This format is intended to present partially-formed thoughts to provoke discussion. The number 9 is arbitrary; IIRC I chose it for reasons relating to John Lennon. (Turn me on, dead man). The idea is, throw out these short observations to provoke discussion.
Senator Obama gave a major speech today calling for immediately beginning an American withdrawal from Iraq. The full text is here. My thoughts below the fold.
There are a lot of good, solid policy pronouncements here. The description of current policy is clear and unequivocal: e.g., "The bar for success is so low it is almost buried in the sand."
This is helpful and timely in directly confronting the parts of General Petraeus' testimony that are either misleading or likely to be misstated by the media, e.g. the significance of any reduced violence in Anbar.
The speech describes a policy that Obama believes the President should undertake today. In one respect this is extremely valuable to voters: he is telling us what President Obama, somehow in office in September 2007, would do about Iraq. This is the opposite of the Monday morning quarterback: he is saying "Right now, in the middle of the third quarter, we need to switch from a running game to more passing." (I used to hate sports analogies and though I am increasingly drawn to them, I'm no good at them.)
Kathy Sullivan asks what we mean when we speak of a "change candidate." I think it's a fuzzy meta thing about changing the ways campaigns and governance are run. Obama is perhaps bringing the notion of the "shadow Cabinet" into American politics here, saying "This is what WE would do at this moment, please think about that at election time."
In another respect the speech is unsatisfying. George W. Bush will not eagerly take Senator Obama's advice; any discussion of what a competent President of good will would do today is depressingly hypothetical.
Nonetheless, the speech helps shift the public discussion on Iraq. It puts some markers in the ground: the surge is not working, the military cannot continue to bear this load, etc. All this is old hat to us in the blogs; he is bringing it into wider circulation.
To wrap up this point, the next phase of the Obama/Iraq discussion is: just what can he and will he do as 1/100th of the Senate. Will he try to build a unified front of Democratic leaders, including his Presidential rivals, for a "no timetable, no funding" stand? Will he demand that any funding be handed out grudgingly and slowly, requiring new votes and vetoes every 30 to 60 days? (I don't cite those as "best ideas.")
What he would do in his next job is important in our evaluation. What he does in his current one is perhaps less important, but at least it is measurable.
The speech is very eloquent - in a way that cheers me in terms not only of his strengths as a candidate, but also of his thoughtfulness and willingness to challenge conventional wisdom. I'm looking for candidates to show that they will not be hobbled by their perceived weaknesses. I want to see Obama demonstrate that he won't embrace the Beltway because of his supposed inexperience; I want to see Clinton show that she won't embrace militarism because of the supposed softness of women.
There is an interesting note in the speech about war crimes: We should lead in forming a commission at the U.N. to monitor and hold accountable perpetrators of war crimes within Iraq. It isn't clear to me whether this is focused on forward-going crimes - that is, is he firing a shot across the bow of the militias - or whether it also means he would support UN / Hague investigation of, for example, Abu Ghraib. I haven't asked the campaign to get specific, I'll bet others do.
I'm still unaffiliated. This speech made me more favorable toward and comfortable with Senator Obama.
