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 »
The Success of the Surge Seemingly Puts Obama on the Defensive
July 15, 2008 2:22 PM
Though a majority of the American people support ending the war in Iraq and think the invasion was a mistake, Republicans have tried to put Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, into a box as he prepares for his first trip to Iraq since securing his party's presidential nomination.
Weeks ago, after Obama said he would be willing to listen to commanders in the ground to "refine" his policy, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Republicans said Obama was flip-flopping.
Then after Obama clarified that he is sticking by his plans to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months, McCain and Republicans painted him as an intransigent partisan whose pending trip to Iraq is nothing more than a photo op.
"Senator Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan," McCain said today at a town hall meeting in Albuquerque, "And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: first you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy."
Another conundrum for Obama: the surge of US troops in Iraq having created a safer and more secure Baghdad, McCain can now (perhaps for the first time) point to an aspect of the war where he is able to argue that his judgment was superior to Obama's.
**
Obama seemed today a bit on the defensive on Iraq, as evidenced by edits Obama's campaign staff made to language on his campaign website decrying the surge as a failure, as well as a speech Obama delivered today in which he explained why the surge's success doesn't change his view of needing to withdraw U.S. forces in that country.
"For weeks, now, Senator McCain has argued that the gains of the surge mean that I should change my commitment to end the war," Obama said Tuesday morning in a speech at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, just blocks from the White House. "But this argument misconstrues what is necessary to succeed in Iraq, and stubbornly ignores the facts of the broader strategic picture that we face."
In the 18 months since the surge began, Obama argued, "the strain on our military has increased, our troops and their families have borne an enormous burden, and American taxpayers have spent another $200 billion in Iraq" and "the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated." Moreover, Obama argued, "Iraq’s leaders have not made the political progress that was the purpose of the surge. They have not invested tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues to rebuild their country. They have not resolved their differences or shaped a new political compact."
What Obama did not mention today was that the surge had succeeded in ways he did not think it would.
After President Bush discussed the surge in a speech in January 2007, Obama said on CNN that he "did not see anything in the speech or anything in the run-up to the speech that provides evidence that an additional 15,000 to 20,000 more U.S. troops is going to make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that's taking place there."
**
Not surprisingly, Obama on Tuesday again reminded voters where the two men stood on the war six years ago.
"I opposed going to war in Iraq; Senator McCain was one of Washington’s biggest supporters for war," Obama said. "I warned that the invasion of a country posing no imminent threat would fan the flames of extremism, and distract us from the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; Senator McCain claimed that we would be greeted as liberators, and that democracy would spread across the Middle East. Those were the judgments we made on the most important strategic question since the end of the Cold War."
McCain has tried to focus not on that 2002 decision, but on the one five years later. The Republican paints himself as -- like Obama -- an opponent of the Bush administration's strategy for the war, but says he -- not Obama -- displayed better judgment on the decision to send more troops into Iraq.
"Over the last year," McCain said today, "Senator Obama and I were part of a great debate about the war in Iraq. Both of us agreed the Bush administration had pursued a failed strategy there and that we had to change course. Where Senator Obama and I disagreed, fundamentally, was what course we should take. I called for a comprehensive new strategy -- a surge of troops and counterinsurgency to win the war. Senator Obama disagreed. He opposed the surge, predicted it would increase sectarian violence, and called for our troops to retreat as quickly as possible."
McCain concluded that "today we know Senator Obama was wrong. The surge has succeeded. And because of its success, the next President will inherit a situation in Iraq in which America's enemies are on the run, and our soldiers are beginning to come home."
In his speech Obama found himself today responding to that focus.
"George Bush and John McCain don’t have a strategy for success in Iraq – they have a strategy for staying in Iraq," the Democrat said. "They said we couldn’t leave when violence was up, and they now say we can’t leave when violence is down. They refuse to press the Iraqis to make tough choices, and they label any timetable to redeploy our troops 'surrender,' even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government – not to a terrorist enemy."
Obama said that "at some point, a judgment must be made. Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we do not have unlimited resources to try to make it one. We are not going to kill every al Qaeda sympathizer, eliminate every trace of Iranian influence, or stand up a flawless democracy before we leave."
Over the weekend, as first reported by the New York Daily News, the Obama campaign website changed language from declaring "the surge is not working" to that which instead states: "despite the improved security situation, the Iraqi government has not stepped forward to lead the Iraqi people and to reach the genuine political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge."
An older Obama campaign "fact sheet" from Fall 2007 states more unequivocally that "THE SURGE IS NOT WORKING" since "the Iraqi government has not stepped up." Obama also maintained that "reduced violence in Anbar Province is the result of cooperation between American forces and Sunni tribes, which started more than 18 months ago, long before the surge. The province is overwhelmingly Sunni, and the tribal leaders there made a political decision to turn against al Qaeda. This does not demonstrate the success of the surge; it demonstrates that the solutions in Iraq are political, not military."
Obama's only mention of Anbar today was to say that the future that "both America and Iraq will be more secure when the terrorist in Anbar is taken out by the Iraqi Army, and the criminal in Baghdad fears Iraqi Police, not just coalition forces."
- jpt
July 15, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (122)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I repeat...if the surge in Iraq is a failure, why is Obama's big strategy for Afghanistan, a 'surge'?
Posted by: mark l. | Jul 15, 2008 9:08:18 PM
I repeat.....Like the GAO says,the surge is not successful. Too many of the important goals have not been meant. When will you guys get it straight?
Posted by: reedie | Jul 15, 2008 8:58:45 PM
NEWS...MY SISTER IS A LIFELONG DEMOCRAT WHO HATES REPUBLICANS...SHE HAS BEEN PRAISING OBAMA FOR MONTHS... NOW SEZ SHE WILL PROBABLY VOTE FOR MCCAIN...HER REASON IS OBAMA IS MOVING THE WAR FROM IRAQ TO AFGANISTAN...SHE FEELS HE IS NOT ANTIWAR ANYMORE...SHE WAS NOT A HILLARY SUPPORTER BECAUSE HILLARY HAD VOTED FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ...
Posted by: winky | Jul 15, 2008 8:47:39 PM
What's wrong with the people writing these comments? If you don't have a President that will change his mind on subjects you have another Bush. The word flip flop is not bad as long as you are using the correct judgement. If Bush was a flip flopper US would be a better place. Some people are ignorant. McCain has change his position so many times how could he call someone a flip flopper. Watch once debates starts you will see the one who really flip flops
Posted by: Will Hanccok | Jul 15, 2008 8:40:26 PM
Good grief. Who says the "surge" was a success? The surge -- the addition of military troops -- happened because of the failure of the Bush administration to get it together in Iraq. Poor leadership required more military might.
Posted by: olga | Jul 15, 2008 7:45:46 PM
Please stop with the distortions about McCain's 100 years comment. We've had troops in Korea, Japan and Germany for 60 years, for strategic reasons and that's all McCain meant. He specifically mentioned "as long as their not being attacked and killed" even. So to say McCain would kill "thousands more of our troops" is an outright dishonest lie!!!
Why can't Libs have an honest discussion ever???
Posted by: DennisCTC | Jul 15, 2008 7:25:32 PM
kathy, I will like to see you get dressed to fight the everlasting war on terror. Please, elect old man johnny McCain. I will like to hear your tune in the course of his tenure.
Posted by: cappello | Jul 15, 2008 7:08:48 PM
Surge, no surge, surge - it will perhaps be of little interest to Americans to hear from a European, but the general feeling here is that McCain is just another weary old military guy whose mindset is concrete. With Obama, maybe America can become a proud leader of the so-called Free World instead of being a perpetuator of violence and occupation. Japan, Germany, etc etc - years after WW2 Americans still maintain bases of aggression in countries all over the world...(even Scotland, believe it or not). Meantime, your society lags ridiculously high in such significant social areas as infant birth deaths, illiteracy, homicides by gun, life expectation, social welfare. (Even Cuba comes off better than the US, with almost a 100 percent literacy rate and enough doctors to send to needy countries.) Just think, get off the triggerhappy bandwagon and infuse your society with the obscene sums of money your military devours, and perhaps the American dream could replace what has become an American nightmare. Unemployment, foreclosures, impoverishment - and yet you have resources enough to feed a planet...Something's wrong, badly wrong.
You've lost your way in thickets of fear and dread...where is that American spirit?
Posted by: campbell | Jul 15, 2008 7:03:13 PM
We didn't just leave Germany. Ever hear of the Marshall Plan?
We drove the jihadists out of Afghanistan. remember they declared war on us. We had to go to Iraq.
So, we have 5th century mindsets with 21st century weapons.
You think its in our best interests to ignore them?
The war in Iraq is going good. Thats why we don't see any news coverage of it. The left stream blame America first media won't go over and film it.
Is that little pipsqueak going over there and dressing up in battle gear to make his photo op? What a joke.
I'll bet Dukasis will give him a few hints of what not to do.
Americans today have a t.v. mentality. Every thing has to be done like a 2 hour movie.
We are fighting the war on terror all over the globe. We just don't see the covert actions.
Posted by: kathy | Jul 15, 2008 6:53:56 PM
Thank you Barack hussein Obama,because of your great leadership,the USA,the most powerfull ion on earth will be leaving Irack with its tail between its legs.From there on,the USA has nowhere to go but down!Again,thanks.
Posted by: mink/celes | Jul 15, 2008 6:52:12 PM
Obama: Hope without substance!
Posted by: Soetoro No! | Jul 15, 2008 6:44:16 PM
I will like to see what you all will make of the surge when it starts to unravel. The was a time everyone said Afghanistan was all rosy and dandy. I think that we ahould all pause and wonder if this country is being out manuevered by a rag tag outfit like al-qaeda. You whack them in Afghanistan they pop up in Iraq, you whack them in Iraq, they pop up in Afghanistan, you whack them in....
Posted by: albarudi | Jul 15, 2008 6:34:31 PM
i used to think he was gonna win the election. now... i dont see that happening. he is way too naive to be commander in chief. he really has no clue whats going on and what to do.
Posted by: rick | Jul 15, 2008 6:04:42 PM
Obama
JANUARY 08: “I Welcome The Genuine Reductions Of Violence That Have Taken Place, Although I Would Point Out That Much Of That Violence Has Been Reduced Because There Was An Agreement With Tribes In Anbar Province.” In a debate, Obama said, “I had no doubt, and I said at the time when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence. But understand, we started in 2006 with intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government. We saw a spike in the violence. The surge reduced that violence, and we now are, two years later, back where we started two years ago. We have gone full circle at enormous cost to the American people.I welcome the genuine reductions of violence that have taken place, although I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province — Sunni tribes — who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shi’as. We should start negotiating now. That’s how you change behavior.” [Debate, 1/5/08 ]
Posted by: Mr. Unite Us | Jul 15, 2008 5:59:23 PM
BO will not win, for he can change his statments so fast, and clame you are stupid for not paying attention to him! But he will win the grand FLIP FLOP AWARD from Kerry! Hell he makes Karry look good.
Posted by: real world | Jul 15, 2008 5:58:18 PM
Obama THE KING of FLIP FLOP!!!!
Obama is like the flavor of the week, what will his flavor be next week????
Posted by: real world | Jul 15, 2008 5:46:48 PM
OK..I'm confused...The Obama we're talking about...which version of Obama is it? Is it the March version, the April version, the early June, late June...what version is it? We need to assign numbers like Obama 1.2, Obama 3.1, Obama 4.3, etc, just so we know what we're working with.
Posted by: MinniePearlJam | Jul 15, 2008 5:46:31 PM
dl-
'The nearest field of jihad today to support our people in Palestine ... is the Iraqi field.' He urged Palestinians and people of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to 'help in support of their mujahideen brothers in Iraq which is the greatest opportunity and the biggest task.'"
-osama bin laden.
If you could offer a video tape message of his, that is a call to arms for Afghanistan/Pakistan at this level...
you'd make your opposition to Iraq, and advocacy of Afghanistan more coherent than your candidate's postion.
Posted by: mark l. | Jul 15, 2008 5:44:01 PM
Sorry DL, but you're very wrong. The Surge was supposed to provide enough security to allow the Iraqi people to organize their own government. It seems to have worked quite well -- 15 of 18 benchmarks met and control over all provinces; whereas, you have revealed yourself as intelligent as the stool I'm working up.
Posted by: Killbuzz | Jul 15, 2008 5:34:28 PM
"if yuo do not concede that the terrorist group that attacked us is along the border of AFGHANISTAN and PAKISTAN"
the locationis accurate, the ethnicity is waay wrong...
here's small hx lesson:
ubl is not a native of Afghanistan. While he fought with the indigenous mujahedeen against Soviets, his 'army' were all foreign fighters.
Two days prior to 9/11, he killed the leader of the indigenous mujahedeen, in an attmept to consolidate his own power in country.
to concede that the terrorist group that attacked us is in Pakistan and Afghanistan, is like saying the US army was german, when they fought in Germany.
If things get rough, these foreign born fighters walk home for the the winter/duration, recruit, return in the spring...
repeat the cycle as long as you want, for however much you want to spend, and how many soldiers you want to die in place that holds no value, other than as a battlefield.
What about the two embassy bombings in Africa? Al-Queda isn't there anymore? sSoldiers are the LEAST effective means of fighting them.
If Obam doesn't like Iraq, waht's to love about Afghanistan?
Posted by: mark l. | Jul 15, 2008 5:34:04 PM
Post a comment
