According to The One, the president sets the strategy: Most troops out in 16 months but some left behind for various missions. The generals supply the tactics: To carry out those missions responsibly, we need X number of troops. What does X equal? Why, it’s … “entirely conditions-based”.Just so. As I commented on the post last night, Obama talks about troop levels as if the number of troops we have in Iraq is itself a strategy. It's not.
Tactics are employed to achieve strategic objectives. The strategy is determined by policy. In the real world, a policy maker, i.e., the President, decides on a strategy of military assistance to Iraq to achieve a secure and stable government. The strategy is to provide military forces to train indigenous security forces, help in community rebuilding, etc. The tactics, i.e. the appropriate number and types of military personnel, how and where they're deployed, etc., are determined by the military leadership tasked with implementing the strategy.
But in Obamaworld, troop levels are themselves a strategy and policy rolled into one. Obama rarely, if ever, articulates a coherent policy for Iraq. Indeed, he seems to be indifferent to the final outcome of events there.
Barack Obama has yet to prove himself to be an effective US Senator...a President Obama would be disastrous not just for the US, but for Iraq.
Barack Obama is nothing but a dilettante.