RECENT POSTS
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
- White House State Dinner – Who Made the Exclusive Guest List?
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
- FLOTUS on the State Dinner: Like a Swan, "Calm and Serene Above Water, But We're Paddling Like Mad, Going Crazy Underneath"
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Obama on the Surge: "Had Those Political Factors Not Occurred, I Think That My Assessment Would Have Been Correct"
July 22, 2008 1:56 AM
"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence" in Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said in January 2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
In Baghdad yesterday, after a day spent witnessing the reduction in violence in Iraq, Obama was asked by ABC News' Terry Moran if he was wrong..
"Here is what I will say," Obama said, "I think that, I did not anticipate, and I think that this is a fair characterization, the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni awakening in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with Al Qaeda, in the Shii’a community the militias standing down to some degrees. So what you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, I think that my assessment would have been correct."
Obama went on to say "the fact is that there was a combination, I think. Look, the troops and General Petreaus and Ambassador Crocker deserve enormous credit for that and that is credit that I have given publicly. And I will say, again this is the danger of politics is that I can probably show you a couple of other quotes, in which I said 'Look, whenever you put US soldiers on the ground, in those particular areas, they are going to have an impact.' So it wasn’t any doubt that you have an additional 20 thousand troops and where they are right there it is going to have an impact."
"Well, you were saying that it would not make a significant dent in the violence," Moran said.
"In the violence in Iraq overall, right," Obama acknowledged. "So the point that I was making at the time was that the political dynamic was the driving force between that sectarian violence. And we could try to keep a lid on it, but if these underlining dynamic continued to bubble up and explode the way they were, then we would be in a difficult situation. I am glad that in fact those political dynamic shifted at the same time that our troops did outstanding work."
Moran asked what Iraq would look like now if Obama's policy of withdrawing in the face of the violence had been implemented.
"That is a hard thing to speculate," Obama said, "The Sunnis might have made the same decisions at that time. The Shii’as might have made some similar decisions based on political calculation. There was ethnic cleansing in Baghdad that actually took the violence level down. And so, as I said before. Nobody has a crystal ball. If we did you just hire the guy with the crystal ball."
Obama maintained that his decision was not wrong. "In the meantime we have spent an additional 200-to-300 billion dollars. The situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated, by every measure. Al Qaeda is still running loose, right. So the problem with these debates is that, if you focus narrowly on the tactics inside of Iraq then you get one perspective. If on the other hand, your job, which I believe is the president's job, is to make a series of difficult choices and calculations about what is going to lead to our long term security then you get a different perspective. What I've been trying to push throughout this campaign is for that broader view."
Obama continued: "And listen, here is something that I probably don't say often enough. John McCain doesn't want to see us take a wrong strategy when it comes to fighting the war on Terror. I think John McCain wants to see America safe just like I do. And so I respect his best judgments in many of these issues, but I think it's important to recognize that on the majority of issues that we've faced in terms of foreign policy, not just over the past 4 years but over the past 6, 7 years that my batting average is pretty darn good."
If you had to do it over again, Moran asked, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?
"No," Obama said. "These kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. 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 that I just disagreed with and one that I continue to disagree with is to look narrowly at Iraq and not focus on these broader issues."
- jpt
July 22, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (90)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Thank you, Terry Moran! Your interview with Obama on the War and Surge is the best I have seen. Incredibly he refused to credit the surge for creating the security to achieve the political gains and he basically refused to answer your direct question on whether he wanted to "win" the War! That is because a "yes" would have contradicted himself and enraged the extreme Left which has always wanted us to lose in Iraq.
Posted by: Tom Sullivan | Jul 22, 2008 3:05:44 PM
Don't look now, but the bull-chips are getting deeper . . .
"The U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq that President George W. Bush ordered last year has ended after the last of five additional combat brigades left the country, a U.S. military spokesman said on Tuesday." (Reuters)
Posted by: Belle Starr | Jul 22, 2008 2:48:17 PM
TV, actually Saddam Hussein did attack us. On several occasions he fired missiles at our planes. And on at least one of those occasions our plane was in Kuwaiti airspace at the time.
You wrote: "We need a leader that can communicate a message of unity first." You can't reason with people who are dedicated to killing you. The Islamic extremists will listen to a President Obama ONLY IF he is talking about converting America to Islam.
Posted by: James Danley | Jul 22, 2008 2:40:06 PM
Andrea Mitchell's statement about Obama's "Fake Interviews" is only appropriate as Obama is a FAKE ALL TOGETHER.
Obama is a Phony....was, is always will be.
Posted by: carpenter.nyc | Jul 22, 2008 2:26:26 PM
Obama on the Surge: "Had Those Political Factors Not Occurred, I Think That My Assessment Would Have Been Correct"
But those Political Factors did Occurr and you are now WRONG.
Obama is always Twisting and Wriggling himself in words to excuse and award himself credit ---TOTALLY UNDESERVING,
Watch Obama's Favorabilty ratings go down....and people who "somewhat" viewed him unfavorably will now have no questions to his UNFAVORABILITY being VERY UNFAVORABLE.....
Posted by: carpenter.nyc | Jul 22, 2008 2:23:00 PM
"Isn't the world full of dangerous shady people?"
-----
None more than mob-man Obama, and his supporting cast of right-wing "left"ists.
Posted by: Belle Starr | Jul 22, 2008 2:16:53 PM
"More than likely there are terrorist cells with another attack planned still in our country."
-----
Corporate VIPs who fly. a. lot.
Posted by: Belle Starr | Jul 22, 2008 2:10:40 PM
Obama is wrong. The surge allowed security which allowed political progress. Before the surge Basra was controlled by the madhi army. Our military helped the iraqi military take control of basra. Now markets are back open and they can sell liquor without getting their heads cut off. Also the surge forced sadr to back down in sadr city and let the iraqi military in. Also the iraqi military took control in mosul.
Posted by: Steve | Jul 22, 2008 2:08:12 PM
"The world knows there is a possibility of inclusiveness with Obama."
-----
Inclusiveness of mobsters and right-wingers.
There's a depression on: the Democrats had better dump this dude, while they CAN.
Posted by: Belle Starr | Jul 22, 2008 1:53:35 PM
If someone wants to attack America it is still possible.From inside our country.More than likely there are terrorist cells with another attack planned still in our country.What makes anyone think they have left our country or that 9/11 was the end of the inside job. 9/11 was murderous, horrific, vile, militarily and strategically brilliant.They are not dumb guns screaming Allah.They are cold calculating, patient and symbolic killers. To think that McCain and his foreign policy of threats at the helm will stop our enemies is sad and pathetic.The world does not fear us or McCains threats.They will attack if the feel a need and they are smart enough to do it without us seeing it coming.We didn't see 9/11 coming and we won't see the next attack if they really want to attack us.I feel more confident with a president that energized to 2008 primaries and millions of americans and other citzens around the world seem happy to welcome.The world is willing to listen to Obama.He brings hope.The world knows there is a possibility of inclusiveness with Obama.McCain doesn't seem capable of comunicating our best interests to the world. He is qualified to communicate war though. No doubt about that.Terrorists do NOT fear war.They thrive, live and die for it.
Posted by: TV | Jul 22, 2008 1:50:20 PM
Andrea Mitchell (on Obama-worship show "Hardball") on O'Mobba's "message management":
"Let me just say something about the message management. He didn't have reporters with him, he didn't have a press pool, he didn't do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq. What you're seeing is not reporters brought in. You're seeing selected pictures taken by the military, questions by the military, and what some would call fake interviews, because they're not interviews from a journalist. So, there's a real press issue here. Politically it's smart as can be. But we've not seen a presidential candidate do this, in my recollection, ever before."
Posted by: Belle Starr | Jul 22, 2008 1:46:09 PM
"Had those political factors not occurred, I think that my assessment would have been correct."
If I wasn't wrong I would of been right.
Posted by: geevill | Jul 22, 2008 1:41:00 PM
"Obama was asked by ABC News' Terry Moran if he was wrong.."
-----
"WRONG"?? O'Mobba "WRONG"??
Didn't Moran get the memo elevating O'Mobba to state-religion level?
Posted by: Belle Starr | Jul 22, 2008 1:33:53 PM
jANE.....
Gramm is gone!
Al of Obama's unsavory associates... are STILL Obama's unsavory associates.... and frankly I don't want THEM littering up the White House!
Posted by: between the ears | Jul 22, 2008 1:32:46 PM
"Had those political factors not occurred, I think that my assessment would have been correct."
In a round-about way..... could this be a concession by Barack.. that he was
W R O N G?????
HILLARY OR MCCAIN...
BUT ALWAYS,
COUNTRY BEFORE BROKEN DOWN DNC!!!!!
Posted by: between the ears | Jul 22, 2008 1:26:32 PM
Right, but Saddam Hussein did not attack us.Osama did.Obviously there are many terrorists organizations in the world.These people will kill innocents without remorse.They will sacrifice their own lives to advance their cause.Winning their "hearts and minds" is not something you do with bullets or bombs.We need a leader that can communicate a message of unity first.Obama has this ability down pact.His qualities need to be used for America's benefit. We take miltary action only when necessary. Not as a first choice as McCain would.if the whole world takes military action there will be no world left.
Posted by: TV | Jul 22, 2008 1:16:20 PM
The scary thing is how far people go in defending this kind of obfuscation. So, what would have happened had the troop increase not been ordered? Do supporters here really believe that the improvements just happened magically?
Obama might win...four years of this kind of arrogance! Obama is the one who is the new Bush with regard to changing positions yet claiming he was right all along.
Posted by: Wade | Jul 22, 2008 1:14:32 PM
"Capture and or Kill Bin Laden!"
-----
OBL -- a corporate guy gone commando, whose anti-Soviet operations in Aghanistan were undertaken in association with the US -- probably backs Obama at one or two removes. And vice versa.
Posted by: Belle Starr | Jul 22, 2008 1:03:49 PM
TV, Saddam Hussein supported terrorism and even had his own terrorist training camps. He is now gone.
We have never dropped the ball on Afghanistan. It has been the NATO forces that has dropped the ball. Some of the other countries under NATO command refuse to allow their soldiers to fight. They are acting as peace keepers instead of combatants. This has allowed the Taliban and al Qaeda to strengthen their forces in Afghanistan.
Now then, just getting rid of Usama bin Laden won't end terrorism. Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist group out there. There are dozens of well organized terrorist militias, many of which have the same goals -- turning the world into one caliphate. We can't fight them all. So the best offense is spreading democracy; implementing the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; and convincing the Muslim schools to stop teaching their anti-Israel and anti-Western Civilization curricula.
Posted by: James Danley | Jul 22, 2008 12:52:32 PM
Arguing over Iraq is stupid regardless of any progress. Iraq did NOT attack America in Sept. of 2001. Therefore we should NOT have went to Iraq.Obama was right from the beginning.Period!Capture and or Kill Bin Laden!
Posted by: TV | Jul 22, 2008 12:28:55 PM
Post a comment
