President Obama addresses "end" of Iraq War in highly political climate

Last night, President Obama did what he does best: he made a speech. That is, a primetime address to the nation from the Oval Office, where he announced the official end to America’s combat mission in Iraq. While U.S. troops are still present in Iraq and the risk of insurgency attacks remains active in that nation as well, Obama would seemingly have Americans believe that he officially “ended” the war yesterday – on the date of his self-imposed deadline.

As is typical of his addresses lately, this one will likely not do much to sway the electorate. Those Americans who support the President’s agenda will likely devour such White House rhetoric that Obama brought success to Iraq, where his predecessor, President Bush, supposedly failed. Those Americans who oppose the President’s agenda will likely see this speech for what it is – purely a political maneuver coming two months before a major national election in which his party is poised to suffer major defeats.

And most Americans, whether they support or oppose the current administration, will probably not give this address much thought, as the dire economy continues to be the most significant dilemma facing the nation at this point in time. Speaking of the economy, Obama was sure to include it in his speech about Iraq, perhaps evidencing the political motives at play in delivering such an address.

While the removal of combat forces in that region of the world is certainly a major milestone in the Iraq War, it should not enable the President some opportunity for political grandstanding – as he and the Vice President both opposed the measures taken to get Iraq where it is today.

Specifically, as senators, both Obama and Biden unambiguously opposed the troop surge, which is largely seen as being effective in ultimately stabilizing Iraq from the insurgent-run country that it was during the years following the initial invasion. President Bush made the decision to send additional troops in early 2007 and, as a result, Iraq, a growing democracy, is more livable today than it was under Saddam Hussein’s brutal authoritarian regime.

Although Obama briefly acknowledged Bush in his address – noting that the two had “disagreements” over the war – he did not give him the credit that his administration rightfully deserves in bringing Iraq to the position where it presently stands. Perhaps, the primary subtext behind Obama’s address, which the White House would probably like voters to take away if anything, is the false notion that “Obama essentially cleaned up Bush’s mess in Iraq.” After all, if that were true, it would at least mark one achievement that the administration could reasonably tout in this election cycle.

This address also marked the second time this President has delivered an address from the desk in the Oval Office – a setting that presidents typically employ when their message is of the utmost importance. The other time that Obama spoke from this setting was a few months ago when he attempted to address Americans’ concerns about the BP oil spill – or, rather, his administration’s handling of that crisis. He didn’t use the setting to address so-called national “emergencies” like the need to pass massive spending projects like the economic stimulus package a month into his presidency or universal health care earlier this year. Essentially, as some commentators have noted, he has only used this “no-nonsense” setting to aid his political survival.

The BP oil spill address was given as a result of Americans losing confidence (supported by declining poll numbers) in this administration’s ability to handle a major crisis. Similarly, yesterday’s address was likely an attempt to boost the President’s job approval numbers by highlighting a perceived success, at a time when every other issue (the economy, the oil spill, government spending, health care, the Ground Zero mosque) seems to be a loser for them.

Obama’s reason for working the economy into his speech – a move that puzzled some commentators – was likely an attempt to reach out to the millions of Americans currently struggling financially on the domestic front. The only plausible reason that he would want to extend his arm to these individuals in a speech about the Iraq War is because, as a result of their struggles, they might just be planning to cast their vote against his party in a few weeks and he wanted to give them a reason not to.

Tying America’s engagement in the War on Terror to the ongoing dismal economy may be a valid academic or analytical comparison, but it seems like a superfluous connection to make in a speech intended to address specific U.S. policy with regard to one specific matter.

What the President’s address demonstrates is this administration’s consistent determination to preserve its political interests, virtually above all else. As observers on the right and left will agree, Candidate Obama was much more appealing than President Obama has turned out to be in many respects. Some have astutely suggested that campaigning may be the only thing he really knows how to do effectively – a notion which last night’s address further proved.

Unfortunately, the presidency of the United States – a position that Obama pleaded with the American people to grant him for nearly two years – naturally presents many higher demands. Hopefully the next occupant of the esteemed Oval Office will realize that seemingly-obvious fact long before he or she decides to even hit the campaign trail.