Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

Obama's Iraq War Speech: Why?

4 years ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
Why is Barack Obama giving a speech on Iraq?

To mark the end of U.S. combat missions in the nation George W. Bush invaded over seven years ago, the president on Tuesday night will deliver a high-profile address from the Oval Office. Speeches from the Oval Office are usually reserved for the most pressing and profound matters of a presidency. And this partial end of the Iraq war -- the United States will still have 50,000 troops stationed there -- is a significant event. It demonstrates that Obama has kept a serious campaign promise: to end this war.

But with the economy foundering -- many of the recent stats are discouraging -- most Americans are probably not yearning above all for a report on Iraq and likely will not be all that impressed with Obama's promise-keeping on this front. The main issue remains jobs, especially as the congressional elections approach.

Summer is essentially done. It's back-to-school and back-to-work time for many of us. But on Obama's first days after his Martha Vineyard's vacation, he's devoting (at least in public) more time and energy to foreign policy matters than the flagging economy. Worried Democrats must be livid. (Most House Democrats are still campaigning in their districts and are not yet back in Washington to gripe about their president.)

Wars are the most significant stuff of a presidency. There's not enough media attention devoted to the Afghanistan war. But politically there's little or no payoff for an Iraq war address. Obama can't brag, "Mission accomplished." (In fact, on Monday, press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama would not be using those words.) He can't declare victory. He can only declare a murky end to a murky war. That's not going to rally the Democrats' base or win over independents. It was not mandatory for Obama to deliver such a high-profile speech. Vice President Joe Biden traveled to Baghdad to commemorate this milestone. The administration has conducted other events regarding the end of combat operations. It's been duly noted.

The Iraq war, though, raises tough questions for Obama. For example, at the White House press briefing on Monday, Gibbs was peppered with queries about whether Obama believes Bush's so-called surge worked or did not. Gibbs did not provide a direct answer -- and the question is indeed more complicated than many people assume. But Obama, who did not support the surge, clearly does not want to be mired in a debate over it.

I asked Gibbs about an apparent contradiction in Obama's position. When he was campaigning for the presidency in 2007, he said, without uncertainty, that the Iraq war had rendered the United States less safe:
I don't believe that we are safer now than we were after 9/11 because we have made a series of terrible decisions in our foreign policy. We went into Iraq, a war that we should have never authorized and should not have been waged. It has fanned the flames of anti-American sentiment. It has, more importantly, allowed us to neglect the situation in Afghanistan.
Yet last week, Obama cut a video thanking GIs who had served in Iraq, or are serving there now, saying that their work has "made America safer." Which is it? Was the United States safer or not safer due to the Bush-Cheney war? As an opponent of the war, Obama had an unambiguous stance. Now, as commander in chief, he understandably does not want to say that American GIs sacrificed -- and were sacrificed -- in vain. So he praises the soldiers for an achievement he does not, or did not, believe was real. Such rhetorical gymnastics, even if necessary, do not make for a clear message. In reply to my question, Gibbs said he would have to review the president's remarks in the video -- a classic press secretary dodge.

Obama opposed the war in 2002 as a state senator and did the same as a U.S. senator and presidential candidate. In part because of that opposition, he ended up inheriting the war. Obama has commendably done what he said he would do: end it. Still, it's a tricky topic for him to talk about. Why assume this no-win mission? Moreover, Iraq, no doubt, reminds people (that is, voters) of another topic: Afghanistan. And that remains an unpopular war, predicated on assorted dilemmas that this administration has not sorted out. As the final stretch of the campaign season begins, why bring up Afghanistan in such an explicitly implicit manner?

The Iraq war was a mistake. That remains Obama's view, according to Gibbs. And though he has ended combat missions, there is no good drum to beat. (I'd bet he won't dwell on the fact that tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians -- if not a lot more -- lost their lives due to the war.) The economy is in peril. The president's party is in peril. There's not a lot of time before Judgment Day. If the Dems lose seats in Congress, Obama will confront a much tougher slog in Washington. Given all that, he must be exceedingly savvy and efficient in how he invests whatever political capital he holds. The end of the official war in Iraq is a historic moment. It does warrant reflection and notice. But for a president wrestling with a lousy economy and facing an uneasy electorate, this is not the ground where he should be mounting an offensive.

You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter.

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

5 Comments

Filter by:
Electric Method3

Pretty much the only reason for the speech was to try to shore up his position and "buy" some credibility by "delivering" on a campaign promise. All this so that his party doesn't take a disasterous hit in the midterm elections. Most of this is just smoke and mirrors; a replay of his campaign to become president.

September 03 2010 at 3:55 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Kat2988

He wants to divert from the ailing ecomomy the fact that his big fat stimulus bombed now he somehow wants to take credit for I don't know what again and get his face on TV....again, that's about it Mr. Corn, get it?

August 31 2010 at 7:45 PM Report abuse +4 rate up rate down Reply
ziegler21wp

Why the Iraq speech? I think that's not tough to figure out. You are too young to remember what it was like for American troops returning from the War in Vietnma. I opposed the war (marching, picketing, the whole none) but I felt great shame that young men my own age who were drafted and served were not treated with the respect their service deserved.

August 31 2010 at 10:51 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
gin711

still trying to figure out how one can declare an "end" to a war that will still have 50,000 troops on site. this speech thingy is a way for OB to toot his own horn about "ending the war", which he promised to do, but actually hasn't done. such foolishness. the emperor with no clothes is trying to toy with american minds again.

August 31 2010 at 10:34 AM Report abuse +11 rate up rate down Reply
Jcwfuntime

He's making the speech to tell the american citizens he is ending an unjust war, and bringing our soldiers home, and assuring them that under his administration we will not enter an unjust war in the future, especially one under "false pretenses. The surge was not really a "strategy", it was merely an "action". All Bush did was send 20,000 more troops to Iraq, which jeopardized more american lives, and we still lost the war. His "Shock and Awe", which he thought would end the war in a few days, was also unsuccessfull. It took a president with courage, fortitude, and guts to realize we needed to end the war. All those american lives, were lost for "nothing". God Bless our President, and the United States of America.

August 31 2010 at 10:06 AM Report abuse -5 rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily

  • Comics
robert-and-donna-trussell
CHAOS THEORY
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>