El Justo Reclamo

Obama Might ‘Refine’ Iraq Timeline

By Jeff Zeleny

The New York Times

FARGO, N.D. –- As a presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama has not been known for holding an abundance of news conferences. That was not the case here on Thursday, when he called two in a span of four hours.
So what prompted him to call a second afternoon session to talk specifically about Iraq?
Mr. Obama was scrolling through news reports on his Blackberry – taking particular note of stories about his Iraq policy – when he told his advisers he wanted to better explain a statement he made earlier about continuing to “refine my policies” regarding a timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
“We’re going to try this again,” Mr. Obama said, standing behind a lectern that was hastily set up on the lawn of a park here. “Apparently I wasn’t clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq.”



In doing so, Mr. Obama illustrated the complexities surrounding Iraq policy and the presidential campaign. After being a political beneficiary in the Democratic primary for being seen as the strongest anti-war candidate, many of the nuances that have long been tucked into Mr. Obama’s policy have begun to emerge.
So does Mr. Obama still stand behind his proposed timeline to withdraw the majority of American combat troops in 16 months, at a pace of one or two a month?
This morning, he answered the question like this:

“My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything that I’ve said, was always premised on making sure that our troops were safe. I said that based on the information that we had received from our commanders that one to two brigades a month could be pulled out safely, from a logistical perspective. My guiding approach continues to be that we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable. I’m going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold.”
In the afternoon, this is how he addressed the same topic:
“I’ve also said that I would be deliberate and careful in how we got out, that I would bring our troops home at a pace of one to two brigades per month and that pace would have our combat troops out in 16 months. That position has not changed. I have not equivocated on that position, I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position.”
Mr. Obama’s positions on Iraq have never tilted as far left as many Democrats would have preferred – remember a debate last year when he declined to say specifically when troops would be out of Iraq? – his statements here provided the latest indication of the way changing circumstances in Iraq have added fresh challenges to keep anti-war supporters on his side while pursuing what he calls a responsible end to the war.
Mr. Obama is heading to Iraq this month. He said he intended to collect new information from U.S. commanders on the ground and he would “refine” his policies accordingly. But does that include the 16-month timetable? Not specifically, he said, but it also could depend upon the number of troops needed to train Iraqi forces and fight terrorism.
“There’s been a major debate in terms of how we should structure training for Iraqi military and police. What kinds of troop presences will we need in order for that to occur?” Mr. Obama said. “What kinds of troop presences do we need to have a counter terrorism strike force in Iraq that ensures that Al Qaeda does not regain a foothold there. Those are all issues that obviously are going to be determined by the facts on the ground.”
In the end, one of the biggest differences between Mr. Obama’s first and second appearances in front of the cameras here on Thursday was his emphasis. The first time, he did not include a line saying that he specifically intended to end the war. By the time he returned for Take Two, that line was a prominent one.
“Let me be as clear as I can be, I intend to end this war,” Mr. Obama said. “My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in and I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war – responsibly, deliberately, but decisively.”