Update: Blogs flacking for Obama say his change in Iraq policy is simply a potential president keeping his foreign policy positions flexible, a laudable characteristic. They see his flip-flop on the war as adapting to changed circumstances on the ground. If the situation in Iraq has improved so much that it is now thinkable to keep occupation troops there indefinitely as in South Korea, that is all the more reason for withdrawing sooner rather than later. Our invasion of Iraq was never morally justified. Saddam Hussein nor Iraqis had anything to do with the terror attacks on the United States. The one way to amend our aggression is too hand the country back to its elected government as soon as possible. Apparently Iraqi security forces and political circumstances are mature enough to bring relative calm to the country. American forces have decimated Al Qaeda in Iraq. According to reports about 1,200 out of about 12,000 insurgents remain in Mosul enclaves, and are unable to mount sustained operations. Their leader, Abu Khalaf, is dead. After five years of costly fighting the US can only now declare victory with a modicum of credibility, and leave before the favorable situation deteriorates. If conditions do deteriorate, Iraqis must assume responsibility for their fate as a nation.
Many progressive commentators have noticed Senator Obama's continued tack to the right since securing a first ballot nomination at the Democratic convention. His rightward sidesteps can be seen in his decision to further undermine public financing of presidential campaigns by embracing the Clinton corporate money machine. He also stunned progressives when he initially announced he would vote for the FISA "reform" bill passed by the House. That bill grants collaborating telecom companies retroactive immunity, and more ominously allows the government to eavesdrop on citizens' communications without a prior determination of cause by the judicial branch. After howls of outrage from progressives, he later said he would vote against retroactive immunity. The latest defection is his apparent re-think of the central tenant of his primary campaign: the unqualified promise to withdraw American troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office, and not establishing permanent bases there. It is obvious that Obama's solicitation of the Democratic Party's right wing, represented by the Clintons and the Democratic Leadership Conference (DLC) is having an effect on his policy positions. The DLC policy toward the occupation of Iraq is not much different from the Republicans. Perhaps instead of McBush's 100 years, they would only stay for ten. Recent reductions in the level of violence in Iraq and consequently fewer American casualties are emboldening conservative Democratic politicians who think they see light at the end of this tunnel. Informed observers think that the reduced violence is as much due to more US troops as internal Iraqi politics. Nevertheless the possibility of getting something useful out of the Iraq misadventure in return for the huge American investment of lives and money is a powerful inducement to reevaluate his previously categorical statements about withdrawal. Obama told reporters in Fargo, North Dakota today, "I am going to do a thorough assessment when I'm there. I'm sure I'll have more information and continue to refine my policy." When people voted for Obama in the primaries they thought they were voting for policy change. Lately what they are getting is only change in rhetoric.