Obama's Incoherence

What did Barack Obama mean Tuesday when he told Tim Russert that if, following his promised withdrawal of U.S. forces, "al-Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad"?

Surely Obama is aware that much of the military activity in Iraq for some time has been devoted-- successfully -- to pushing AQI out of those areas (Anbar, for example) where it had previously established itself. Isn’t he?

If he does know that, and if he concedes that a future AQI “base” in Iraq would be a cause for his ordering some sort of military action – either some missile lobbing in Bill Clinton’s feckless style, or a reintroduction of troops -- then why is he promising to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq as fast as he can? Wouldn’t Obama’s withdrawal be likely to precipitate precisely the scenario that sets up Obama’s own future military intervention? Wouldn’t it make more sense – from his own point of view – to continue the thus-far successful counter-insurgency campaign that is underway right now, but that he promises to end?

Obama’s later statements on the matter haven’t clarified matters. On Wednesday, John McCain responded to Obama’s mystifying remarks in the debate by mocking him. "When you examine that statement,” McCain said during an appearance in Texas, “it's pretty remarkable. I have some news. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. It's called 'al-Qaeda in Iraq.'"

Obama, campaigning in Ohio, responded. “I do know that al Qaeda is in Iraq,” he said, which is good to know since he had left that point ambiguous. He then added his intended zinger. “I have some news for John McCain,” he said. “There was no such thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.”

Wait a minute. There’s a lot more to that story, isn’t there? In fact, it’s the rest of that story that is at the center of this election. Yes, after the U.S. overthrew the Baathists, AQI challenged the U.S. in Iraq, attempting to foment a civil war by a barbaric campaign of murder. Then, after a lengthy period of bloodletting and sectarian violence, the Sunnis turned against AQI, the U.S. employed an effective counter-insurgency strategy, and the major Shiite militia stopped killing Sunni civilians. AQI has been humiliated, and its standing in the Muslim world has plummeted.

Obama knows all this, doesn’t he? He must, because he recently trivialized it all as a mere “tactical victory.” (I know that he’s aware that his promised withdrawal could lead to genocidal violence, because he has said he is indifferent to potential genocide.) Anyway, if Obama agrees that al-Qaeda is already in Iraq, and if he is aware of recent military successes against AQI, then the obvious question at the center of the election is, what now? Obama’s answer seems to be, let’s get out, but if the situation becomes what I already know it is, let’s resume military action to stop it. Huh?

Given the centrality of Iraq to the election and to his own campaign, Obama has been amazingly incoherent on the subject. “[W]e should continue to strike al-Qaeda targets" in Iraq, Obama told the crowd in Ohio on Wednesday. But if striking such targets is important, why promise to withdraw the U.S. forces that are doing the striking? If an AQI “base” in Iraq is a threat to U.S. interests, why trivialize and promise to abandon a successful strategy that is working against AQI?

Either the struggle in Iraq matters or it doesn’t. And if it does, as Obama’s own statements seem to suggest, why abandon the struggle while you are succeeding, with the back-up promise to recommence it later, when the enemy has had a chance to regroup? What sense does any of this make?