Barack Obama and the surge -- new, improved answer needed

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

Photo: AFP / Getty Images

Comments

[wisco]

This is nuts. McCain's definition of what the surge is changes depending on the day of the week. Yesterday, the surge was critical to Anbar province, where Arab sheiks were basically clamping down on al Queda, and the security of the troops was "protecting" those sheiks. All before the surge was announced. And then the sheiks started getting assassinated, while the surge was underway in Baghdad. Today, according to McCain, the surge was just an extension of the Anbar strategy to Baghdad. Um, OK, but where were all those sheiks in Baghdad? The surge appears to be whatever McCain wants it to be; how is someone supposed to go on record in favor or against that?

[Really?]

Umm...CBS edited McCain's response to the question Katie asked him about the surge to cover up the fact that McCain has NO IDEA what he's talking about and this is your coverage???
This is a huge story...what's wrong with you???

[Bill Riley]

OBAMA WILL WIN!
Obama supports unions
Workers in telecommunications, broadcasting, journalism, newspapers and broadcast stations are all union employees. The media is bias, and the media will win.

ABC network
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?name=&state=&zip=&employ=abc&cand=obama&c2008=Y&sort=N&capcode=qkktk&submit=Submit

CBS network
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?name=&state=&zip=&employ=cbs&cand=obama&c2008=Y&sort=N&capcode=qkktk&submit=Submit

NBC network
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?name=&state=&zip=&employ=nbc&cand=obama&c2008=Y&sort=N&capcode=qkktk&submit=Submit

Communications Workers of America
Communications Workers of America represents 740,000 workers in telecommunications, broadcasting, journalism and other fields. The union’s members work for companies such as AT&T, General Electric and many of the nation’s top newspapers and broadcast stations. The union lobbies on a number of workplace issues, including health benefits, social security and prescription drug coverage. The union has also been a strong supporter of proposals to lift federal regulations and allow regional telephone companies to enter the long-distance market and offer high-speed Internet access.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000075

[g.a. browne]

The surge was a factor. But can not stand alone as the only factor for reduced violence. The sunnis and shiite were as important as 30,000 extra troops.
If Obama has to admit the surge has helped. Then Bush and McCain have to admit that 4000 Americans died in Iraq for all their mistakes from the beginning. As i remember Bush stood on an aircraft carrier and declared "mission accomplished". Then the real fighting began almost immediately after that. And yet Bin Laden is still free. Aphganistan is now falling into chaos. Why are we in Iraq? Answert that McCain.

[Paul Stewart]

The majority of Americans agree pretty much that Iraq was a mind boggling mistake. The question about the surge, repeated over and over, is really just splitting hairs about a small part that contributed to changing the level of violence, in the hope of then pretending that somehow going there and wasting all the lives and money is somehow redeemed. The answer given by Obama is just making that point. If you don't get it, its because you do not want to. Thats all.

Why is it that the critics lack perspective on this matter and want to focus on the "microcosmic" issue as Katie puts it? I think they are just playing "gotcha" politics - as usual! And anyway, Obama is too smart for them. It is depressing that the questions posed are not about how does Obama see dealing with the mess and saving America's sorry a*s from its own intransigence and false pride.

I believe that Obama will have no problem on this micro question as long as he keeps putting his answer into the perspective that the majority of Americans already understand. Such as he did with Katie. The narrow minded "Foxy" "gotcha" types are going to be starved of their petty "micro-gotcha" moment and any false sense of redemption for the lives and money lost on this tragic mistake. May they live with an eternal sense of frustration on this micro point.

[k.]

what none of the anti-war movement supporters (and perhaps liberals in general) seem to understand is that war is anything but static. requirements of one day can quite literally be the exact opposite of what is required the next day. liberals and obama are seeking an incredibly simple solution to an incredibly complex problem, and this won't fly with anyone who's not a tool in the race wars, a partisan drone, or a sheltered white-guilt rich kid. obama is a slippery, slippery man and i can't believe people still hail him as some sort of messiah. he is a POLITICIAN, and any politician who tries to set himself up as something else - and even more worrysome; one who succeeds! - is lying to the american public and himself as well.

i only hope people will realize this.

[ANC]

Obama's point is pretty basic and I'm surprised no one seems to get it. Here's a simple example:

Say I bet all my money on the number 12 on the roulette table and say 12 comes up and I win big time. Does that mean my decision was a brilliant one or a really dumb one?

[Paul Shepherd]

I don't understand what there isn't to understand about Obama's comments and his stance. If you put billions of dollars and thousands of troops anywhere in the world - - including planting trees in Africa - - of course they are going to have a positive impact and be "successful." Obama is saying that the surge has had some success, but that money and/or those troops would have had a more positive impact elsewhere. If you believe as I do (and no one knows for sure) that Iraq is better off without our foreign occupancy, and you believe our troops have more important missions elsewhere (e.g. Afghanistan), then Obama's position and his conversation with Couric makes total sense.

[Marc from San Diego]

McCain is working with selective memory. He is whining like an old man. He looked more natural in retirement with Bush I on the golf cart. I for one, am tired of history being rearranged whether intentional or not - McCain seems to have learned this trick from Bush. But above all - Mr McCain - stop your whining - you keep making the same point over and over again as if the American Public is too stupid to figure out what you are saying. Old men tend to have made up their minds and remember things the way they want - and make pronouncements on everyone and how they should conduct their lives. Some of us don't believe you have it all figured out. Stop whining - its annoying.

[MKochinski]

Your attempt to twist Obama's stand is disingenuous at best. Yes, he admits the additional soldiers reduced the violence. However, the point of the surge was to achieve political reconciliation. Therefor, the surge has reduced violence, but it has failed to achieve its purpose.

Is the reduction of violence a good thing? Of course. Can we credit our soldiers? Absolutely. We also benefited from an alliance with some Iraqi leaders, and from the fact that a lot of the ethnic cleansing appears to been completed.

It's sad to see the Times be so blatantly partisan in its attempts to be "fair" and "balanced" instead of factual.

[Kate Cooper]

Prove it! Prove the surge was responsible for the Field conditions today. Prove it! You can't is jusr more media hype and political junk talk.

[McCain is a panderer]

"His position doesn't make any sense. ... He thinks it worked, but it wasn't necessarily a good idea"

Is Mark Halperin really that thick or is he just being ingenuous? I could spend $1M to have someone watch my car for the night. If my car wasn't stolen that night then it worked. That still doesn't mean that it was a good idea to do it.

[david K]

I'm surprised the Obama campaign is falling into the Republican trap. Engaging in the minutia about the surge is a waste of precious time and energy. Obama beat Hillary by having the foresight and judgement to be against the war in the first place. This was has cost American lives, and made us less secure and poorer. Americans, Iraqi's...the world wants us out. McCain, of course, supported the surge because he was a major supporter of the war in the first place. If the violence had kept up, his campaign wouldn't have stood a chance.
All Obama has to do is keep reminding everyone that he was against the worst foreign policy disaster in American history.

[Ken Siqueland]

The longer I listen to Obama the more amazed I am. It's not the good kind of amazement.

[Bill Sanford]

Time magazine's Mark Halperin seems very biased, or a little thick. "His position doesn't make any sense. ... He thinks it worked, but it wasn't necessarily a good idea."
It seems clear that Senator Obama thinks the surge contributed to reducing the violence, but that he thinks his plan of diplomacy would have accomplished the same goal, but in a manner that would have lasted, without extended troop presence. McCain's surge accomplished the short term goal of reducing violence, but will only be affective as long as those troops stay in Iraq.

[JIM PETTIT]

Let's see.......Fox, Fox, CBN, and Bill Bennett. I guess that's fair and balanced reporting for some media outlets.

[Dave Walstrom]

Question that needs media attention is to what degree has the surge worked because the U.S. is paying big bucks to the Shia and Sunis to not engage the troops?
Paying the enemy not to fight us. What a concept.
No wonder the surge is working.

[arbaron]

Obama failed to say the words perfectly, but the idea should be clear:
Put $10 billion and lots of manpower into ANYTHING and it will be effective. The surge was effective. But because that money wasn't put elsewhere, the something else didn't happen. If instead of the surge, a major turning point had been achieved by putting resources in Afghanistan or in domestic issues, then everybody would be cheering about THAT success.
A simple analogy: if a business spent a lot of money to build a new lobby and patrons and administration enjoyed it, you would have to admit that the lobby works. But that doesn't conflict at all with claiming that you still wish the money would have been spent on something else that you might feel was more important.
To put it simply, if the money and troops for the surge didn't keep that from being used elsewhere, he would have supported it. He doesn't think it was bad in itself only that other things were/are more important. It's a complex discussion, but we at least we can fairly interpret Obama's statements and not spin them into something they aren't. You don't need to agree with his views, but that aren't irrational or unclear.

[paul]

Obama doesn't want to admit he was wrong when he voted against the Surge. Instead of talking in circles in this interview, he should have just admitted the surge seemed to work. He should be glad something was finally effective... because that supports bringing the
troops home sooner.

[Lauri]

Oh geeze. This surge thing is so out of control. First off, why is it so hard for the Neocons to give some credit to the Sunnis and Shias for getting their country back under control and we were just there to support them with our Surge.

It is their country, why does it always have to be about us?

[Matt Wood]

Obama is making a relatively simple point: Just because the surge "worked" by reducing violence in Iraq, it doesn't follow that it was the best strategic decision. He's basically pointing to opportunity costs: We can do one thing that works produces X benefits, or another that produces 5X benefits. In a world of finite resources, this kind of thinking is inevitable. Because Katie's grasp of the issues surrounding the surge is limited to whether it "worked" or not (in a narrow tactical sense), she interprets his critical stance as a rejection of it working. I hate to sound condescending (and I'm sure I wouldn't be able to think very clearly in front of a television camera either), but she seems unable to hold two ideas in her head at the same time: the surge "worked", but it wasn't the right strategic decision. Consequently, her repetitive questioning makes Obama look bad by testing his patience. On the other side of the ledger though, Obama deserves some criticism too. For all his vaunted communication skills, he failed in this interview to convey the idea succinctly and persuasively. I think it is ultimately a persuasive point, and one that would force McCain to debate grand strategy rather than Iraq war tactics - precisely where Obama's strengths probably lie.

[MKochinski]

In June of 2008, the Government Accounting Office released a report - ignored by most of the media - evaluating the progress in Iraq based on the goals the administration laid out in January 2007 when it undertook the surge.

According to the non-partisan report, only nine out of 18 provinces are controlled by the Iraqi government, when the goal of the surge was to have all 18 provinces under control by the end of 2007.

The actual purpose of the surge was to create "breathing space" for the Iraqi government to enact laws to bring the country together. President Bush said in January 2007 that the Iraqi government would be held to benchmarks, and if the government did not meet these goals, U.S. support would cease.

The Iraqi government has failed to achieve the benchmarks set. Violence has gone down, yes - after rising in April and May. Has the surge succeeded?

Not by any of the standards set at its beginning.

[John]

McCain is making a false argument by saying that the surge worked. There is no evidence for or against it working because there is no measure of success. When you measure success in car bombs and executions, you lose every time. If last year there were 5 million murders and this year there are only 1 million, one might argue that they are just running out of people to murder, bad weather, cooperation of Iraqis - or the surge. Whatevers clever.

Its all just a big distraction from The Big Problem: there is no "win" in Iraq. When have we won? What do we have to do to get the hell out, anyway? Run out of money? Run out of soldiers? Both options approach at terrible speed. I'd say we already achieved all the faux-victory we can - the oil was liberated and they hung Saddam. What a sham.

There's nothing McCain can say to get my vote, and I'm a registered Republican. Maybe Dr. Paul, but never McCain.

[noel robinson]

3 reasons why we know the surge didn't work: It was anounced well ahead of time - where, when how many , etc.giving Sadr and others the opportunity to flee and come back later. Most of the ethnic cleansing that caused much of the violence was complete, and the Sunnis rejected alegence to Al Qaeda especially after Al Qaeda murdered thousands of innocents

[Sean M]

What I don't understand is how the commentators are confused. What Barack is talking about is the effect of one decision, out of many possible decisions, and the alternatives decisions that weren't taken in a basic benefit/cost comparison. We choose option 'a', it was a 'good' option, but options 'b' or 'c' or 'd' may have been 'better' options. He can't go back and undo history to prove his hypothesis, but he is willing to admit that the option chosen had benefits - even if those benefits weren't as great as the possible benefits from alternative actions. This is not rocket science!

Of course, when you look at who the commentators were, you realize that they aren't trying to understand what Barack is actually saying, they just want to spin it in the conservative Christians' favor. Barack has shown his willingness to honestly listen to people he doesn't agree with; to bad these commentators can't do the same.