In this week’s New Yorker, George Packer writes that “Obama’s rhetoric on the topic [of Iraq] now seems outdated and out of touch, and the nominee-apparent may have a political problem concerning the very issue that did so much to bring him this far.” Packer says that Obama’s articulating a sixteen month withdrawal timetable for Iraq was a political “mistake” and that given the recent “success” of the surge Obama might have to buck the “idealistic yearnings of his admirers” by “recalibrat[ing] his stance on Iraq.” Furthermore, Packer argues that a “‘conditional engagement’ policy is a much better fit for the present situation in Iraq,” though Obama might have trouble adapting his previously too-specific plan because “acknowledging changed ideas in response to changed facts is considered a failing by the political class,” even though the public, in its wisdom, will turn on Obama if he “seems heedless of progress in Iraq” and “centrist voters who have doubts about Obama” will consider inflexibility on Iraq a liability. So the “political class” wants Obama to be consistent, and stick to his original withdrawal deadline, while the centrist general population wants Obama to change according to progress on the ground. Got that? Packer’s conclusion is worth quoting at length:
Obama has shown, with his speech on race, that he has a talent for candor. One can imagine him speaking more honestly on Iraq. If pressed on his timetable for withdrawal, he could say, “That was always a goal, not a blueprint. When circumstances change, I don’t close my eyes—I adapt.” He could detail in his speeches the functions that American troops and diplomats can continue to perform even as our primary combat role recedes: training and advising, counterterrorism, brokering deals among Iraqi factions, checking their expansionist impulses, opening talks with our enemies in the region. He could promise to negotiate all this with Iraqi leaders, emphasizing the difference between a relationship that respects the wishes of the public in both countries and one in which Iraqis are coerced into cooperation. If Obama truly wants to be seen as a figure of change, he needs to talk less about the past and more about the future: not the war that should never have been fought but the war that he, alone of the two candidates, can find an honorable way to end.
Respecting the wishes of the public in both countries sounds like an excellent idea to me. That is probably part of what it means to live in a democratic society—that at some level our leaders do what we want, rather than us doing what our leaders want. So what does the Iraqi population want? We got a hint of that today, when Ali al-Dabbagh, an Iraqi government spokesman, said that “we need to agree on the principle of setting a deadline” for withdrawal from Iraq. al-Dabbagh suggests that US troops should be out of Iraq by 2011, but the Iraqi people themselves are less forgiving. According to a 2006 WorldPublicOpinion.org poll, 94% of Sunnis want Americans to withdraw within two years; 71% of Shia want Americans to withdraw within two years; and 40% of Kurds want the US to withdraw within two years. Overall, that’s 70% of Iraqis who want the US military presence gone, at least as of 2006. 2007 saw a spike in anti-occupation attitudes, correlated to the massive increase in violence. A March 2008 ABC/BBC post-surge poll shows that 41% of Iraqis “strongly oppose” coalition forces; 31% “somewhat oppose” them; 19% “somewhat support” them; and 7% “strongly support” them. In this same poll, 38% of Iraqis want American troops to “leave now,” 35% want us to remain “until security is restored,” 14% “until the Iraqi government is stronger,” and so on. These numbers are somewhat more favorable toward the coalition forces, since the horrific bloodbath of 2007 abated, but more or less track the 2006 figures. The views of the Iraqi people are overwhelmingly negative toward the US presence in the country, in a much more pronounced fashion in those parts of the country where violence is rampant.
Polling in Iraq is notoriously hard, given the levels of violence in the country, but what the American people think is pretty clear and unambiguous. An ABC News/Washington Post poll, June 12-15, 2008 shows that 55% of the population wants to withdraw US forces “even if that means civil order is not restored there.” A May 30, 2008 CBS News poll reveals that 42% of Americans want our troops out in less than a year, while another 21% say within one or two years; only 20% say we should stay “as long as it takes.” A May 8-12, 2008 Quinnipiac University poll shows that 22% want withdrawal ASAP and 48% want us to set a timetable. And on and on. Poll after poll reveals that the majority of the US population wants us out of Iraq as soon as possible.
Under these circumstances, it seems apparent that Packer is wrong: Obama’s February 2007 position and his specific 16 month withdrawal deadline are the opposite of “outdated” and “out of touch.” He is not making a “mistake” by listening to the “idealistic yearnings of his admirers”—i.e., the majority or overwhelming majority of the American people, depending on which poll you take as most accurate. Obama does not need to speak “more honestly” on Iraq or talk about “the functions that American troops and diplomats can continue to perform” as a way of restoring his credibility, because his original views are hugely popular, in both Iraq and the US. But Packer does get one thing right: if “Obama truly wants to be seen as a figure of change” he should “talk… more about the future” in a way that respects “the wishes of the public in both countries.” What those publics want for the future could not be more clear. Only the “political class” (and mostly on the American right, as Ian’s previous post persuasively demonstrates, though Packer [who might as well be channeling Bill Kristol in this article] calls himself a liberal) considers “conditional engagement” to be a good idea, if these polls are to be believed.