Obama's Iraq Op-Ed is Confusing (UPDATED)

by Deb Cupples |   When I heard that the New York Times had published an op-ed yesterday by Barack Obama that would clarify his "plan for Iraq," I was eager to read it.  And so I did.  Several times.  But I'm still not too clear about what his "plan" is.

Paragraph 1 states that we should "begin a phased redepolyment of combat troops."   That part is clear.  Paragraph 2 is equally clear: it recaps some of the consequences of the war and re-states Sen. Obama's opposition to the war before the Bush Administration started it.

Then I come to paragraph 3, which states:

"In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness." (NY Times)

Sen. Obama's sentences are clear.  I question the accuracy, because it is far from irrefutable that President Bush's "surge" strategy had actually brought down violence in Iraq. 

Last December (when the surge was nearly a year underway), casualty statistics indicated that 2007 was the deadliest year in Iraq for both American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.  During spring 2008, there was evidence of more violence in Iraq (Think Progress).  Some members of the intelligence community publicly questioned whether the Bush Administration had cherry picked data to create the impression that violence had declined (WaPo). 

Even if violence had actually declined in Iraq, some have validly questioned whether it was due to the "surge" or due to the fact that the U.S. Government had been paying Sunni insurgents to not attack our soldiers. (NY Times)

My point: paragraph 3 of Sen. Obama's op-ed states (as though it's an actual fact) that the "surge" had worked (i.e., had brought down violence), though that claim is debatable.  That, in itself, confuses me.

In paragraph 4, Sen. Obama states that he had opposed the surge. This confuses me, because if the "surge" had been somewhat successful as he'd stated in paragraph 3, what's the point of now saying that (in the past) he opposed a strategy?

In short, I'm not clear about what Sen. Obama's opinion of the "surge" is.

Moving on to paragraph 7,  Sen. Obama states that (if elected) he "would give the military a new mission: ending this war."  Those words are clear.

But then I moved to paragraph 8:

"As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010.... " (NY Times)

How does Sen. Obama know that our military "can safely" (starting in January 2009) remove all combat troops by Summer 2010?  The first sentence of paragraph 9 indicates that he doesn't actually know:

"In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments." (NY Times)

That sounds reasonable and realistic: at the same time, it warns readers to not count on the 16-month timetable for withdrawing combat troops. 

Sen. Obama is right to not firmly commit to the 16-month time frame.  His campaign publicly admitted four months ago that 16 months is a soft number.  That's why I am confused by Sen. Obama's decision to repeat the concrete-sounding (yet soft) number in his op-ed.

Why not simply say, "If I get elected, I'll talk to the generals, then I'll report to you taxpayers about what we think is a realistic time frame for withdrawing from Iraq"?  That does seem to be what he really means.

Back to paragraph 8 for a minute, the part right after the notion about removing "combat troops" by the summer of 2010:

"After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal." (NY Times)

What does "residual force" mean?  Five hundred soldiers?  5000?  20,000?  Sen. Obama makes a similar statement on his website and similarly omits from his op-ed even a ballpark estimate of how many troops would be left behind in Iraq after the "combat troops" are withdrawn.

Having no military experience, I don't know the difference between "combat troops" and the other kind.  If the ones left behind would be ordered to protect American diplomats and military personnel -- while also going after Al Qaeda -- I imagine that the non-combat troops would be armed. 

That said, if we leave enough armed troops in Iraq to protect Americans and go after Al Qaeda, would that qualify as an occupation?

Lurching forward to paragraph 11:

"As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq." (NY Times)

Sen. Obama's aversion to permanent bases confuses me.  I suspect he knows that if we leave thousands (or even hundreds) of troops in Iraq to protect Americans and fight Al Qaeda, we'll likely end up housing them in permanent structures that are capable of being secured.  Canvas tents just don't seem a good option.

That said, I'm guessing that Sen. Obama means that he doesn't want to see U.S. troops stay in Iraq permanently.  Even the Roman Empire wasn't "permanent," but it did last for centuries.

This brings me to my next question: how long does Sen. Obama envision keeping armed troops in Iraq?

Part of paragraph 12 states:

"Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face."  (NY Times)

Repetition has made it Bacarat clear that Sen. Obama is averse "permanent bases" in Iraq.  Though he restates his aversion, he doesn't clarify his position -- i.e., he doesn't tell readers how long he envisions keeping armed U.S. troops in Iraq (and how many troops, for that matter).

Then there's paragraph 13, which ends with this sentence:

"It’s time to end this war."  (NY Times)

Certainly, that sentence gives the impression that Sen. Obama wants to end the war now.  Of course, readers know that he can't actually end it now, because he's still just a White House hopeful. 

Back in paragraph 8, Sen. Obama states that the war wouldn't actually end in January 2009 (if he's elected) but would sort-of end in the summer of 2010 -- and then, only if circumstances are favorable to ending the war by summer of 2010.

When Sen. Obama says ‘It’s time to end this war,’ I think he really means the following:

"It's time to talk about ending the war within two years -- if we're lucky and if the definition of 'war' excludes leaving an as-yet-un-designated number of armed troops in Iraq for an as-yet-un-designated amount of time to protect Americans and fight Al Qaeda."

The title of Sen. Obama's op-ed is "My Plan for Iraq."  While I get the impression that Sen. Obama does oppose the Iraq war, his op-ed doesn't provide enough details to clarify even the broad strokes of his "plan."

The Washington Post says that Sen. Obama plans to give a speech about Iraq today.  I hope that he will use the opportunity to fill us in on some of the details of his "plan."

Update: Today, Think Progress quotes Michael O'Hanlon (from Brookings Institution) as follows:

"'To say you’re going to get out on a certain schedule — regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground — is the height of absurdity.'”

I cite this as further evidence of how confusing Sen. Obama's op-ed is.

Yes, in one paragraph, Sen. Obama's op-ed gives the impression that he plans to withdraw troops within 16-months.   Elsewhere, the op-ed contains a clear denial that Sen. Obama is firmly committed to the 16-month "plan."

I imagine that Mr. O'Hanlon is a heavy-hitting intellectual who had time to compare sentences within Sen. Obama's op-ed before making a statement to the media.

Yet, Mr. O'Hanlon's comment makes it obvious that he didn't pick up on Sen. Obama's clear denial of the notion that Obama is committed to the 16-month "plan."

If Sen. Obama's denials elude someone like Mr. O'Hanlon, then isn't it possible that millions of busy readers who tend to skim op-eds might also walk away confused about Sen. Obama's actual "plan" for the Iraq war?

 

Memeorandum  has commentary here and here.

Comments

[damozel]

As my piece below indicates, I think he is absolutely right in substance re: the reasons why we should leave. The purpose of the op-ed wasn't to lay out details of the plan -- it was a misleading title -- but to make the point that we should begin troop withdrawals NOW.

He didn't emphasize 'ending in two years.' His emphasis wasn't on the final date -- which was my point -- but on the need to get started.

Obviously there are many factors that can't be controlled in advance. But if McCain does what he says, and we wait till we're sure that everything is completely secure, we will NEVER begin. That's my concern --- not that he won't pretend that he intends to withdraw the troops but that he will make it all contingent on circumstances that won't apply.

[damozel]

And permanent bases, as I pointed out, is doubtless a reference to the Bush administration's wish for the Iraqis to allow them to MAINTAIN permanently military bases. When they were negotiating the status of forces agreement, they asked for 200.

It's nothing to do with the nature of the structure, but with the nature of the license to remain. As the article re: SOF points out, the negotiations behind the scene seem designed to give us easy access to Iran.

[Adam]

Regarding your paragraph 3/paragraph 4 dichotomy:

The stated goal of the surge in 2007 was NOT to bring violence back to 2006 levels. That's more or less what's happened, although as you point out, we can't establish causality for certain (the so-called "Sunni Awakening", where we've bribed/convinced some Sunni tribes to switch sides, has certainly played a big role as well). And it's not as though 2006 Iraq was a peaceful utopia. It just wasn't the full-blown civil war we saw in early 2007.

That WAS the stated goal of the surge was to create a ceccasion of violence that would allow for political reconciliation. This has not happened, ergo, the surge is a failure. The surge has failed to meet its stated goal, so it can only be considered a success if we move the goalposts closer (as conservative columnists and commentators all over the media are quick to do). Anyway, it's clear that there's no inconsistency whatsoever in Obama's statements about the surge.

Moreover, even if the goal of the surge HAD simply been to reduce violence, and even if it WAS clear that the surge and the surge alone was responsible for violence going down, it would remain unclear that the surge, "success" though it may have been, would have been worth the titanic expense, and the enormous strain it places on the military. This is particularly true if we are simply "holding the lid down" on violence.

I believe the only thing that will lead to actual reconciliation, and/or the building of a real functioning Iraqi government, is the withdrawl of the majority of US troops. The sooner, the better. Every statement from Obama, every one, suggests his priority is to get most of our troops out as quickly as is responsible. Every statement from McCain, every one, suggests his priority is to win the war (although what that means is never defined) and establish a permanent presence in Iraq.

What "permanent bases" means, in a military sense, is fairly straightforward. It means housing US troop in a location for the purpose of having US troops there. It is a place from which we BASE troops when performing operations in the region. If we were to, say, oh, I dunno, maybe attack Iran, then we would BASE our operations out of such locations.

McCain (and Bush, judging by the SOF negotiations) wants such large military bases, as we have in Germany or Korea. Obama wants only as many troops as are needed to carry out limited missions.

[Deb]

Damozel,

I've responded to your comments in a draft post inside typepad.

[Deb]

Hi Adam,

How are you?

True, bringing down violence was not the only goal, but it was a MAJOR one, because violence creates instability -- which hinders the Iraqi gov's ability to govern more independently of the U.S.

You said: "Anyway, it's clear that there's no inconsistency whatsoever in Obama's statements about the surge."

First, Obama said that the surge had worked in terms of reducing violence -- as though it's a fact -- when the fact is that people who know much more than you and I have publicly challenged whether the surge worked re: violence.

I think it was worth noting that Obama unquestioningly used a highly questionable sound bite.

Second, his earlier paragraph vaguely praises the surge, then he slips into the next para that he'd opposed it in the past.

You're right: it's NOT a blatant contradiction. I just see it as sort-of smelling like one. There is a difference, I admit.

Interestingly enough, NY Daily News reported yesterday:

"Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq, the Daily News has learned."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/07/14/2008-07-14_barack_obama_purges_web_site_critique_of.html

Frankly, NOW I'm wondering about Obama's overall consistency re: the surge.

You said: "Every statement from Obama, every one, suggests his priority is to get most of our troops out as quickly as is responsible."

SOME of his statements suggest that he HOPES to withdraw troops quickly. Other statements indicate that he believes reality will likely PREVENT him (or any president) from quickly withdrawing troops.

If he believes that reality will likely prevent the withdrawal of all "combat" troops by summer 2010, then why is he still insisting on repeating the 16-month idea?

That makes no sense to me.

You said: "Obama wants only as many troops as are needed to carry out limited missions."

Obama hasn't given us even a rough estimate of how many troops will be necessary to carry out the "limited missions."

Without knowing how many troops would be needed, how can he know the size or number of bases needed?

For that matter, how can YOU know what he really means by limiting the size and number of bases?

I submit that protecting American service people and U.S. interests will be a far bigger job than the phrase "limited missions" conveys.

At the very least, U.S. interests include embassies, businesses, oil infrastructure, airports, and roadways that span many geographical areas of Iraq.

Wikipedia says that Iraq is 168,743 sq mi. Germany is smaller (137,847 sq mi, per wikipedia).

Something tells me -- given the violence in Iraq and problems with nearby nations (which we don't experience in Germany) -- that Iraq may end up requiring more troop strength than Germany.

IF that's the case, then (based on Obama's OWN vague statements about responsible withdrawal and tweaking of tactics) Obama seems to be saying that he WOULD commit that troop strength.

Clearing away the media’s spin (and the candidates' spinning of each other’s statements), this is the essence of what I hear them saying about troop withdrawal:

MCCAIN: I want to safely withdraw troops but don’t think we can do it quickly.

OBAMA: I want to quickly withdraw troops but don’t think we can do it safely.

About occupation, this is the essence of what I hear:

MCCAIN: I want to protect our troops and U.S. interests and will occupy Iraq for as long as that takes.

OBAMA: I want to protect our troops and U.S. interests and will occupy Iraq for as long as that takes: I just prefer to not call it an "occupation" -- and especially not a “permanent” or "long term" one.

Bottom line: if BOTH CANDIDATES start using more concrete details to describe their Iraq "plans," I'll have an easier time of drawing valid comparisons between their plans.

Until then, I'm left to either suspend judgment or guess based on BOTH candidates' vague statements.

[rawdawgbuffalo]

arent the op eds of mots politicans, with exception of Bob Barr confusing - i think so

[Deb]

Raw Dawg,

How are you? You make a good point!

[Adam]

Of course reducing violence can help spur political progress. That was the idea behind the surge. It failed.

Again, I agree with you that the surge is not the only cause of violence falling back to 2006 levels. Obama himself has noted this, in the debates. I think this (Obama not mentioning the awakening in ther NYT) is simply a case of Obama conceding the point (i.e. assigning causality to surge->violence drop) because arguing otherwise just muddies the important point. The important point, which he lays out clearly, is that the surge didn't do what it was supposed to, and is not worth the cost in money/military commitment/American deaths.

Again, there's no contradiction in those two paragraphs at all. What there is is a slightly nuanced argument - that the surge is a failure despite some successes it may have achieved. And now that I re-read it, it seems blatantly clear that that's what Obama meant. He starts the fourth paragraph with a "but", and clearly lays out the "stated purpose of the surge".

"Other statements indicate that he believes reality will likely PREVENT him (or any president) from quickly withdrawing troops."

He's never said that, unless "quickly" means "in less than 16 months". He's said the plan would be adaptable to conditions, but it would begin immediately. 16 months is his goal, but he admits that he can't predict the future and it could take a little longer. This is simply a rational thing to say, but it doesn't change the fact that withdrawl is the mission on day 1. 16 months is a prediction, not a blood oath.

"At the very least, U.S. interests include embassies, businesses, oil infrastructure, airports, and roadways that span many geographical areas of Iraq."

No, absolutely not. Only embassies fit under "the very least", and only embassies and other US personnel are addressed by Obama's plan. Your reading of "US interests" there is so broad as to lose all meaning. "American interests" refers, in this context, to Americans and American government institutions.

You said that their opinions boil down to:

"MCCAIN: I want to safely withdraw troops but don’t think we can do it quickly.

OBAMA: I want to quickly withdraw troops but don’t think we can do it safely."

With all due respect, Deb, that's an extraordinarily inaccurate way to characterize their positions. Here is the fundamentals of their positions:

MCCAIN: we will stay in force until Iraq is stable, peaceful, and friendly, no matter how long this takes - although his hope is that this is by 2012 or 2013. Then we will withdrawl much of our forces, although we will maintain a permanent presence in bases much like the ones we have in Germany or Korea.

OBAMA: we will withdrawl as quickly as we can do safely, which could be as quickly as 16 months. After that, American troops will no longer be responsible for maintaining order in Iraq.

There is simply no equivalence between those positions.

It seems like you are taking Obama's comments, which unambiguously support a withdrawl, and wringing out any possible shades of meaning or interpretations that lead to troops staying longer or in greater numbers. On the other hand, you are taking everything McCain says and wringing out any possible meaning that involves troop levels dropping at some point. You are jumping through rhetorical hoops to make them seem similar.

This does not strike me as an intellectually honest exercise. Frankly, it seems like you started with the premise that Obama's Iraq plan is NOT closer to what you want, and you've built arguments that support that.

[Deb]

Adam,

About Obama's position on the Surge: I already said that the positive message immediately followed by a negative one merely smelled like a contradiction -- and I ADMITTED that this is different from a blatant contradiction.

What more can I say?

Still, I wonder why Obama just edited past positions on the surge from his website. What are your thoughts on that?

You're right: I assume that quickly = 16 months (or so).

Incidentally, I have no problem if Obama were to start the withdrawals later than Jan 09 or finish them later than summer 2010.

I'm just confused by his insistence on repeating the 16-month idea after he has repeatedly (at other times) emphasized that he's not firmly committed to it.

He could instead say what I suggested in my post -- which would be more honest and would create less risk of readers mis-interpreting his real message.

"No, absolutely not. Only embassies fit under "the very least", and only embassies and other US personnel are addressed by Obama's plan. Your reading of "US interests" there is so broad as to lose all meaning. "American interests" refers, in this context, to Americans and American government institutions."

Yes, my reading is broad, but I think reality necessitates a broad reading because America's interests DO include businesses, govt institutions, and resources.

Oil is reportedly a big part of the U.S.'s interest in Iraq, for example, which is why I mentioned oil infrastructure (pipelines, etc) and roadways -- which tend to be full of armed hijackers (I know a few people whose job was to guard convoys).

I think that Obama is smart enough that if he were president, he would see that said infrastructure would be an important part of the interests needing protection.

In short, IF his *real* plan is to leave only enough troops to protect embassies, then I think his plan is unrealistic.

Obama COULD clear all of that up by telling us what "limited missions" means and how many troops (just a range) he suspects would be necessary for said missions.

He refuses to do so; thus, I'm left with an incomplete notion of his "plan." That's NOT my fault. It's his.

"OBAMA: we will withdrawl as quickly as we can do safely, which could be as quickly as 16 months. After that, American troops will no longer be responsible for maintaining order in Iraq."

Actually, there's no "will" about it, because Obama's other statements subtly acknowledge that full withdrawal could take longer than 2010.

"You are jumping through rhetorical hoops to make them seem similar."

"This does not strike me as an intellectually honest exercise. Frankly, it seems like you started with the premise that Obama's Iraq plan is NOT closer to what you want, and you've built arguments that support that."

You put words in my mouth (or thoughts in my head) instead of answering what I actually said in my post.

I admitted that I CANNOT validly compare the two candidates ACTUAL plans, because BOTH candidates omit necessary details (types of missions, # of troops left behind, length of time, etc) for me to actually understand what their plans ARE.

You can't compare what you don't know.

In short, I DON'T think McCain's and Obama's plans are identical, because I don't know either plan's details.

What I think is similar is the underlying essence of what they're SAYING (once you peel off the spin).

This is a different level than the candidates actual (albeit undisclosed) plans.

[Deb]

Adam,

Please read my update (end of post), which emphasizes why I find Obama's op-ed confusing -- especially to ordinary busy people who don't re-read and compare sentences.

[Adam]

"I imagine that Mr. O'Hanlon is a heavy-hitting intellectual "

Hahahahahaha. No. Michael O'Hanlon is, and this is being exceedingly kind, a fucking idiot. I say "kind", because the alternate interpretation of Mr. O'Hanlon is that he is a pathological liar. I tend to believe it's a little (or a lot) of both.

In this case, O'Hanlon is intentionally twisting Obama's language, because, hey, we need to be in Iraq, and I know what I'm talking about because... well, just because.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/21/o_hanlon/

[Adam]

An even better O'Hanlon smackdown from Greenwald:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/30/brookings/

Basically, the guy is a lying piece of trash. End of story.

--

"Still, I wonder why Obama just edited past positions on the surge from his website. What are your thoughts on that?"

I haven't looked into this so I don't know if it is true. Let's say for argument's sake, though, that it's true that he's removed references to the surge's failure to accomplish anything. If that is true, then my explanation is exactly as I said above. He's conceding the point that the surge reduced violence, not because he's certain it's true, but because arguing it is a distraction that serves no political or moral purpose. The point is, it doesn't matter whether the surge reduced violence (and it almost surely did, albeit among other factors). What matters is that there's no political solution in sight, and we need to get out.

"I'm just confused by his insistence on repeating the 16-month idea after he has repeatedly (at other times) emphasized that he's not firmly committed to it."

He repeats it for the same reason he said it in the first place: because it is his plan and his goal. No, it is not immutable, but it is plan A. I don't see how it's at all dishonest for him to talk about plan A.

"I think that Obama is smart enough that if he were president, he would see that said infrastructure would be an important part of the interests needing protection.

In short, IF his *real* plan is to leave only enough troops to protect embassies, then I think his plan is unrealistic. "

Deb, are you serious? If you really honestly think the US military needs to protect the oil interests and any infrastructure associated with its transport, then YOU DON'T WANT TO GET OUT OF IRAQ. In that case, by all means, you should prefer McCain's plan.

Protecting massive infrastructure like oil extraction necessitates keeping a large force in Iraq. Obama wants to withdraw. He does not plan to guard the oil fields and pipelines.

Why is it "unrealistic" to not protect the oil fields? Iraq is a sovereign country and wants us out. That means we don't guard their oil fields for them.

"I'm left with an incomplete notion of his "plan." That's NOT my fault. It's his."

Fair enough, but your interpretation - that we would guard Iraqi infrastructure - is a really enormous stretch. Interpreting "American interests" in a much more narrow sense seems considerably more reasonable to me.

"You put words in my mouth (or thoughts in my head) instead of answering what I actually said in my post.

I admitted that I CANNOT validly compare the two candidates ACTUAL plans..."

But you did! You posted those media spin free versions of their withdrawl plans - versions that were terribly innacurate.

For goodness sake, Deb. One of them says the mission is "victory", while the other says it is "getting out". One of them unambiguously says we stay until we win, and the other one has a plan to withdraw one brigade a month starting in January.

Just because some details you think are important are not there, you're going to say the plans look the same? This is crazy, Deb. The plans could hardly be more different! Look at what they DO say. In both rhetoric and content, they are worlds apart.

[Adam]

Here's the "scrubbed" statement on Obama's webpage:

"Since the surge began, more than 1,000 American troops have died, and despite the improved security situation, the Iraqi government has not stepped forward to lead the Iraqi people and to reach the genuine political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge. Our troops have heroically helped reduce civilian casualties in Iraq to early 2006 levels. This is a testament to our military’s hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics, and enormous sacrifice by our troops and military families. It is also a consequence of the decision of many Sunnis to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq, and a lull in Shia militia activity. But the absence of genuine political accommodation in Iraq is a direct result of President Bush’s failure to hold the Iraqi government accountable."

That doesn't exactly sound like a ringing endorsement of the surge. Even if the words "the surge is not working" are not there, it's still a statement that criticizes the surge policy... and a statement I agree with.

[Deb]

Adam,

I'm embarrased. I just assumed that O'Hanlon (being from Brookings) would be an intellectual.

Thanks for correcting my error.

[Deb]

Adam,

Part II

"Deb, are you serious? If you really honestly think the US military needs to protect the oil interests and any infrastructure associated with its transport, then YOU DON'T WANT TO GET OUT OF IRAQ. In that case, by all means, you should prefer McCain's plan."

If Obama's REAL plan involves getting out and not protecting those interests, then I would tend to agree with him.

I'm just not sure that he has conveyed his real plan to us -- as opposed to conveying "overheated" rhetoric, like he did re: NAFTA.

Obama is clear about his "Plan A" (16 months), then he inserts all sorts of vague qualifiers that reduce the firmness of "Plan A."

Again, if he would give details in his QUALIFIERS (instead of vague, specious statements), I'd have a better idea of what his plans really are.

"Why is it "unrealistic" to not protect the oil fields? Iraq is a sovereign country and wants us out. That means we don't guard their oil fields for them."

Maybe you're right on that one.

I just have trouble believing that our government would not take an interest in the oil supply of one of the world's top-10 oil producers. I could be wrong, though.

"Just because some details you think are important are not there, you're going to say the plans look the same? This is crazy, Deb. The plans could hardly be more different! Look at what they DO say. In both rhetoric and content, they are worlds apart."

You just answered something that I didn't say.

I posted the media-spin-free versions of McCain's and Obama's carefully crafted TALKING POINTS, which give certain impressions but LACK CONCRETE DETAILS re: how many troops would be left behind in Iraq, to do what, and for how long.

Those details ARE necessary for us to figure out what each candidate envisions in terms of U.S. presence in Iraq over the long term.

Once again, I did NOT say the plans were the same. I said the essence underlying the candidates' vague rhetoric looks strikingly similar.

Why do you keep re-shaping my words than arguing against them?

And -- again -- if both candidates would give some concrete details, I would be better able to validly make comparisons between their REAL plans (as opposed to the vague impressions they give the public).

I don't understand why you have trouble understanding my inability to validly assess either candidate's "plans."

And I don't understand why you keep saying that I'm saying that their plans are the same, when I actually keep saying that I haven't been told what their REAL plans are.

What gives?

[Deb]

ADam,

Part III

I'm guessing from what you're saying that Obama didn't change his surge statement all that much.

You may be right about his stating as a fact that the surge reduced violence simply because there's no political reason to not state it.

Myself, I'd rather have a public servant not propagate errors, but that's just me.

I also find it interesting that he mentions the Sunnis "decision" to turn against Al Qaeda, when we taxpayers paid them to make that decision. It's a SMALL point.

[Deb]

Adam,

Part IV

REcently, Obama has repeatedly used the phrase "political accommodation."

I googled it twice and am still not sure what it means. Do you know what the term generally means (as opposed to in the context of Iraq)?