Custom Search

Friday, July 11, 2008

Re: Iraq- Barack Obama's Plan Logistically Unfeasible

Barack Obama's Iraq plan is stated clearly on his site under the "Bring The Troops Home" category states:

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

ABC's Martha Raddatz just returned from Iraq where she spoke to the troops on the ground and military commanders and while they would not speak to political issues, when presented with the direct withdrawal timeframe that Barack Obama has presented on his site, many say that logistically, there is "no way", it could work.

Via Hot Air, there is a video of an interview with Raddatz, she shows what those on the ground and in the know about the logistics of such a plan would entail, something that any leader would take into consideration and many would do so before ever daring to suggest a plan like Obamas.

The video above is 4 minutes long, but well worth the time to watch it to see the details that would be involved in trying to implement a plan like Obamas, to which logistically the commanders on the ground say, "no way" it could work.


We spent a day with Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond in Sadr City. He is the commander of the 4th Infantry Division, which is responsible for Baghdad. Hammond will likely be one of the commanders who briefs Barack Obama when he visits Iraq.

"We still have a ways to go. Number one, we're working on security and it's very encouraging, that's true, but what we're really trying to achieve here is sustainable security on Iraqi terms. So, I think my first response to that would be let's look at the conditions.

"Instead of any time-based approach to any decision for withdrawal, it's got to be conditions-based, with the starting point being an intelligence analysis of what might be here today, and what might lie ahead in the future. I still think we still have work that remains to be done before I can really answer that question," Hammond said when asked how he would feel about an order to start drawing down two combat brigades a month.

Asked if he considered it dangerous to pull out if the withdrawal is not based on "conditions," Hammond said, "It's very dangerous. I'll speak for the coalition forces, men and women of character and moral courage; we have a mission, and it's not until the mission is done that I can look my leader in the eye and say, 'Sir, Ma'am, mission accomplished,' and I think it is dangerous to leave anything a little early."

Finishing the job.

Capt. Jeremy Ussery, a West Point graduate on his third deployment, pointed to his heavy body armor as we walked in the 120-degree heat, saying, "The same people keep coming back because we want to see Iraq succeed, that's what we want. I don't want my kids, that hopefully will join the military, my notional children, to have to come back to Iraq 30 years from now and wear this."

But Ussery added, "You can't put a timetable on it -- it's events-based."

Then they deal with the actual logistics, something that Barack Obama obviously doesn't have a clue about, showing how unprepared he is to be making these types of decisions.

Logistics and Equipment.

And 90 percent of the equipment would have to be moved by ground through the Iraqi war zone, to the port in Kuwait, where it must all be cleaned and inspected and prepared for shipment. This is a place with frequent dust storms, limited port facilities and limited numbers of wash racks.

While Anderson and his troops have a positive attitude, several commanders who looked at the Obama plan told ABC News, on background, that there was "no way" it could work logistically.

Conditions on the ground dictate what is logistically possible and what is not and it seems that Barack Obama in stating recently that his Iraq plans were still being "refined", the later, after having his far left base rip into him for that comment, made another statement saying he still plans to abide by the plans listed on his website, is showing that pandering to his base is more important than learning what is and what isn't logistically possible.

By making such a statement as the one on his website, he has shown exactly how inexperienced and unprepared he truly is to head the military forces of the US.

As Ed Morrisey clearly points out, Obama is in way over his head:

Obviously, Obama didn’t have any awareness of logistics when he made this proposal — and that’s the point. His lack of experience, combined with a hubris that he has consistently shown on the campaign trail, makes clear that he is in way over his head at this point of his career. He has no sense of military policy at all, and got the biggest call of the war — the surge — completely wrong. Yet he insists that he’s ready to lead this nation’s military during a time of war as Commander in Chief?

Promising the impossible is as bad as lying to your supporters face, which is what Obama has been doing....the other option, which is that he is truly that naive and that unprepared, is even worse.

Barack Obama is due to go visit Iraq this summer, something he hasn't bothered to do since the amazing success of the surge, and when he does, he will be briefed on the logistics and the impossibility of his plan.

Then he will truly be in between a rock and a hard place, because if he comes back and still makes promises he will then definitely be aware are impossible, he is a liar....if he comes back and makes the appropriate changes to his plan regarding troop withdrawals, then he will undoubtedly anger his base supporters to backed him because of his illogical plan.

That ladies and gentlemen is what is called a lose/lose situation.

One Obama placed himself in.