Today, the NYT continues the mainstream media’s campaign to discredit Obama’s 16 month withdrawal deadline. In a front-page article (“In Iraq, Mixed Feelings About Obama and His Troop Proposal”), we are informed that the Iraqi military and middle class have “mixed feelings” about Obama. On the one hand, this credible crew adore Obama the man who for them “is the anti-Bush in almost every way.” On the other hand, we have this:
“In no way do I favor the occupation of my country,” said Abu Ibrahim, a Western-educated businessman in Baghdad, “but there is a moral obligation on the Americans at this point.”
Like many Iraqis, Mr. Ibrahim sees Mr. Obama favorably, describing him as “much more humane than Bush or McCain.”
“He seems like a nice guy,” Mr. Ibrahim said. But he hoped that Mr. Obama’s statements about a relatively fast pullout were mere campaign talk.
“It’s a very big assumption that just because he wants to pull troops out, he’ll be able to do it,” he said. “The American strategy in the region requires troops to remain in Iraq for a long time.”
The not-so-subtext: you selfish liberals want a quick withdrawal from Iraq but what you don’t understand is that the people of Iraq (read: middle class and generals) want the US to stay. Forget the polling statistics (they’re never even hinted at in the article): we NYT reporters have found a handful of people (“for some Iraqis the American presence remains the backbone of security” ) who gave quotes specifically designed to give the right impression: leaving on a timeline is irresponsible; staying indefinitely is the only responsible and sane path. Indeed, we learn that “a few well-educated Iraqis who have traveled abroad say they would not oppose a permanent American military presence,” unlike Obama. “Some Iraqis,” indeed.
The only acknowledgement that other Iraqis might disagree with the referenced some is this line: “Despite some fears about such a departure, that stance is not unpopular here.” Not unpopular? Let’s rephrase that: departure is popular. In fact, very popular. The other Iraqis hugely overwhelm the some who want us to stay. Elite, well-heeled, Iraqi professionals may to some degree support a continued US occupation and even permanent military bases, but everyone else unambiguously does not (not to mention what the American people think).
Why is the NYT running this non-story on its front page? Is this “news” in any conventional sense of the word? It seems to me instead part of an effort to discredit Obama’s position. The question then becomes: why is discrediting Obama’s plan so important?
To be honest, I have always been skeptical of Obama’s commitment to withdrawal. Maybe I’m wrong about this–I desperately hope I am, that I will be proven completely wrong–but I think Obama is quite open to changing his mind about Iraq, and that he might end up “pulling a Nixon,” which is to say, he’ll reverse his position or fudge on the meaning of his original promises. Let’s remember that Richard Nixon ran unambiguously as an antiwar candidate against “warmongering” Democrats, only to radically increase the bombing of Indochina upon election. A hint that reversal is a possibility can be gleaned in this Samantha Powers quote:
He [Obama] will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator.
You can’t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009. . . . So to think–it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, ‘Well, I said it, therefore I’m going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.’
Let us assume that I am right about Obama (I hope that I am wrong, but let’s just assume for the sake of argument)… Why would so much ink be spilt condemning a specific 16 month withdrawal deadline when there is clearly so much wiggle room in Obama’s commitment?
This is the problem, I think: if Obama runs on an unambiguous antiwar platform–which is hugely popular–and then wins, well, then, we who vote for him will have expectations. Serious expectations. We will expect nothing less than full withdrawal.
I hypothesize then that the flurry of anti-Timeline op-eds and reaction is not directed so much at Obama–who presumably reserves the right to change his mind, and rightly so, given his obligation to do what he thinks is right, however much I or others might disagree–as much as antiwar readers who support Obama on the assumption that he will do what they hope he’ll do based on his statements: withdraw from Iraq within 16 months, no bases, no ambiguity.
The tacit goal of this NYT article is to prep we antiwar Obama supporters for the eventual argument that “we simply can’t go,” that unspecified terrible things will happen if we declare our intention to leave, that we will rue the day we set a timeline, that if we don’t obey our great wise leaders and opinion-makers (the same people who got us in the war in the first place) then we will all face total catastrophic destruction, that some Iraqis even want us to stay! As I have argued many times, we shouldn’t fall for it. We shouldn’t buy the argument. If you read the NYT article closely, you’ll see that the assertion of its (front page!) headline stands on the thinnest of reeds and ignores important evidence that would contradict its central insinuation.
A headline based on the facts would read: “In Iraq, like US, Overwhelming Majority Wants to End Occupation As Soon As Possible.”