Someday we might look back at the weeks directly after the election and marvel at how Obama won the war in Iraq so quickly. Thank goodness the blogs announced VI-Day.
Friedman bemoans the length of America’s occupation while disregarding Iraq’s own wishes to be occupied until 2011. Denying this mitigating factor signals his blatant partisanship and forecasts his delusional whopper that; Obama will play tough-guy with the Iraqis better than Bush; and that if we stay longer, but not too long, Obama’s given genius will help a moderate Iraq take root and give Democrats credibility on national security. And liberals think conservatives take enormous leaps of logic and faith!
Obama is inheriting an Iraq where we have to begin drawing down our troops — because the occupation has gone on too long and because we have now committed to do so by treaty — but it is also an Iraq that has the potential to eventually tilt the Arab-Muslim world in a different direction.
I’m sure that Obama, whatever he said during the campaign, will play this smart. He has to avoid giving Iraqi leaders the feeling that Bush did — that he’ll wait forever for them to sort out their politics — while also not suggesting that he is leaving tomorrow, so they all start stockpiling weapons.
If he can pull this off, and help that decent Iraq take root, Obama and the Democrats could not only end the Iraq war but salvage something positive from it. Nothing would do more to enhance the Democratic Party’s national security credentials than that.
What else should we expect from a newspaper that’s done more to undermine the War in Iraq America than any other, outside of al-jazeera? Even still, very disappointing stuff from such an esteemed fellow like Thomas Friedman.