The Honeymoon Is Not Quite Over . . .


But while Barack Obama still has a lot of affection among antiwar types who saw him as a champion of their interests, that affection seems to be waning somewhat:

Antiwar groups and other liberal activists are increasingly concerned at signs that Barack Obama’s national security team will be dominated by appointees who favored the Iraq invasion and hold hawkish views on other important foreign policy issues.

The activists are uneasy not only about signs that both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates could be in the Obama Cabinet, but at reports suggesting that several other short-list candidates for top security posts backed the decision to go to war.

“Obama ran his campaign around the idea the war was not legitimate, but it sends a very different message when you bring in people who supported the war from the beginning,” said Kelly Dougherty, executive director of the 54-chapter Iraq Veterans Against the War.

The activists — key members of the coalition that propelled Obama to the White House — fear he is drifting from the antiwar moorings of his once-longshot presidential candidacy. Obama has eased the rigid timetable he had set for withdrawing troops from Iraq, and he appears to be leaning toward the center in his candidates to fill key national security posts.

Obviously, in the flush of victory, the President-elect’s base is not going to abandon him. But while Barack Obama may seek some leeway in dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan, it appears that the antiwar movement is in no mood to grant any further elbow room to the new Administration.

The question now is whether the incoming Administration will be able to determine its Iraq policy by conditions on the ground, or whether it will have that policy dictated to it by its domestic political constituency. Things are going much better in Iraq thanks to the surge and the implementation of the counterinsurgency strategy but defeat may yet be snatched from the jaws of victory. If the antiwar movement has its way, it will be. Will the incoming President indeed let them have their way?

Boy, it’s really uncomfortable worrying about these kinds of things, isn’t it? It would be a relief if the President-elect would tell us that now that the election is over and now that he has something of a breather from the process of running around and promising everything to everyone in exchange for some votes, he will do the right thing by America and Iraq and make sure that his policy in Iraq matches the conditions on the ground. Alas, we are not likely to get such an announcement from the President-elect. After all, Barack Obama is not the Messiah. He is just another politician.


RSS feed

8 Comments Leave a comment

Maybe he has a lot of people fooled

Loozianajay (Diary) Friday, November 21st at 1:11AM EST (link)

At least we’re not the only side with suspicion.

It’s funny what a couple of high-level secrurity briefs will do to one’s perspective, eh?

 

Right after he was elected

JoeG Friday, November 21st at 2:21AM EST (link)

I stated that Obama has a unique opportunity. No one believes any of his promises so Obama is free to be anyone he wants. That’s got to be liberating.

I’m relieved that he seems to be going the right track on some of the security stuff. I hope he can keep it up in the face of stiff opposition from his side.

 

After he entered the Senate in 2004 Obama

septembergurl (Diary) Friday, November 21st at 8:14AM EST (link)

moderated his position on the war from outright opposition to occasional support, when thewar was reltively popular. After 2006 he realized that the war was the key to winning the Democratic nomination and that he was uniquely positioned, because of not having voted for it, to win. So he took a position of extreme opposition.

Now, however, he knows that he will be judged as President by the standards set by Bush, who won the war in Iraq and prevented further terrorist attacks for 7 years. He also knows that he and his party were dead wrong on the surge, and as a result he is building a national security team that avoids most Democrats entirely, certainly avoids the appeasement wing.

It seems likely that Obama will allow Gates and Petraeus to run the military effort, winding down the war in Iraq and escalating in Afghanistan. No doubt his antiwar supporters will be disappointed that he declines to lose a war already won in Iraq, but their anger will be the least of his problems as we try to prevail in Afghanistan. My judgment is that Obama lacks the toughness and decisiveness that Bush showed after 2006 in Iraq.

 

honeymoons?

amercianpie Friday, November 21st at 8:49AM EST (link)

you know the old saying honeymoons over when she farts in the livingroom obama just farted

Exactly correct

Kyle-MI (Diary) Friday, November 21st at 9:42AM EST (link)

All of his past actions and positions on the war point to finger-in-the-wind politics. The big danger is if the situation in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) escalate to the point where they start to loose voter support. If we start to loose soldiers there at the rate we were loosing them pre-surge in Iraq, will Obama stick to the mission or turn tail and run?

 
 

His luck seems to be holding.

ColoKid Friday, November 21st at 10:34AM EST (link)

The Iraqis will provide him cover of sorts, if they indeed require our troops to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. With a deadline certain and with troop casualties dropping like a stone, he can afford to play the moderate by gradually withdrawing troops over that time period. A much greater test for him will come in Afghanistan.

If we start losing soldiers

antisocial (Diary) Friday, November 21st at 10:38AM EST (link)

at the pre-surge levels in Afghanistan Democrats might stay on course. However if they start losing voter support at home I am sure Obama will “turn tail and run“.

Obama Doctrine – Boot On The Throat
—————————–
What is to be done?
——————————
No. You can’t – Moe Lane
——————————
The Emperor has no clothes!!!

 
 

Funny, don't you think?

CFPeterson (Diary) Friday, November 21st at 1:17PM EST (link)

When it comes time to sit down and do some real work and real thinking on security, how those idealistic talking points about peace & love lose out importance over reality. Also, isn’t it ironic how that reality is what the Republican’s were talking about the whole campaign.