Really, I would like to know what he plans to do in Iraq, because so far I have heard multiple stories from him that don’t add up to a consistent strategy. A McCain campaign ad that was released recently highlights these inconsistencies.

However, it is not just the McCain campaign that is confused about where Sen. Obama stands on the issue of Iraq. Not only are those within the media confused about his Iraq policy as well as a plethora of other issues, but also his dearest friend Arianna Huffington at the Huffington Post. He is even getting some heat from his own party over his seemingly contradictory stances on what to do with the U.S. presence in Iraq. His flip-flops on this issue and others have even caused one historian to refer to him as “Barack W. Bush.”

Sen. Obama laid out what he entitled “My Plan for Iraq” in which he described the current state of affairs in Iraq as being far better than what it used to be. He argues, indirectly of course, that the surge has worked in quelling much of the violence so that the political gains and benchmarks that the U.S. set forth for the Iraqi government could be met. However, he will not come out and say that he was wrong from the beginning about the surge and its necessity in calming Iraq to a point where the government can stand against the insurgency. Not only has he changed his rhetoric in terms of his vocal opposition to the surge in Iraq, but he has completely revamped his website in order to remove the criticisms of the surge that Sen. McCain was an avid supporter of from long before it was popular. The problem that Sen. McCain ran into when trying to answer Sen. Obama’s opinion piece was that the media does indeed have a bias for Obama, and therefore could not get his opinion piece published in the same media source–the New York Times. Now of course the NYT op-ed editor, a former President Clinton speech writer, said that he didn’t accept it because it didn’t give any gauge of success. However, if you read very closely (actually it is specifically spelled out), you can see that McCain points out different measures of success: violence continuing to decrease to a level in which the Iraqi security forces could sufficiently handle alone and the benchmarks that Congress made for the Iraqi government to meet to measure security, political, and economic progress.

Probably the most confusing aspect of his Iraq policy is his timetable for withdrawal, and exactly how many troops that entails. First, in dealing with his timetable, it is contingent upon the situation on the ground as determined by his commanders. During the primaries he never really talked too much about that stipulation, but now that he is in the general election it appears as though that is the main crux. Will he withdrawal all combat brigades within 16 months of coming to office, or will he take longer? The problem is not the waiting, for I believe a premature withdrawal could do an enormous amount of damage to the progress that has been made, but rather the indecisiveness and obvious politicking that is going on with his attempts to pander to an electorate that is a little more apprehensive about a speedy withdrawal. Now of course it only appears that Prime Minister Maliki’s supposed endorsement of Obama’s plan may be a political gain, but when one truly analyzes all sides and the circumstances surrounding it he or she can see that there is more of the same politicking going on. With Maliki also facing elections soon, he is trying to appeal to Iraqis with this endorsement. The problem is that Iraqis even admit that it is still just a little too early to ask America to leave for fear of losing the progress that both Shiites and Sunnis have made.

The second confusion deals with exactly how many troops he plans on leaving behind in Iraq. In his “plan” Obama states that “after this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces.” Now he has contradicted himself in an interview by saying that he only wanted troops there to protect the embassy, but I guess that isn’t the real truth (if there is such a thing for him on this issue). Because he doesn’t even really give a rough estimate of what this “residual force” would consist of, who knows what he is referring to with this statement. The point here is that you cannot have it both ways: a residual force to go after al Qaeda in Iraq and a complete withdrawal of all combat troops. This would create more sectarian violence if anything since the U.S. would be engaging in combat missions against al Qaeda, a Sunni group, while disengaging from the help that the U.S. gives to the Iraqi security forces in disbanding the Shiite militias.

I believe, as well as most Americans, that McCain would make a far better leader of our armed forces, which is one of the most fundamental jobs of the President as prescribed in the Constitution. Sen. Obama’s lack of consistency and a clear strategy in Iraq has led to the American public questioning his ability to be our Commander-in-Chief.