The Spin Is In: “Apparent Evolution” in Obama’s Thinking on Iraq

It’s going to be fascinating watching the Obamamedia spin and spin and spin again as the President-elect continues to backtrack on his many campaign promises. But the biggest promise, the raison d’etre for Obama’s entire campaign, the evidence for his supposed “good judgment,” his supposed plan to end the war in Iraq–now that will be a toughie for even MSNBO to explain away. This week the New York Times began the propaganda retooling process with this “news analysis” of Obama’s statements at his national security news conference on Monday.

“I believe that 16 months is the right time frame, but, as I’ve said consistently, I will listen to the recommendations of my commanders,” Mr. Obama said at that news conference on Monday. “And my No. 1 priority is making sure that our troops remain safe in this transition phase, and that the Iraqi people are well served by a government that is taking on increased responsibility for its own security.”

An apparent evolution of Mr. Obama’s thinking can be heard in contrast to comments he made in July, when he called a news conference to lay out his Iraq policy in unambiguous terms.

“I intend to end this war,” he said then. “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.” And in a news conference that month in Amman, Jordan, Mr. Obama acknowledged that the American troop increase had bolstered Iraqi security but declared that he would not hesitate to overrule American commanders and redirect troops in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, through Robert Gates, the first holdover Secretary of Defense in history, Obama is making it clear that “tens of thousands of troops” will remain in Iraq indefinitely. And the Times reveals the probable Orwellian spin that will be put on the situation:

Pentagon planners say that it is possible that Mr. Obama’s goal could be accomplished at least in part by relabeling some units, so that those currently counted as combat troops could be “re-missioned,” their efforts redefined as training and support for the Iraqis.

Nice. But, as the Times points out, the koolaid drinkers are calming lapping it all up and the denizens of the military-industrial complex are just as happy as clams:

To date, there has been no significant criticism from the antiwar left of the Democratic Party of the prospect that Mr. Obama will keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for at least several years to come.

At the Pentagon and the military headquarters in Iraq, the response to the statements this week from Mr. Obama and his national security team has been akin to the senior officer corps’ letting out its collective breath; the words sounded to them like the new president would take a measured approach on the question of troop levels.

Of course those of us who were paying attention already knew that Obama’s talk about ending the war was nothing but campaign rhetoric. Remember Samantha Power’s statements on her book tour in the spring? After calling Hillary Clinton a “monster,” she made another little oopsie when talking to the BBC about Iraq:

“He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator,” she said at one point in the interview.

Power downplayed Obama’s commitment to quick withdrawal from Iraq on Hard Talk, a program that often exceeds any of the U.S. talk shows in the rigor of its grillings. She was challenged on Obama’s Iraq plan, as it appears on his website, which says that Obama “will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”

“What he’s actually said, after meting with the generals and meeting with intelligence professionals, is that you – at best case scenario – will be able to withdraw one to two combat brigades each month. That’s what they’re telling him. He will revisit it when he becomes president,” Power says.

And in April, 2008, Obama himself said the following in an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now:

AMY GOODMAN: Senator Obama, quick question: 70 percent of Iraqis say they want the US to withdraw completely; why don’t you call for a total withdrawal?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Well, I do, except for our embassy. I call for amnesty and protecting our civilian contractors there.

AMY GOODMAN: You’ve said a residual force-

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Yeah, but-

AMY GOODMAN: -which means [inaudible] thousands [inaudible].

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Well, no. I mean, I don’t think that you’ve read exactly what I’ve said. What I said is that we do need to have a strike force in the region. It doesn’t necessarily have to be in Iraq; it could be in Kuwait or other places. But we do have to have some presence in order to not only protect them, but also potentially to protect their territorial integrity.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you call for a ban on the private military contractors like Blackwater?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: I’ve actually-I’m the one who sponsored the bill that called for the investigation of Blackwater in [inaudible], so-

AMY GOODMAN: But would you support the Sanders one now?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Here’s the problem: we have 140,000 private contractors right there, so unless we want to replace all of or a big chunk of those with US troops, we can’t draw down the contractors faster than we can draw down our troops. So what I want to do is draw-I want them out in the same way that we make sure that we draw out our own combat troops. Alright? I mean, I-

AMY GOODMAN: Not a ban?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Well, I don’t want to replace those contractors with more US troops, because we don’t have them, alright?

In other words, according estimates by Voters for Peace,

Obama would:
– Leave 140,000 private U.S. military troops [ed. note: private contractors] in Iraq;
– Tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and;
– Expand combat forces in surrounding nations to strike Iraq

Everything old is new again. I’m reminded of 1964, when Lyndon Johnson was elected in a landslide following a campaign in which John promised to end the war in Vietnam while accusing Barry Goldwater of being a warmonger who would blow up the world. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, Johnson was preparing a massive escalation in Southeast Asia. The truth is, the war will only end if the “national security” apparatus and the corporations that depend on it want it to. And they want war and more war.

Hmmmm…. I wonder what the new “Gulf of Tonkin Incident” will be?