It all depends on what your definition of "Residual Force" is...

 So, it's finally going to happen.

As I am typing this, on (Thursday evening, February 26, 2009) President Barack Obama is preparing to give an address at Camp Lejune, North Carolina where he will announce the end of the Iraq War.

Praise be Jesus!

Now, the plan has had a few changes. Instead of the 16 month withdrawal plan he campaigned on, he is now talking a 19 month withdrawal plan.

As much as I want the War over with (and over with yesterday), I can live with 90 extra days. I'm not certain some soldiers can, but if this is what he's gotta do...

Even Republicans are on board with this plan, including gasp, shock and horror, one John Sidney McCain.

And that's where the world goes all topsy-turvy. Because, while Republicans are signaling "thumbs up" for the plan, Democrats are signaling a definite thumbs-down.

"I'm happy to listen to the secretary of defense and the president, but when they talk about 50,000, that's a little higher number than I had anticipated," Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) said.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the pullout "has to be done responsibly, we all agree. But 50,000 is more than I would have thought, and we await the justification."

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) echoed his worries, saying: "I do think we have to look carefully at the numbers that are there and do it as quickly as we can." Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) issued a statement saying he is "concerned" about the level of troops that would remain in Iraq.

Nancy Pelosi's was on with Rachel Maddow, and said it flat out, she's not cool with the idea of leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq.

So, what are we talking here? Nancy and the Senators all seem to be objecting to the size of the force. They also seem a little put-off by the notion of a residual force in the first place.

You're kidding me, right?

I have to ask a question. Back in 2008, when the candidate was speaking, was anybody freakin' listening?!?

From a July 14, 2008 Op-Editorial, written by one...Barack Obama (which is basically his standard stump speech on Iraq in newspaper form):

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 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. 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.

In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.

So, what did everyone miss?

I guess I get annoyed with the idea of a candidate actually saying something, and his fellow politicians (along with a heapin' helpin' of voters) all getting together and saying "Yeah, he said that, but he's really not going to do that, is he??"

Well, yeah. Apparently so.

Originally posted at Fort McHenry.

Hold Your Horses

 
I never set myself up in November to be gravely affected by the little ripples of disappointment I knew would slowly be trickling in from the incoming Obama administration, although I will admit to being swept up by the Change Movement, and believed in it wholeheartedly. I still do, but hold much less of an emotional ethos and much more of an utilitarian if not pseudo-cynical position on it.

Obama is ultimately a politician and he will do all that is necessary to survive and thrive inside the Beltway (not at the least neglecting his legacy), coupled with incremental alterations to national policy that will historically satisfy the mantra of his campaign: Change.

One significant example of backpedaling from the Obama administration is the signalled reluctance to look into Bush policies. In an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC's “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” Obama said he was unlikely to authorize a broad inquiry into Bush administration programs like domestic eavesdropping or the treatment of terrorism suspects. However, he was quick to add that prosecutions would move forward if the Justice Department found evidence that laws had been broken.

For those of us with longer short-term memories, Candidate Obama broadly condemned some counter-terrorism tactics of the Bush administration and its claim that the measures were justified under executive powers.

The Bush administration has authorized interrogation tactics like waterboarding that critics say tap danced outside federal laws and international treaties, and domestic wiretapping without warrants. But the details of those programs have never been made public, and White House officials have steadfastly held that their actions were legal under a president’s wartime powers.

There was no immediate reaction on Obama's decision from Capitol Hill. In resisting pressure for a wider inquiry, he risks the anger of influential Democratic lawmakers on Congressional judiciary and intelligence committees, and core constituencies who hoped his election would cast a spotlight on President Bush’s antiterror efforts.

On other terrorism issues, Obama suggested that his approach will continue to be more measured. He said the closing of the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, which once seemed to be an early top objective, was not likely to happen during the first 100 days of his administration.

These are the little ripples of disappointment washing ashore. However, I refuse to be altogether turned into the political curmudgeon that I had become on the heels of the stolen election in 2000. I believe in change, and I believe in government's ability to help us--despite the significant atrocities of the last eight years.

In the 1980s Reagan was successful in brainwashing us into thinking we can be left to our own devices and fend for ourselves. "Government is not the solution to our problem," he said. "Government IS the problem." It was the Sink or Swim attitude of Republicans toward the populace that falsely empowered Americans with the empty label of Rugged Individualism. I do not believe in that. I believe that government has the ability...in fact the DUTY to help us solve problems. I believe Change is coming, it's just arriving in little spurts instead of the fantastical Revolution we've been promised. Which is fine; America is still a God-fearing, conservative if not Puritan nation. For all the talk about being flexible and self-sufficient in any and every situation, we must be gently exposed and introduced to change---much like acclimating to a hot bath. Kid gloves are always necessary. Those and a leak-proof body suit.