September 4, 2008
“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”
However, he added, the country has not had enough “political reconciliation” and Iraqis still have not taken responsibility for their country.
The fact that Obama has finally gotten in touch with the glaringly obvious effectiveness of the troop surge does not seem particularly newsworthy to me (except, perhaps, as a check on his sanity). If he had said that the sky is blue, that would not be particularly newsworthy either.
What is newsworthy (to me, anyway) is the relationship between what he is saying now and what he has said all along. I have put his past comments in the context of casualties in Iraq. This is a chart that is worth keeping in mind whenever the discussion of the troop surge comes up:
Obama likes to talk about his "judgment" in opposing the war in Iraq. But if he is going to use that as the big test of his wisdom, you also have to consider his judgment with respect to the troop surge in Iraq. As indicated in the chart, Obama introduced a bill to withdraw U.S. forces even though sectarian violence was at its very height:
Obama Bill Sets Date For Troop Withdrawal
Candidate Goes Further Than Rivals
January 31, 2007
Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, one of the most prominent Democrats in the 2008 presidential field, proposed for the first time setting a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq, as part of a broader plan aimed at bolstering the freshman senator's foreign policy credentials.
Obama's legislation, offered on the Senate floor last night, would remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008.
He also said at the time (January 3, 2007) that the troop surge "makes absolutely no sense" and that the surge would only serve to make things worse: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence...In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
Later, In July of 2007, he had this to say about the effectiveness of the troop surge:
July 20, 2007
"Here's what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, 'Well, even in September, we're going to need more time.' So we're going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president's plan."
As recently as July of this year, he still insisted that he was right to oppose the surge even knowing what we know now:
July 21, 2008
Q: If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?
Obama: No. Because, keep in mind that —
Q: You wouldn’t?
Obama: Keep in mind, these kind of hypotheticals are very difficult. You know hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one I just disagreed with.
That gives you a more complete picture of Barack Obama's judgement on the most important national security issue to face the nation in the last several years. John McCain's judgment was rather different:
April 15, 2007
"I am not guaranteeing that this succeeds,” said Mr. McCain, who has long argued that additional troops were needed. “I am just saying that I think it can. I believe it has a good shot."
Let's just keep all of this firmly in mind as we discuss the troop surge from here on out.
UPDATE: Sarah Palin, in a speech today:
"But just last night, Senator Obama finally broke, and brought himself to admit what all the rest of us have known for quite some time, and that’s thanks to the skill and valor of our troops, the surge in Iraq has succeeded," Palin said referring to an answer Obama gave to Fox News' Bill O'Reilly Thursday.
In his first appearance on "The O'Reilly factor" Obama said that the troop surge succeeded ‘beyond our wildest dreams.' "I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated, by the way, including President Bush and the other supporters," he told O'Reilly.
Palin took issue with Obama’s response and reminded voters that John McCain initially supported the troop surge.
"I guess when you turn out to be profoundly wrong on a vital national security issue, maybe it's comforting to pretend that everyone was wrong too. But I remember it a little differently. It seems to me there was one leader in Washington who did predict success, who refused to call retreat and risked his own career for the sake of the surge and victory in Iraq and ladies and gentlemen that man is standing right next to me. Senator John McCain," Palin said.
6 comments:
He is covering his own bad judgment by asserting that the results of the surge has surprised everyone.
Judgment was required to recognize the game changing facts on the ground, recognize an insurgency instead of a civil war, recognize the applicability of COIN, to engage in COIN, and recognize that Iraqis might want more than they had. He failed on all.
McCain was a part of the group (and led the charge on a few points) showing great judgment. Grabbing and scratching for victory instead of relishing defeat. It succeeded beyond anything in Sen Obama's or his circle of experts' small imaginations. But it was clearly the plan of those who made it happen. It worked well and things could have (and still could) go terribly wrong. That is the nature of war.
His judgment is flawed, but he is among friends who share his judgment. I am so glad Obama and his ilk were not around and popular during WWII -- we would all be speaking Japanese or German, and he would still be trying to lead us towards hope and change.
I am not getting whiplash, but I have no trust for his judgment or character. His instinct is still to lash out at America and democracy. And to be surprised at the success of our efforts.
Bill O'Reilly missed the opportunity of the campaign to probe more deeply into Obama's thinking. Rather than boorishly goading BO to admit he was wrong, what he should have done was to ask BO to explain his previous opinion that the surge would be a failure. Does it have anything to do with his lack of confidence in America in general?
How would he explain his opinion that it would be OK to condemn many thousands of Iraqis to slaughter?
Over to you Senator.
Senator Obama does not understand some of the fundamentals of warfare. Worse, he does not listen to those who do. This is what concerns me most about his becoming Comander-in-chief.
P.S. Although we are doing well in Iraq today, this war is a long way from being over.
You almost sense that Obama is not even happy it has worked. It has taken an issue off the table. What makes me upset about the democrats position is that they continue to point out the bad judgement in their opinion that got us into Iraq.
The real issue in 2006-2007 was not why we were in Iraq. We were there and there was nothing anyone could do about it. The real issue was we were losing the war. What could we do? Who was going to lead us out?
On that issue the Democrats including Obama have been on the wrong side and unsupportive as well. The argument was made that Bush made the world an unsafer place. Now the argument could be made that had Obama been in charge the world would now be a much unsafer place.
With respect entetc, I don't think he attempted to exercise any judgment on Iraq.
He was astute enough to understand that a significant majority of the public believed the mission was hopeless and the road to the White House required the support of this majority.
Obama is a politician, like almost all the others, though perhaps a little more cynical than most others.
His problem is that it is clear that his opponent is not.
Terry Gain
You know ,I have some priston tale Gold,and my friend also
has some priston tale Money,do you kouw they have the same
meaning,I just want to buy priston tale Gold,because there
are many cheap priston tale Gold
Post a Comment