But "out of Iraq now" is the campaign cry of so many of his supporters, the majority of the liberal and moderate wings of the Democratic Party. If he truely is trying to quietly change his policy on Iraq, its because his past predictions on Iraq have been so way off the mark and he has been opposed to the Surge policy in Iraq which has dramatically changed conditions on the ground in Iraq for the better. If Obama is adjusting his Iraq strategy from "out of Iraq now" to the Buch/McCain strategy of withdrawal as conditions on the ground warrent such withdrawals then that is really a huge shift.
Lets be clear, Obama had his own very specific policy proposal in opposition to the Surge Strategy in January 2007. It proposed essentially the same thing he had been proposing consistently up until the past couple of months. Withdraw 1 to 2 combat Brigades per month with ALL US combat brigades out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. He wanted to do this despite the difficult sectarian violence which had grown since the Febuary 2006 Shia Mosque bombing, and the lack of an Iraqi military and police force ready to replace US combat brigades as they withdrew. A recipe for disaster according to the latest NIE on Iraq. Obama's policy was much closer to fellow Democrat Jack Murtha than it was to any policy that was based on conditions on the ground or had some sort of flexibility to it.
Now, 18 months later, the Surge has been completed or will be by the end of this month. US casualties have been reduced to the lowest levels of the entire war despite many Democrats claims that the surge would only increase the violence and the casualties. People on here claimed that the US military presence on the ground was causing the sectarian violence!!? Yet, civilian casualties in Iraq have dropped to their lowest levels of the entire war, dramatically lower than they were 12 months ago thanks to a strategy that Barack Obama was firmly opposed to. The Democratic congress report card on Iraq's current 18 Benchmarks for development show satisfactory progress on 15 of the Benchmarks, up from just 8 a year ago. The only two Benchmarks where progress was unsatisfactory was on the disarmament of Militia's and the passing of a final oil law. Despite that, Militia activity has dropped to record lows and thousands have been disarmed. Despite the fact that the Oil law has not been passed yet, Oil revenues are being distributed to all provinces in Iraq. The Sunni block of the government that had left last year is now ready to rejoin. The one Benchmark that was given "mixed" progress was on the security forces because the police force development has been rated unsatistifactory. But Iraqi military development has progressed very well, and despite some early setbacks during the winter, it has dramatically demonstrated many new capabilities that few thought would be possible to develop in this short time frame.
All Democrats still wedded to the 2006 Democratic campaign promise to yank all US troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible can say now, is that the United States is still taking casualties, Iraqi civilians are still being killed, and not all of the political benchmarks have been met yet. Essentially, the only way you can believe that the Surge policy failed is if it was supposed to produce an environment in just 18 months where nobody was being killed and Iraq had succeeded in making political developments that have taken some countries decades to complete. The fact is that the murder rate in Iraq is now lower than it is in most large US cities like Atlanta, Detroit, and Washington DC. Not all of the political benchmarks have been met yet, but progress is being made on all of them, and things are substantially improved from where they were just a year ago. Iraqi oil production is almost back to its pre-war capacity and in the years to come could set a new all time record for the country. GDP per capita is now nearly equal to neighboring Syria.
So much progress has been made in such a short time that even Barack Obama might be trying to quietly revamp his policy on Iraq. The one area where the public rates McCain better on is Iraq policy. Policies that are an obvious success often eventually receive the support of many who opposed the policy even if its done in the shadows. That may be happening with Obama now but there is still a large part of Obama's party that is ideologically wedded to "out of Iraq now" regardless of conditions on the ground, which had previously essentially been Obama's policy on Iraq. Obama does not want to anger such a voting block, so he'll be trying to have it both ways in the weeks to come along with a little historical revisionism on what his past remarks on Iraq policy meant.
A position that is flexible to when it comes to troop levels in Iraq, that is willing to withdraw troops when conditions on the ground warrent it, or send in more troops when conditions on the ground warrent it, has been McCain policy since day 1, and at least Bush policy since late 2006 if not earlier. Thats not where Barack Obama has been since at least January 2007 until perhaps recently. Moving closer to Bush and McCain on Iraq policy would certainly be the right thing for Obama to do, but it is risky since his victory in the Democratic nomination race was largely based on his total oposition to all phases of the Iraq war and his firm commitment to withdrawal regardless of conditions and problems on the ground because in his view those were things that the United States could not help resolve and did not need to help resolve. The facts on the ground in Iraq though over the past 18 months have helped to destroy that myth, and Obama may be trying to find a way to jump on the bandwagon that is moving Iraq closer to a day of peace, stability and prosperity.
