A NAFTA Dance on Iraq?

Team Obama announced last week that Barack Obama had contacted Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari and made a nebulous commitment to come to Iraq to see the status on the ground for himself. Today, the Washington Post editorial board writes about their own conversation with Zebari, and readers will get a much clearer sense of the Obama-Zebari conversation from it. Zebari has many reservations about Obama’s stated approach, and the Post’s editors have even more:

Mr. Zebari, who has served as foreign minister in every Iraqi government since 2003, finds Mr. Obama’s proposal worrying. In a meeting with Post editors and reporters Tuesday, he said that after all the pain and sacrifices of the past five years, “we are just turning the corner in Iraq.” A precipitous withdrawal, he said, “would create a huge vacuum and undo all the gains and achievements. And the others” — enemies of the United States — “would celebrate.”

Mr. Zebari said he told Mr. Obama that “Iraq is not an island.” In other words, an American withdrawal that destabilized the country would also roil the region around it and embolden U.S. adversaries such as al-Qaeda and Iran. “We have a deadly enemy,” Mr. Zebari said. “When he sees that you commit yourself to a certain timetable, he will use this to increase pressure and attacks, to make it look as though he is forcing you out. We have many actors who would love to take advantage of that opportunity.” Mr. Zebari says he believes U.S. forces can and should be drawn down. His point is that reductions should be made gradually, as the Iraqi army becomes stronger.

This should remind people about how the Iraq war fits into the greater war on terror. For too many years, the US has hit retreat when things got tough, and not just in the Middle East. We have a reputation as paper tigers — all technology and no commitment. In other words, we can be pushed around. We are on the verge of establishing the first working, stable Arab democracy in the region, one that will ally with us against the terrorists we fight — and one of our presidential candidates wants to bail just in time to let it all slip through our fingers.

Or does he? According to Zebari, Obama may have given the Iraqis assurances that he hasn’t shared with his MoveOn supporters:

The foreign minister said “my message” to Mr. Obama “was very clear. . . . Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress.” He said he was reassured by the candidate’s response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising a visit, Mr. Obama said that “if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field.”

Many have speculated that Obama would shift his position on Iraq once in office to take advantage of the progress in Iraq. This adds another data point to that theory. Zebari’s recollection of the conversation sounds at least a little similar to the NAFTA Dance, in which Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee reportedly assured the Canadian consulate in Chicago that Obama only attacked NAFTA as a campaign ploy.

If Obama has changed his position, then he should say so openly and honestly. During this campaign, he has emphasized that the military implements policy and that he would order the withdrawal regardless of what commanders on the ground think about it. That’s one of the reasons Obama hasn’t met with Petraeus, one presumes, as the general would certainly advise against Obama’s policy. A change would also have to acknowledge that Obama based his previous policy on outdated information, and relied on his reluctance to get more current data.

We don’t need a dance from our candidates on Iraq (or NAFTA, for that matter). We need candidates who formulate intelligent policy based on reality, and who eschew the easy route of rabble-rousing and deal honestly with the American voter. On national security and foreign policy, we need a candidate who recognizes how to keep America strong and secure, not in retreat and confusion. If Zebari heard an Obama who sounded more like a McCain, maybe he can introduce that Obama to Americans as well.

Update: Soren Dayton and Jim Geraghty both wonder whether Austan Goolsbee is writing the Iraq policy, too.

Blowback