« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
USA Today editorial: Why can't Obama admit The Surge worked?
Citing the steep decline in violence in Iraq since the troop surge began in 2007, a USA Today editorial today called "stubborn" Barack Obama on his reluctance to admit he was wrong in believing that the troop increase would not only fail, but that it would make the situation worse:
"Why then can't Obama bring himself to acknowledge the surge worked better than he and other skeptics, including this page, thought it would? What does that stubbornness say about the kind of president he'd be?
In recent comments, the Democratic presidential candidate has grudgingly conceded that the troops helped lessen the violence, but he has insisted that the surge was a dubious policy because it allowed the situation in Afghanistan to deteriorate and failed to produce political breakthroughs in Iraq. Even knowing the outcome, he told CBS News Tuesday, he still wouldn't have supported the idea.
That's hard to fathom. Even if you believe that the invasion of Iraq was a grievous error — and it was — the U.S. should still make every effort to leave behind a stable situation. Obama seems stuck in the first part of that thought process, repeatedly proclaiming that he was right to oppose the war and disparaging worthwhile efforts to fix the mess it created. Hence, his dismissal of the surge as "a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder."
Advertisement







Comments (27)
Looks like USA Today hired McCain's copywriter for the article. Too bad they don't look a little deeper before dismissing Obama's position.
July 24, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
My sense this entire election season is that McNews is in the tank for McCain.
July 24, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG, you liberal elitists are so snarky. Without The Surge, there would be no American news. You'd have to get your news from Al Jazeera.
July 24, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism disagrees with you:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080721/ap_en_tv/ap_on_tv_obama_s_trip
July 24, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's like you're being willfully ignorant there. This is one of those stories about Obama that you're using to support your thesis that the media supports him. Do you honestly think this story indicates a pro-Obama bias?
I wouldn't be surprised if Fox News talks about Obama more than they talk about McCain, too. That doesn't mean they like Obama.
July 24, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fox News does! After watching Brit Hume and his panel bash Obama for the better part of an hour, I shouted at my TV, OK talk about McCain now! Most of the tickers on the bottom of the screen read, Obama (something negative).
July 25, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
You watched Fox News for over an hour?!? Be careful, that can get you labled as a troll around here...
July 25, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Words like 'strategy' and 'tactical' went right over their heads (and they're only news people, so the idea of researching what they meant was too outlandish for them), so they didn't get it.
July 24, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the purpose of the surge was to create space for a politicla solution, why is it that proponents of the surge recoil so ciolently from the political solution? What is the big deal about asseertihng the surge worked? So what? Whoever doubted that Ameican soldiers could prevail over rag-tag insurgents? But if the point of the surge was to allow those American soldiers to leave -- well?
July 24, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Answer: Obama. And more than once:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/07/020997.php
July 24, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's been pointed out to you before how these selective quotations are being taken out of context. And yet, you post them again.
July 24, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
When was that pointed out to me?
July 24, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
My mistake. It was pointed out to theCleverBulldog here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/big-brother-for-president.php#comments
July 25, 2008 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Obama was right about increased violence accompanying additional troops. You would do good to refer back to the timeline of the Iraq war, which can be found here.
The Surge officially began in March of 07. From that March until mid to late August, violence had actually increased. Iraqi deaths increased. Troop deaths increased. Etc. It wasn't until late August that Al Sadr called for a 6 month cease-fire to end the sectarian violence. And, no, he didn't do this because the surge was breathing down his neck, he did it to show his influence and for later use as a bargaining chip.
In Feb 08, about a month short of the 6 month cease-fire expiration date, violence began creeping back up by about 50%. Al Sadr stepped in again, and extended the cease-fire.
To quote McCain, "that's just a matter of history". And don't get me wrong, we all respect what the troops have done, what they continue to do. But we can't expect them to pull rabbits out of their asses, turn water to wine, or heal Iraq by militaristic means when political/diplomatic tactics are required. I mean... that would be a miracle, no?
July 25, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
July 25, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why can't George W. Bush admit he lied about the reasons to invade Iraq?
Why can't George W. Bush discipline his own staff for leaking the identity of a CIA agent with firings and/or convictions?
Why can't the GOP let go of the politics of fear and xenophobia?
These are the questions that came to mind when I saw this headline.
July 24, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
My Dad and uncles fought WWII. It worked (in much, much less time than Iraq!). They came home. If the surge worked, why aren't the troops back home where they belong?
July 24, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iraq is still a broken country. McCain admits that by being afraid to bring our Troops home now.
McCain wants to have it both ways: He wants to claim complete victory in Iraq, while at the same time claiming that we still have not defeated the enemy.
Call him Senator Janus McCain
July 24, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is that context that you cite that turn these statements by Obama into something other than distrust in the troop surge?
Enlighten us.
July 24, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are two parts to it:
(1) He was talking about the surge by itself. In the same speech that those excerpts come from, he specifically mentioned that you'd have to see help from the Sunnis and Shiites, as well. We did see that, so it helped.
(2) He was talking about the political solution, not just a temporary cessation in violence. I thought the point of the surge was to allow the Iraqi government room to meet the "benchmarks". Has that been successful by your reckoning?
July 25, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a very simple answer to their question and yours:
Because it didn't.
Was there another question?
July 25, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is lying about when the Surge began, because he knows that the Sunni turning against al Qaeda, long before The Surge was implemented, is what lowered the violence levels in Iraq. If the Sunni Insurgents had not stopped fighting, and they were still working with al Qaeda, even with the extra Surge Troops, Iraq would still be aflame.
McCain is lying about what really happened.
July 25, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
agreed. Awakening reduced violence.
It isn't clear to me what the surge has done.
July 25, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me point you to some examples of what happened, in previous times, with other historical surges where insurgencies had not first stopped their resistance campaigns: The British in Ireland 1916-1921. They surged over and over, and they still could not suppress the resistance from a a small number of dedicated freedom fighters. Keep in mind; this was when the British Empire was at it's globe spanning mightiest, and they were dealing with an uprising in a tiny nation just twenty miles across the sea from them.
Look at all the surges in Vietnam. How did they turn out.
Look at all the surges that the British tried in Ulster, against a very tiny Nationalist movement.
They all failed. It was only when the Nationalists called a ceasefire, and began to negotiate that violence subsided. All the British surges before that had failed.
July 25, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Worked at WHAT???? Prolonging our involvement there?
If the "surge" (ie. escalation) works, we need to stay there even longer to continue the success.
If it failed, we need to "surge" (ie. escalate) even more.
Is it me, or does endless involvement in Iraq seem like the answer to every question??
If there's a real strategy here other than just eagerness to stay in Iraq indefinitely, I can't find it.
July 25, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The surge -- to what end? And I mean "end" as in clear US strategic interest.
We've spent TRILLIONS of dollars and THOUSANDS of lives. What for??
For crying out loud, is there *any reporter* with cajones in the whole freakin' US media who can ask this simple question of McJerk for a change, instead of just cowering in the back of the Bullshit Express?
MSM = total gutless weasels
July 25, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
My Friends,
Once again I am very disappointed in Senator Obama. In his speech in Berlin, he failed to credit MY SURGE for having made the 1948 Berlin Airlifts possible.
Did I mention that MY SURGE can also remove Warts, and Bird Shit from car paint.
MY SURGE: There is nothing it can not do.
Sincerely,
Ye Olde War Monger,
Senator Janus McCain
July 25, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment