The Confederate Yankee says it's ok to call Obama's trip a success so long as you realize that the trip is only possible because President Bush ignored Obama's original opposition to the war and his claims that the surge would fail:
So by all means, let the journalists of the New York Times paint his visit as an accomplishment of some sort. Just keep in mind that if we had followed the starter Senator's judgment at any point during his political career, Iraq could have been too dangerous a place for his flight to even consider touching down.
Much of the debate surrounding Obama's trip so far concerns whether or not Iraq's Maliki-led government has endorsed a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Liberal bloggers say he's repeatedly made such demands, while conservative sites like Red State say the media was too quick to interpret Maliki's remarks.
James Joyner smartly points out the bright side of the double-talk coming from the Iraqi government:
Well, yeah. Which is precisely how governments everywhere act. Indeed, this would appear to be a sign that Maliki and company are more ready for prime time than it had appeared.
Is cheering on duplicity a sign of how low our expectations are for Iraq's government? Possibly, but when the agreed upon end point for the war is a government that can stand up on its own, this may ultimately prove more important than whether the government's leaders endorse a particular candidate's short-term political goals for the region.
UPDATE: I'll be WDEL radio at about 12:45pm EST discussing Obama's trip. You can listen here.
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Post A Comment