Almost overlooked, Barack Obama has redefined the U.S. mission in Iraq.

[milkyway]

For Bush and McCain, the war in Iraq will either be a total victory or it will be a defeat. Many Dems have bought into this either/or thinking also, and have concluded that Iraq is unwinnable so we should leave (and, by inference, accept defeat).

But yesterday Obama, clearly preparing for when he becomes president, redefined the mission in Iraq for Patraeus and Crocker: not to create the paradise on earth that Bush dreams about, but to create a situation in Iraq that isn't much different from today--messy but not collapsing--but with far fewer American troops, at which point the U.S. can declare the mission a success.

What Obama was saying might have gone over a lot of people's heads, but it was clearly understood by Patraeus and Crocker. They were not scolded or publicly humiliated by a grandstanding Obama. Instead, they were treated as professionals, and Obama was letting them know that Bush's fantasy world will be ending, and Obama will be working with them to redefine the U.S. mission in Iraq as one based in reality, moving the goal posts closer so that the U.S. can still achieve a definable victory and end the mission.

Importantly, early in his questioning Obama got Patraeus and Crocker to state on the record that an Iraq with no trace of AQI or any chance of it reconstituting is not possible and is not necessary for success, and an Iraq with no trace of Iranian influence is not possible and not necessary for success. These were huge admissions.

At the end of his questioning, Obama posed the question, "If we were to have the status quo in Iraq right now without U.S. troops, would that be a sufficient definition of success?" Patraeus and Crocker were both hesitant to answer, seeming to realize they were speaking to their future boss and unsure if they should commit themselves.

This is how Obama plans to get the U.S. out of Iraq when he becomes president--not by accepting the Bush definition of victory and deciding we can't prevail, but by redefining what victory is, and he let Petraeus and Crocker know that this is going to be the path forward.

Video here: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/187965.php

Transcript here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040802607.html

[DUyellow]

1. He really did do good.

[SunsetDreams]

2. Horrary for Barack!

I actually think Hillary did a good job yesterday also.

[Pirate Smile]

3. You know, I thought this point would get more discussion today by the "experts" and "pundits"

but I guess it is too much substance and policy to actually receive any chatter.

I thought it was very important and Obama was very impressive.

[hisownpetard]

4. Not overlooked!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5437514&mesg_id=5437514:hi:

[milkyway]

8. Your link doesn't work. I know some people understood what was happening, but the mainstream media

seemed too dull-witted to notice. The NY Times barely blinked, mentioning it in one sentence.

Watching the video last night, I was astounded by what seemed to be well understood but left unsaid--Obama was prodding Petraeus and Crocker to look at the situation from a different perspective, and to be prepared to move forward on it when he gets in office.

[hisownpetard]

10. I know. I posted an OP about this earlier and I tried to put the link here, since it was so

apropros, but for some reason it didn't work.
If you'd like to read it, it started with the word "Essentially."
Last time I looked it had 30 Rec's.

I, too, was surprised that it seemed to go over the heads of all the pundits and talking heads,
getting very little attention - although, tonight, a lot of them have incorporated what Obama said
into their talking points without attribution!


:headbang:

[milkyway]

15. I just read it. Great post. I think what some on the left underestimate is the desire by a lot

of people that we not be seen as "losing," with al Qaeda celebrating a victory over us. Obama is trying to find a way to leave Iraq without the country collapsing, and without the U.S. having left in defeat.

His way may seem like triangulating or searching for a middle ground, but it really is about finding a different path, one not constrained by the straightjacket of Bush's fantasies of a pro-U.S. Jeffersonian democracy blooming in Iraq if we just stay a little bit longer.

[Bongo Prophet]

18. The corrected link here (it had an extra few characters- :hi...)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5437514&mesg_id=5437514

[hisownpetard]

22. I just saw your post. Thanks for doing that!

:hi:

[Bongo Prophet]

23. It was a worthy post. We do need to make leaving Iraq a "victory"

That is the only way to leave without the "who lost Iraq" label.
As we make plans to withdraw, we change the metrics to turn it into a success pulled from the jaws of defeat.
Perhaps coupled with a series of GI bill type plans for those returning.
Done right, it could be brilliant.

[FrenchieCat]

5. It's probably "too deep" for some to realize the type of leader Obama truly is.....

It will dawn on them soon, though.

[hisownpetard]

6. delete/self

[me b zola]

7. K&R

:kick:

[jillan]

9. He was very impressive.

[bhikkhu]

11. K&R. Very impressed.

[Usrename]

12. Yep, he was the most effective of anyone, in either hearing.

"Importantly, early in his questioning Obama got Patraeus and Crocker to state on the record that an Iraq with no trace of AQI or any chance of it reconstituting is not possible and is not necessary for success, and an Iraq with no trace of Iranian influence is not possible and not necessary for success. These were huge admissions."

It was the most important communication that they made.

[Muttocracy]

13. I thought he did well but it's a bit of a stretch to say he redefined it

compared to all the other work and questioning Biden, Dodd, Kerry, Lugar, Hagel, Feingold, Kerry, Boxer, Menendez, and others did last week. Since Obama is one to do his homework, I'm guessing he's aware of what was discussed on SFRC the previous week, and it's hard for me to believe that Crocker and Petraeus had no clue what Odum and McCafferty said last week either.

[milkyway]

16. I only read snips of the other Senators' questions, but even if they said exactly what Obama did, it

would not carry the same weight--Obama is the favorite to be the next president, so when he suggests that success should be defined differently, it's understood that he might soon have the authority to do just that.

[ClayZ]

14. K and R

[SunsetDreams]

17. k&r

[uponit7771]

19. Crockers exact words to be used in the GE

CROCKER: "....I think that when Iraq gets to the point that it can carry forward its further development without a major commitment of U.S. forces, with still a lot of problems out there but where they and we would have a fair certitude that, again, they can drive it forward themselves without significant danger of having the whole thing slip away from them again, then, clearly, our profile, our presence diminishes markedly.

But that's not where we are now. ..."

[FrenchieCat]

20. Patraeus isn't looking for jeffersonian Democracy as of today......after yesterday.

Petraeus: 'We're not seeking a Jeffersonian democracy' in Iraq
April 09, 2008
Categories: Iraq


In response to a speech (and it can't be called anything else) by Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) on "Why are we fighting in Iraq?," Petraeus gave an interesting response: "We are not seeking a Jeffersonian democracy here."

Petraeus' point was that U.S. military leaders aren't seeking a perfectly functioning government in Iraq - what Petraeus called "the Holy Grail" - in order to delare victory and go home. Just one that works pretty well. It was an interesting statement and one needs further exploration. Is it a shift in goals for the United States in Iraq?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0408/Petraeus_Were_not_seeking_a_Jeffersonian_democracy_in_Iraq.html

[Scurrilous]

21. K & R

:thumbsup: