Central Front

by digby

This stuff worries me:

“There is security progress, but now we need a political solution” in Iraq, Obama said in the first news conference of his highly publicized trip abroad. Afghanistan is now the “central front in the war against terrorism,” he added.

I guess it’s inevitable that we would see this formulation used. But is it really necessary to have a “central front in the war on terrorism?” If so, can someone explain what “winning” this “war on terrorism” will look like?

Politically it probably makes sense. It’s easier to use familiar phrases than to fight them. And it ensures that the DC establishment will proclaim that Obama is Very Serious:

Analysis: Obama’s Gravitas

Barack Obama’s press conference this morning in Amman, Jordan, was a major moment — perhaps the major moment — of the Illinois senator’s much-ballyhooed trip abroad this week.

All eyes were on Obama to see how he would perform on a world stage with every political reporter of any consequence either on the trip with him or watching closely on television.

And, as he has done before in the course of the campaign, Obama seemed to be up to the moment — sensing the need to convey gravitas and bipartisanship while also strongly defending his own beliefs about America’s role in Iraq and the broader Middle East.

Gone were the jokes and “rah rah” language that won over many Obama partisans but left many undecided voters wondering whether there was any there there when it came to the Illinois senator. Instead, we saw a serious explication of his position on removing combat troops in Iraq, a position bolstered in recent days by repeated calls by the Iraqi government to remove U.S. military forces from the country by 2010.

“Regardless of who becomes next president we are going to have to strip away ideology, strip away the politics,” Obama said when asked the proper future course for Iraq. “The next president is going to have to make a series of very difficult judgments.”

As for the disagreement between him and Sen. John McCain about the future of the country, Obama again took the high road, insisting he was not interested in having a “colloquy” with the Arizona senator over the next four or five days about the issue because it was not in the best interests of the country. (Well played, although does the average person have any idea what the world “colloquy” means? The Fix had to look it up.)

While Obama largely avoided any attack on McCain or his approach to Iraq, he did offer a vigorous defense of his plan to redeploy troops from the country and dismissed the idea that there were only two ways to approach the future of American involvement: a rigid timetable or an open-ended commitment.

“I reject that those are the only two options,” said Obama, adding: “My job, should I be commander-in-chief, is to set a strategic vision for what’s best for U.S. national security” — a directive that requires flexibility and a belief that the situation is not as Manichean as many people in the states present it.”

[…]

(McCain’s campaign, too, is already showing signs of using the allegedly fawning coverage of Obama’s trip against him. In an e-mail entitled “The Media is in Love”, McCain announces a video competition to choose between two different ads that reveal the press’ “bizarre fascination with Barack Obama.” )

Overall, however, Obama cleared a crucial bar in today’s press conference. He looked and sounded presidential at a moment when the eyes of the world were on him.

Will it dramatically affect the race at home when Obama returns? It’s hard to tell. But, rest assured that if Obama today had come across as flip or not sufficiently versed on the issues in Iraq and the Middle East, it would have been a major problem for his candidacy. Obama cleared that hurdle with ease.

(Too bad he used all them big wuurdz. That’ll kill ‘im with Real Murikans.)

Cilizza is right that Obama looks presidential — the pictures are perfect. Perhaps what Karl Rove famously said — “politics is TV with the sound turned off,” — is true. If so, it doesn’t really matter what any of them say, only how they look when they are saying it. And he looks great.

Update: I’m hearing gasbag rumblings that Obama believes “his judgment is better than The Man Called Petraeus’.” (How dare he demean the service of the troops this way.) The Republicans are obviously fighting back.

Update II: As Media Matters (via Atrios) notes here, Obama has been talking about sending troops to Afghanistan for years. Indeed, all the Democrats have, going all the way back to Kerry and the 2004 campaign. There’s absolutely nothing new here. I haven’t heard him call it the “central front in the war on terror” before, but it’s certainly possible that he has done so.

.