Obama's Hubris

If this is true, it's disturbing to say the least...

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

I think Obama's allowed his presumption that he would win to overcome good judgment. It's one thing to inform an ally what you plan to do -- it's another to essentially undermine the current Administration's efforts in the foreign policy arena, particularly when dealing with something as crucial as war strategy.

The Obama camp's clarification didn't really help...

But Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri's article bore "as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial."

In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.

In the face of resistance from Bush, the Democrat has long said that any such agreement must be reviewed by the US Congress as it would tie a future administration's hands on Iraq.

"Barack Obama has never urged a delay in negotiations, nor has he urged a delay in immediately beginning a responsible drawdown of our combat brigades," Morigi said.

"These outright distortions will not changes the facts -- Senator Obama is the only candidate who will safely and responsibly end the war in Iraq and refocus our attention on the real threat: a resurgent Al-Qaeda and Taliban along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border."

Last Tuesday, Bush announced plans to remove 8,000 US troops from Iraq in the coming months and send 4,500 to Afghanistan by January.

Obama said the president was belatedly coming round to his own way of thinking, but also accused Bush of "tinkering around the edges" and "kicking the can down the road to the next president."

(hat tip: Instapundit) First of all, if Obama's claiming Bush came around to his way of thinking on Afghanistan, then it's equally clear he's come around to Bush and McCain's way of thinking on Iraq, where he agrees the surge was a success. Second, Obama's strategy would have been sacrificing a loss in Iraq to win in Afghanistan, whereas Bush and McCain seem intent on winning in both places.

More to the topic of this post, I'm lost as to the difference between what the New York Post reported and what the Obama campaign is saying. Urging the Iraqis not to agree with the U.S. is fundamentally the equivalent of of what Taheri reported, yet Obama's spokesman seems convinced there's a difference.

More importantly, Obama's insistence that Congress review any commitments by the Bush Administration is weird. The President has the foreign policy authority to enter into an agreement with Iraq, but anything such as a treaty that would obtain the force of law would require Senate consent and approval. An agreement and framework for withdrawal and/or permanent U.S. stations should be in the hands of the President, but Congress has a voice at the table, because it must provide the funding for troop operations. I have no objection to the President consulting with Congress, but if that's what Obama wants, why not simply call for Bush to consult with Congressional leaders to get their views? And I'm not sure why Obama, who wants to review NAFTA, thinks his hands would be tied in Iraq -- he could always reverse the policy once he took office.

Lastly, I love the dichotomy. Obama claims Bush is kicking the can down the road to the next President regarding Afghanistan... yet Obama wants him to kick the can down the road regarding Iraq. Yeah, that makes sense.