed hard by the mainstream media, who are still in love with the darling icon, the failure on the political battlefield by Obama is more than apparent to his supporters and his opponent. McCain is already bombarding Obama with "I told you so" and the infamous "flipper" label is beginning to stick.
This is certainly a calculated move on Obama's part because his left-wing core of support is not likely to flee to a third party or McCain. However, this does threaten to deflate the intensity of his support and many disgruntled anti-war activists may stay at home instead of pushing their candidate of choice. Obama's exposed left-flank has shaken his poll numbers and voters now wonder if the candidate has the experience to become president.
All this points back at the successful policy choices made by Sen. McCain. The Republican senator has proposed what is called a "trip-wire" policy for our armed forces in Iraq. American forces would remain in Iraq but not in large numbers, usually centered in major bases. Any attack from neighboring countries would be forced to engage the trip-wire of U.S. soldiers stationed there.
This policy succeeded several times in history for the U.S. America currently maintains a trip-wire of around 30,000 troops in South Korea, to deter any North Korean aggression. The same policy helped keep the peace in Europe during the Cold War with a trip-wire of U.S. forces on German soil, deterring the Soviet Union from striking NATO.
The trip-wire approach has brought peace and stability to the most dangerous places in the world, post World War II Europe and the Asian mainland. A similar policy can stabilize the most important and dangerous area in the 21st Century, the Middle East.
The cool headed policy of using a trip-wire to deter Iran and Syria from being too aggressive is a successful tactic ready to be employed by those who have learned from history. Unfortunately, Obama is either too busy making history to learn or he simply missed that class in middle school before taking office.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
|
