Opinion: Barack Obama and the surge -- new, improved answer needed
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
If Barack Obama’s message team draws one lesson from his current foreign jaunt, it almost assuredly should be this: When he finally shares a stage with John McCain, he’s got to provide a better answer than he’s been offering on whether last year’s surge in U.S. troop deployment in Iraq can be considered a success and whether he was wrong to oppose it.
He can’t concede the latter; the base of the Democratic Party would never stand for it. But he’ll need to parry the grilling he can expect on the matter from McCain -- the surge’s most notable political advocate -- more deftly than he did when pressed on the subject by CBS’ Katie Couric in an interview that aired Tuesday.
Here’s how that went, for those who missed it:
Couric: ‘You raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, ‘Why?’ ‘
Obama: ‘What I was referring to, and I’ve consistently referred to, is the need for a strategy that actually concludes our involvement in Iraq and moves Iraqis to take responsibility for the country. ... What happens is that if we continue to put $10 billion to $12 billion a month into Iraq, if we are willing to send as many troops as we can muster continually into Iraq? There’s no doubt that that’s gonna have an impact. But it doesn’t meet our long-term strategic goal, which is to make the American people safer over the long term.’ Couric: ‘But do you not give the surge any credit for reducing violence in Iraq?’ Obama: ‘No, no ... of course I have. There is no doubt that the extraordinary work of our U.S. forces has contributed to a lessening of the violence. ... So this, in no way, detracts from the great efforts of our young men and women in uniform. In fact, that’s one of the most striking things about visiting Iraq is to see how dedicated they are, what a great job they do.’ Couric: ‘But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000....
...additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?’
Obama: ‘You’ve asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There’s no doubt.’ Couric: ‘But yet you’re saying ... given what you know now, you still wouldn’t support it ... so I’m just trying to understand this.’ Obama: ‘It’s pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that’s money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan.’ Couric: ‘Do you think the level of security in Iraq ... would exist today without the surge?’ Obama: ‘Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there’s no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq.’
And here, courtesy of the National Journal’s Hotline political report, is how some commentators reacted to Obama’s meandering response:
Time magazine’s Mark Halperin, on Fox News channel’s ‘O’Reilly Factor’: ‘His position doesn’t make any sense. ... He thinks it worked, but it wasn’t necessarily a good idea.’ Politico.com’s Mike Allen, on Fox’s ‘Hannity & Colmes’: Obama ‘is trying to walk a fine line here. He is taking advantage of or benefiting from the results of the surge that he opposed.’ Christian Broadcast Network’s David Brody, on CNN’s ‘Situation Room’: ‘The squirming by Obama on the surge talk is clearly not good for him or his campaign.’ Conservative activist Bill Bennett, also on the ‘Situation Room’: ‘I thought it was odd, kind of intransigent.’
It’s no surprise that Bennett or Brody would find fault with Obama’s answer. And overall, the exchange with Couric was a minor blip in a trip that so far has been judged by most a triumph.
Still, the stakes will be huge when Obama has to walk that fine line on the surge that Allen referred to when he squares off with McCain as a huge television audience of U.S. voters takes it all in.
-- Don Frederick