Obama: Let’s Not Revisit the Past When I Said I Opposed the Surge
Monday, July 28, 2008 at 08:15AM Speaking of audacity, don’t have the audacity to ask Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama about his early opposition to the war in Iraq or the fact that he opposed the surge. When questioned at the Unity Journalism Conference in Chicago yesterday, he was asked if a Commander in Chief needs to admit his mistake since Obama was wrong about the surge and like Obama did when said Hillary Clinton voting to authorize the war was a mistake.
Q: Senator, I want to ask you about a subject you’ve had to address repeatedly on this trip, which is the situation in Iraq and the question of whether the surge has helped improve conditions there.
During the primaries, you criticized Senator Clinton for failing to say that her vote authorizing the war was a mistake. Now we have commanders on the ground pretty much saying that the surge has succeeded, and yet you’ve said that, if you had to do it all over again, you still would have voted against the surge. We’re not going to ask you whether to — you know, to change your position here.
OBAMA: You’re not going to ask me, but go ahead.
(LAUGHTER)
Q: But I would like to know whether you feel that, after the last five years, haven’t we learned that a commander-in-chief needs to be willing to acknowledge mistakes or errors in judgment when circumstances change?
OBAMA: You know, I mean, I have to say, it is fascinating to me to hear you guys re-emphasize this over and over again. I have not heard yet somebody ask John McCain whether his vote to go into Iraq was a mistake. I haven’t, during the entire week that we were having this conversation.
And so the question is: What are the strategic judgments that have to be made in order to make America safe? I strongly believe that going into Iraq was a disaster, strategically. It distracted us from finishing the job in Afghanistan. I have acknowledged repeatedly, in every one of these interviews, that the fact that we put more troops in there helped to quell the violence. I’ve been — I’ve been saying that all week.
The question is whether or not my position, in suggesting that we need to begin a phased withdrawal, we should have begun it earlier, whether that position that I took was a mistake. And I do not believe it was, because I continue to believe that the only way for us to stabilize the situation in Iraq — I believed it then, and I believe it now — is for the parties to arrive at a set of political accommodations.
Now, any time you put 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops anywhere in the world, they are going to perform brilliantly and that is going to contribute to keeping the lid on violence. The question is whether or not that military action alone is sufficient to solve the problems.
And had there been a continuation of a civil war in Iraq in which Sunnis and Shias were going at each other full bore, in which Sunnis were still aligned with Al Qaida, using military solutions to that problem would not have been sufficient, in my estimation.
Now, we don’t know what would have happened had we followed my plan to begin a phased withdrawal to put pressure on the Maliki government to start negotiating more effectively with some of these other parties. But that in no way takes away from the great work that our troops did and the terrific tactical work that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have engaged in.
The key now is: How do we move forward? And I think that people believe that, at this point, we are in a position to start drawing down our troops, partly because we’ve got to get some troops into Afghanistan and there’s no other place for us to get them.
UNBELIEVABLE. Senator Obama can question whether Hillary Clintons’ vote to authorize the war was a mistake but it shocks Obama, the Democratic presendential nominee, that the MSM would reach into the past and ask him if his decision to oppose the surge was a mistake.
The thing that really stands out is Obama’s ignorance of the military, military operations and what has actually occurred over the past 5 years in Iraq. Pulling troops a year ago would have resulted in a complete humanitarian disaster by every account. Even CNN’s Michael Ware called such discussion of troop withdrawal then “disastrous and delusional” .
The surge wasn’t about plopping 30,000 additional troops into the middle of a civil war as he said, although there was no civil war, but it was about a complete overhall of strategy. The Petraeus plan forced troops to stop “commuting to work” from the Super FOBs (Forward Operating Bases) or huge military compounds and to start living among the Iraqis, building trust, building relationships and winning hearts and minds in every Iraq neighborhood and province.
The military actions of the U.S. military are what ushered in the success of political and sectarian progress. The fact that Obama doesn’t even understand basic counterinsurgency is an embarrassment to the Democratic party.
Obama said:
And had there been a continuation of a civil war in Iraq in which Sunnis and Shia were going at each other full bore, in which Sunnis were still aligned with Al Qaida, using military solutions to that problem would not have been sufficient, in my estimation.
What stopped Sunni and Shia from attacking each other was that the presence of U.S. troops living among the people provided the security to embolden them to turn against al-Qaeda with less fear that after the troops had gone back to their compound for the night they would be savaged by al-Qaeda. Obama doesn’t even seem to have a clue that the fighting factions he described weren’t so much rank and file Iraqis, but Sunni insurgents (criminals) and Shia militia (criminals). Of course it was using the military that stopped Sunnis from aligning with al-Qaeda! They hated al-Qaeda but were traumatized into cooperation with them. If not for the surge and the presence of our military there would have been no turning against al-Qaeda.
Now that the “the civil war” that Democrats vowed would swallow Iraq has not come to fruition and the surge which they vowed wouldn’t work has succeeded, let’s just not delve into the past and let Obama hitch his little political wagon to the success of the surge.
I don’t think so.
Trackback URL: http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/2028011
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (12)
From Griper:
A Shiite Militia in Baghdad Sees Its Power Wane
"...Obama ...is an embarrassment to the Democratic party. "
C'mon. Is that even possible?
Interestingly, Ms Proctor, as Senator McCain, has a problem with factual History.
The fact is, that the "Sunni Awakening" occurred prior to the escalation of troops, not afterward, as she states.
As did our paying (bribing) the different factions, to lower the violence.
Another key, which gets largely ignored, is that the escalation of troops was directed to Baghdad. The "Sunni Awakening" was in Ambar, so while the escalated troop levels helped, there were other already ongoing processes, that also had effect.
All this revisionist history, gets tiresome... especially, things like how McCain supports the troops, and Obama doesn't.
Have a look at their recent voting records, and you'll see the opposite is true.
But, why let reality take the place of Revisionist Reality.
Amy.. check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCgPR3Qd2Os
While today he is saying:
"Now, any time you put 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops anywhere in the world, they are going to perform brilliantly and that is going to contribute to keeping the lid on violence."
In the video, at about 53 seconds in, he says the reverse would be true... that violence would increase.
Thought you might be interested :-)
Keith
So yes, violence is down in Iraq, or was. The Question is WHY? From the comments above, Jon seems to be able to entertain this question, I noticed ...
"The surge is working" has become the unquestionable-mantra-explanation. McCain saying the Awakening and the decrease in violence is due to the increase in troop levels. Obama is saying that explanation isn't all that relevant ... a position that to many seems at odds with the 'evidence' as presented in the MSM, as you point out, Amy.
Contradictorily these sharp differences between McCain and Obama are happen at a time McCain continues to move his position on withdrawal closer and closer to Obamas.
Below are exerts from Colin Kahl, a 'Stay the Course' sorta guy, but 'Stay' with changes resulting from recognition of what works and what doesn't, that seems to explain this contradiction ...
(a) "The Surge is Working", but that's sorta irrelevant - Obama
(b) "The Surge is Working", but I sorta endorse Obama's Timetable - McCain
Colin Kahl
Foreign Affairs:
July/August
The Awakening began in Anbar Province more than a year before the surge and took off in the summer and fall of 2006 in Ramadi and elsewhere, long before extra U.S. forces started flowing into Iraq in February and March of 2007. Throughout the war, enemy-of-my-enemy logic has driven Sunni decision-making. The Sunnis have seen three "occupiers" as threats: the United States, the Shiites (and their presumed Iranian patrons), and the foreigners and extremists in AQI. Crucial to the Awakening was the reordering of these threats.
In terms of these threats Kahl points out, prior to the Awakening, the US was becoming more targeted in its application of force and therefore limiting 'collateral effect' while at the same time AQI were becoming more brutal and pervasive in their effect upon the Sunnis. Therefore the Sunnis began to push back against AOI.
At the same time, for the US to be viewed as a potential ally for the Sunnis, the US had to convince them there were leaving and not an occupying force. The US did this and started to 'employ' Sunnis, a year BEFORE the so called Surge.
This is not controversial history. It is history that anyone trying out for Commander in Chief must understand when there are 150,000 American troops stationed in Iraq. It is an absolutely essential element to the story of the past two years. YOU CANNOT GET THIS WRONG. Moreover, what is most disturbing is that according to McCain's inaccurate version of history, military force came first and solved all of our problems. If that is the lesson he takes from the Anbar Awakening, I am afraid it is the lesson he will apply to every other crisis he faces including, for example, Iran.
Also ...
"A growing concern that the U.S. would leave Iraq and leave the Sunnis defenseless against Al-Qaeda and Iranian-supported militias made these younger [tribal] leaders [who led the Awakening] open to our overtures." In short, contrary to the Bush administration's claims, the Awakening began before the surge and was driven in part by Democratic pressure to withdraw.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080701faresponse87413/colin-h-kahl-william-e-odom/when-to-leave-iraq.html
Snerd
Snerd,
The awakening may have been crushed without support and the shia militias would still have a reason to exist. Of course the militias and AQI were wearing out their welcome, just as we decided change tactics and increase our support. It was a perfect storm in our favor. Of course the the Terrorists are still there, look at today. A political rally in Kirkuk, and pilgrims attemting to worship. Freedoms we take for granted, freedoms Al Qaeda is desperate to deprive their fellow Muslims.
That Obama continues to oppose the surge in spite of the sucess is telling. He now says that in spite of the sucess, he would again oppose sending more troops to Iraq The far left sees the defeat of America as a positive thing and something yet to be achieved. Obama is playing the crowds with his change theme while hiding his far left agenda.
Considering the support he receives from the likes of Move-on and George Soros, I would say that it is not even his agenda. He is merely a mouthpiece trying to learn how to play the President. The man has no character. He is a shill and while he has 300 hacks writing his talking points, I'll bet it is not he doing the dictating. That is why he is all over the place making stupid gaffs one after another.
The Trash America tour was a carefully staged production and we should not be fooled. He speaks in grandiose terms which separated from the visuals of all that grinning charisma, are actually incoherant. His trip to the Middle-East was a waste of taxpayers money. I doubt he has ever read a book on the history or culture of the Middle-East and he just turned that region into flyover country. I am not surprised he dissed the troops in Germany. After his disrespecting them by saying to the entire world that the surge was not due to their efforts, he might have encountered quite a lot of hostility instead of the constant adulation he seeks.
This man is far from a true Democrat. He is however working dilligently on his far left agenda delivery.
It is always evident when a piece is written from an already established and intractable position. Those on the partisan right or left will undoubtedly contort half truths and misperceptions into their own version of truth - often not believing it themselves but pushing it for effect and hoping some of it sticks. I speak of the blind partisans with an agenda that is to be advanced who can only see events through a partisan lens.
We all have opinions, beliefs and even agendas but it is easy to pick out the thoughtful commentators who strive to present the facts and dig for truth from those who have already constructed their own truth and contort events to fit this preconception. The ladder use valueless words such as "Unbelievable" & “Ignorant" when it describes the person who holds the opposite view and words such as "Unfair" & "Outrageous" when it comes to defending those who espouse their own view. They often assault the messenger and pay precious little attention to the message. As if the message is somehow less subject to logical analysis depending on from whose lips it passed. If the cogito were uttered by Saddam Hussein would that diminish its value?
We lost one of the best recently. Tim Russet was one of those rare breed that, regardless of their personal opinions, stayed on point. There were no wasted words when you met up with Tim Russert on Meet the Press Sunday morning. There was no perceivable bias, just tough, biting probes that revealed the holes in an argument and the failings of the ill prepared. He received praise as well as fear from those on the right and on the left and we all knew it was sincere - and that is all too rare. Tim Russert was a giant among dwarfs when it came to journalism and he will be sorely missed. I have my opinions, as does everyone else, but I choose to follow the example of Mr. Russert and derive the truth thoughtfully, making all reasonable effort to subtract preconception from the decision making process. If only this were the standard.
Thoughtful In Tampa
JC,
I saw Tim Russert in his last major appearance moderating a debate between John Edwards and Rudy Giulani. He was exactly as good as you say.
Amy: "... The surge wasn’t about plopping 30,000 additional troops into the middle of a civil war as he said ... but it was about a complete overhall of strategy. The Petraeus plan forced troops to stop “commuting to work” from the Super FOBs (Forward Operating Bases) or huge military compounds and to start living among the Iraqis, building trust, building relationships and winning hearts and minds in every Iraq neighborhood and province ... The fact that Obama doesn’t even understand basic counterinsurgency is an embarrassment to the Democratic party. "
SG: You seem at one point to distinguishing between "a Surge" and " a Counterinsurgency" and at another to be using them interchangeably. As you point out, this is an embarrassingly basic concept. But I can not tell which is it for you ... are they the same and to be used interchangeably, or are they tactically different?
The point of Kahl's article, or one of the points, is that you can argue about the strategic effectiveness of various approaches to 'troop levels', but you can not get something as basically wrong as McCain does, which is to claim the Anbar Awakening was because of the troop 'Surge', period.
Kahl is arguing against withdrawal, the Petraeus position as I read the article, a position McCain used to hold, but ironically Kahl thinks McCain is completed outta touch ... doesn't get it.
To be quite honest, generally McCain seems to me to be struggling to keep up and at other times to be loosing his bearings. He seems to be managing his transition from Maverick to CON-se(R)vative, very poorly and to be flip flopping all over the place. It's like being asked to eat sausage, after seeing it made in the "Sausage Haus", as it were.
Intellectually he doesn't seem up to the task. One proof of this, is this blog. Y'all aren't touting McCain, much. All your efforts are towards tearing Obama down ... but then, that's been the hallmark of this administration.
Frankly, it might play well to the base, but America is fed up, and wanting CHANGE!
Snerd
Khate: "... That Obama continues to oppose the surge in spite of the sucess [sic] is telling."
SG: What's more telling is that you fail to see that possibility this could be an intellectually credible position, even if not one you agree with, even if not the best of the conceptually credible positions offered, in your 'mind'. A pretty good example of pa(R)tisanship over substance.
All you do is attempt to smea(R) him, and rather i(R)onically at that ... using Bushisms to discredit Obama.
Khate: "... I doubt he has ever read a book on the history or culture of the Middle-East and he just turned that region into flyover country."
SG: It is "W" who brags about NOT reading, and the "flyover" put down originated from "Wz" flyover of New Orleans.
Khate: "... His trip to the Middle-East was a waste of taxpayers money. "
SG: Errr ... As I remember 'reading', one of the complains of Obama was that he WASN'T taking public funding, there Khate. And if I remember ... oh as far back as last week ... that was the reason the 'Pentagong' asked him not to visit the troops with anyone from his campaign, but that he could visit with his Senate staff ....
Sheesh! The 20% (R) ability to deny empirical realty never ceases to ... errr ... entertain. Keep them post comin' Khate
Snerd
Jon, I’m assuming you mean as “he” states referring to McCain. Sadly, your comments are as uninformed as Obama’s, although I do understand this is one of the most complex military engagements the U.S. has been a part of in our history.
I think Obama and his assertion that there are 57 states and the "bomb fell on Pearl Harbor" show that maybe Obama has the problem with history.
1. Did McCain say something about the surge and Anbar? One complimented the other but surge sent a concentration of troops to secure Baghdad, not Anbar Province. Your argument that the Sunni Awakening took place before the surge is irrelevant. It also continued during and is continuing after the surge. Only 4,000 additional troops were sent to Anbar to re-enforce what was already transforming. By the way, do you know when it took place or what the circumstances were? My husband is active duty Army, OIF vet and a Religious Leader Engagement expert in the war and interviewed the unit instrumental in assisting the transformation in Anbar for the Army’s Lessons Learned center. Do you know who they are? Neither does Barack Obama.
Here’s the now infamous How To Win in Anbar slideshow by CPT Patriquinn of 1st Armored Division who was instrumental in bringing this counterinsurgency tactic to the province to the attention of many. This is essentially the Petraeus strategy before Petraeus took command in 2007.
Here is Pres. Bush’s address announcing the surge:
I don’t recall Sen. McCain saying the Sunni Awakening occurred after the escalation of troops to Baghdad but I will say it was an awakening that took a long time, not just several months before the surge. It is still ongoing.
Jon said:
2.I suppose it isn’t reasonable for you to know more than Obama, so let me help you out. Paying Iraqis to guard their own neighborhoods means they are 1) employed and 2) PROTECTING THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOODS. I think we pay our own soldiers in the U.S. to carry arms, too, don’t we. Here is an piece I did on the 2007 briefings with Petraeus and Crocker with Sen. Byrd CLUELESS on arming the Sunnis while Petraeus corrects his understanding. I highly recommend you watch it.
Then Petraeus went on, as you can see in the short segment, to point out the heroic nature of these Sunnis who turned their backs on al-Qaeda. Have you ever been confronted by al-Qaeda, jon? You would want to be armed, too. And it wouldn’t hurt to get a salary so you can feed your children while you’re protecting them from an enemy who wants every opponent decapitated.
I’d also recommend my post Counterinsurgency for Dummies.
3.As I recall, McCain had the JUDGMENT to criticize the 2004-06 strategy. I was disappointed by his public denunciation at the time but in retrospect he was exactly right, I was wrong. While there was progress being made throughout the duration of this time, troops needed to leave the FOBs (Forward Operating Bases) and live among the people, and there needed to be more of them. McCain’s military experience gave him the insight, like Petraeus’, that the course of 2—4-06 needed to change and that the current one is the right one.
What judgment has Obama shown? Only that he was wrong about the war and the surge.