First a little context:

In Iraq, the current government led by Prime Minister Maliki is arresting government officials who are members of Muqtada al-Sadr’s movement. Maliki’s cabinet has banned the use of pictures of non-candidates at political rallies, a move thought to be aimed at the Muqtada al-Sadr’s political party which frequently uses his picture at rallies of his supporters. Progress has also reportedly been made between the Maliki government and the Bush administration regarding the status of forces agreement which will formally permit US troops (and their bases) to remain in Iraq after 2008. All this comes after news that the US military has been spying on the Iraqi military because they don’t trust their putative allies.

And now word comes that Obama is walking back on his pledge to withdraw troops from Iraq, or as the headline from Reuters so delicately puts it “Obama signals flexibility on Iraq.”

The Illinois senator has repeatedly pledged to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, one brigade every month until all are out in 16 months. Last September he argued, “the best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops.” […]

Susan Rice, a top Obama foreign policy adviser, told MSNBC on Tuesday that “we absolutely have to draw down and redeploy our forces from Iraq.”

“But he has said over and over again we have to be as careful getting out as George Bush was careless getting in. So he will redeploy our forces responsibly, at a rate that our commanders say is safe and sustainable.”

Letting commanders have a say in the pace of withdrawal is new language from the Obama campaign.

Anthony Lake, who was Democratic President Bill Clinton’s national security adviser and now a senior Obama foreign policy adviser, told the Financial Times Obama would maintain a “residual force for clearly defined missions” in Iraq.

The borrow a phrase from Seymour Hersh, “the battlefield is being prepared” for Obama to adopt a policy which accepts a long term commitment of an unspecified number of US forces to remain in Iraq. In essence, this is the same policy that Senator Clinton promoted in her campaign. It’s difference from Senator McCain’s position (Bush redux, otherwise known as “stay the course”) is arguably lessening each day. In effect, this is a not so nuanced retreat from his earlier pledge to be out of Iraq within 16 months. Some might call this typical behavior by a Democrat, i.e., caving in to the fear of appearing weak on issues of national security and war by moving closer to the Republican position, rather than forthrightly promoting a policy that the majority of Americans favor.

Some might say that, and, frankly, it would be hard to argue with them. Indeed, some are saying this, quite openly and avidly:

(cont.)

“I can unequivocally say: the Obama campaign is making a very serious mistake,” said Ariana Huffington, writing on the liberal Huffington Post blog. “Tacking to the centre is a losing strategy.” […]

Democratic strategist Liz Chadderdon predicted Obama would talk less and less about a timeline for withdrawal but would not change his core position that U.S. troops must leave Iraq.

“If Obama completely reversed on getting out of Iraq, I do think the base would walk away,” she said. “I think he knows that and I think you’ll never hear him say that.”

The question for me is not what Obama’s campaign strategy is with respect to how he “talks” about Iraq, the question for me is what he will do once he gets in office regarding Iraq. And statements by his current advisers do not give me much comfort on that point:

[Anthony] Lake compared the Iraq war to the conflict in Vietnam in citing the need to leave behind a functioning Iraqi government.

“It is common sense that we could not leave Vietnam successfully unless we left behind a government in Saigon that could govern successfully,” he told the newspaper, lamenting that this view was not obvious enough to many U.S. politicians at the time.

This is the same Anthony Lake who was Bill Clinton’s National Security Adviser, by the way. And he is spouting the insane belief that if only we had left a ” government in Saigon that could govern successfully” we would have succeeded in Vietnam? What madness is this? What Vietnam is he imagining? Certainly not the one which exists in any reality I know of.

We will never have a functioning government in Iraq so long as our troops retain a presence there to prop up the most pro-American faction. At present US forces are backing al-Maliki and his allies, the group, ironically enough with the closest ties to Iran. It well established that this is one of the most corrupt governments in the region, and the fact that our military feels the need to spy on the Iraqi Army should tell you everything you need to know about the reliability of Prime Minister Maliki’s government as our “partner” in the region. It is a fool’s errand to attempt to establish a “stable” government in Iraq before leaving. You would have thought Vietnam and the lessons of Britain’s prior occupation of Iraq would have taught our political elites this fact.

Sadly, no. Apparently they have learned nothing from history. And even worse, these are the people that Obama has advising him and speaking on his behalf regarding Iraq. That speaks volumes by itself, does it not?