Jim Geraghty suggests that Barack Obama’s plan for Iraq doesn’t live up to its author’s reputation as an intellectual. Specifically, he points to Obama’s plan to withdraw U.S. troops within 16 months, and then return them to Iraq to prevent a genocide, if it appears that one is likely to occur. Geraghty:
Obama’s position does appear rather ridiculous. Presuming that the Iraqi government is complicit in the genocide, how would we insert troops and materiel against their wishes? How could we act quickly enough to prevent a humanitarian nightmare? And most importantly, if we regard a genocide as both a possibility and as something worth preventing, why don’t we simply stay in Iraq? The truth is, Obama is unwilling to deviate from the Democratic orthodoxy on Iraq, so he’s trying to square the circle. He will not or cannot say that the United States has strategic and humanitarian interests in Iraq that should be defended, and since he can’t say that, he’s stuck with this silly formulation. Looking on the bright side however, the improving situation in Iraq is ultimately likely to liberate the Democratic nominee–whoever he or she is–from silly positions like this one.
