Obama's Iraq problem

Karl Rove must be just about the most notorious political advisor in the history of politics. Regardless, I always enjoy reading his thoughts on the campaign. His article in the WSJ on "Obama's Iraq Fumble" highlights a couple of things that BO should be aware of:

Mr. Obama's problem is he opposed the policy that created the progress that makes victory in Iraq possible. Mr. Obama's unbending opposition to the surge undermines his fundamental argument that he has better judgment on national security. Mr. McCain needs to use Mr. Obama's retrospective mistake to shape voters' prospective conclusion, convincing them that Mr. Obama's badly flawed judgment on the surge shows he cannot be trusted with major foreign-policy decisions.

Mr. Obama also created a problem by canceling a visit to U.S. soldiers who were wounded in Iraq and are now recuperating at Landstuhl hospital in Germany. His campaign has offered a welter of explanations. What's the real one? My rule is that when in doubt, see what a candidate said at the time and judge his candor. In a July 26 London news conference, Mr. Obama explained: "I was going to be accompanied by one of my advisers, a former military officer. And we got notice that he would be treated as a campaign person, and it would therefore be perceived as political because he had endorsed my candidacy, but he wasn't on the Senate staff."

The solution was obvious. Leave the campaign adviser behind and visit the wounded troops. Mr. Obama's decision to work out in the hotel gym instead adds to his growing reputation for arrogance.

Most importantly, Mr. Obama missed the opportunity to show he can admit a mistake. He could have said that what he saw on his visit to Iraq convinced him that the surge was right and its success now allows U.S. troops to be safely drawn down. Instead, he insisted he was right to say the surge wouldn't work.

That may give voters pause. If Mr. Obama can't admit the surge worked after the fact, how can voters count on him to keep his mind open to the facts on other important foreign-policy decisions?

Yeah, I don't know why Obama didn't just visit the soldiers on his own...that would've made a much better story anyway. It would've made him look like he actually cared more about the soldiers than he did his campaign. In fact, if he actually did, it wouldn't have even occurred to him to not visit the troops...he would've just gone alone. So even although McCain's been accused of mud-slinging for attacking Obama's decision, he's got a fair point.

Turdblossom also pointed out how unreliable polls were, especially on Iraq:

Mr. Obama should not be misled by polls showing support for a timetable. Opinion surveys are notoriously unreliable in gauging public opinion on a complicated question like Iraq.

Americans can simultaneously support a withdrawal timetable and also insist that the withdrawal occur only when conditions justify it and military leaders recommend it. For instance, Gallup polls have shown that 69% of Americans think we should set a timetable for withdrawal, but 65% also want to establish stability and security before withdrawing. Like Messrs. McCain and Maliki, Americans are for an aspirational and conditional timetable. They want to win.

I've always said how dangerous it is for politicians to be too concerned with polling data on this kind of thing. There's no way the average person can comprehend the complexity of the situation on the ground and what it means for national and regional security.

PS Sooner or later, I'll get round to putting up a book list. But in the mean time, if you're looking for a fun little read about Karl Rove and Texas politics, "Boy Genius" (by Dubois et al) is an entertaining place to start.