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.

[Fredric Dennis Williams]

In case no one is listening, Would-Be President Obama is talking about a new surge -- in Afghanistan! I have no doubt he is as ignorant on the history and culture of Afghanistan as Bush was on the history and culture of Iraq. If Senator, Would-Be President, Obama takes office, he will expand the U.S. involvement in a War in Afghanistan which helped bring down the U.S.S.R. in the 1980s.

This war has gone on for nearly thirty years. Now Obama thinks an increase in involvement will bring it to an end. Perhaps he thinks he is the Messiah, and that his appalling ignorance on all the important issues -- war, the economy, international trade, health care -- are no problem at all. I can't agree.

The only trouble is that McCain lacks the intelligence to choose a wiser action, has no more useful knowledge than Obama, and has a bias for more war rather than less.

So, we have a choice between two fools.

[Ivek]

The change in strategy - rapprochement with the Sunnis - is what turned the tide and not the Surge. Petraeus, or whoever, should be commended for finally seeing the light!

[twiggy]

how many ways can you ask and have the same question answered is my question.
common sense would tell any sane person the surge helped curb the violence - but it did not accomplish drawing the troops closer to a date to exit.
common sense is all you need unless of course you are looking to twist, spin, or manipulate the answer given and regiven and regiven. which is exactly what some are trying to do.
too bad for those who refuse to accept an honest answer coming from an honest man.

[Kathy]

The article makes a good point, he will eventually have to provide a better answer for "the surge", especially when the debates begin, and I hope to God he does because we cannot lose this election to McBush!

[Peter J]

I honestly don't get what is so hard to understand with Obama's statements. He supports ending this war by systematically withdrawing troops. As a result, he would not support the surge. It's obvious that increasing troops as a result of the surge would help to suppress violence as Obama acknowledges. To ask him to predict what would have happened without a surge is impossible to say, but his point is to get Iraq to be held responsible for their own security as soon as possible. Maybe that is what would have happened without a surge. His message is to present a focus on withdrawal and the message that Iraq must now be responsible for their country. Is this that difficult to understand?

[MaryJ]

Obama can't talk without a Teleprompter. This is becoming more and more apparent every day. McCain is a moron. We are totally screwed!

[RealityCheck]

Unlike Couric and the LA Times, Obama appreciates the idea of tradeoffs.

America's resources are not infinite. Yes, we could pacify Iraq by arming the entire state of California and shipping them over. But should we?

Our military goal is to protect America, not stabilize Iraq. Afghanistan is more important than Iraq to protecting America. Because our resources are not infinite, we need to get out of Iraq to put money and men into Afghanistan.

Obama is saying as much. It's not clear what's not clear about this..

[captbilly]

I am really encouraged to see that so many Americans actually get it about the surge. Basically the answer is: to some extent putting more troops into Iraq has provided some extra security, but the cost in dollars and soldiers is making it impossible for the US to do really important things elsewhere. There have been lots of good analogies posted already but I would add one of my own, if we had sent 2 million troops to Vietnam rather than 1 million, we certainly could have decreased the number of attacks in South Vietnam, but would it ultimately have made any difference to the final outcome?

[Ron]

McCain's idea of waging a war is to just keep throwing money and soldiers at it until you win.... in this case you don't win s*h*i*t . Barack Obama should have asked Katie why CBS edited McCain's answer on the surge to make him look good. Why hasn't the media stepped up and exposed McCain as a fraud for trying to take credit for this surge, when he wasn't the person who called for it ? He thought that it would be good to take credit for it. I can't wait for the first debate when John McCain starts squirming. McCain is illiterate and an idiot and it shows every time he opens his mouth

[dave]

both candidates presently put forward as presumptive nominees do not legally or otherwise qualify to run for office. not for one minute do they care about what is in the interest of the america people. they both have tapped into an unexhaustable source of venomous lies and deception, having sold out and subscribed completely to an agenda that is aimed at enslaving the human race to a caste of power obsessed international tyrants. their sorry reward: the empty promise of their 'promotion' to the ranks of these delusional self-declared 'gods'. the only chance for the american people to take back america and their freedom, is to follow their constitution. time is running out.

[tony848]

I'm sorry but it seesm pretty clear what he is saying. It's her that doesn't get it. You guys are just trying to nail him. His position is clear.

[Rick]

As a contractor in Iraq, I have seen how the surge has changed this country dramatically. The proof is everywhere especially in Baghdad . BIAP, which resembled a vacant dilapidated building just one year ago is operating as a normal functioning airport again. Al Queada in Iraq is almost defeated in Baghdad and Anbar where they used to rule, and only operating in Mosul now. Sen. Obama's comments are textbook of what a politician might say to save face when something they were opposed to becomes a booming success. Anyone can see he is minimizing the success of the surge is preferred over actually defeating Al Queda in Iraq. I think he is a very smart man and astute politician but also truly understands what is at stake here. He has to say these things now to get votes, but I assure you once in the White House he will change his position.

[Brian]

The war doesn't suddenly become right because the "surge" is working. That's like saying Hitler's invasion of Poland was right because it was so strategically successful. The war is wrong, whether we are able to pacify the Iraqis and plunder their oil or not.

And also - regardless of the "surge's" success- the British have fought this war already in Iraq twice and once with Iran, and guess what? They still lost even after pacifying the resistance fighters and installing a pro-Western government - OBVIOUSLY or we wouldn't be back here 100 years later trying the same stunt again. By the way, the British were shamelessly after oil concessions - which they also, briefly got - and this has been going on ever since the fall of the Ottomans nearly 100 years ago - a century of exploitation and invasion that has fostered this malcontent we call "terrorism." Get real America - this is the sort of behavior that buries nations.

[indi]

For the anti-war liberals, where is the outrage when Obama is opening up another front in Afghanistan? In fighting the war in Afghanistan, is he going to set a time table for withdrawal, say 16 months? How is he going to convince people that the war in Afghanistan, the money and cost of life will all be worthwhile? Where is the media's scrutiny? If we withdrew from Iraq, how does he know that those foreign fighters won't go to Afghanistan to continue fighting the US? To say that we are fighting the wrong war and that Iraq war and Afghan war are separate wars is just amazing. He really is just trying to say "Hey, I do have some opinions about this war on terrorist." He is not willing to say that the surge is successful. He is just trying to spin it so that he doesn't look so bad. And worse, he is also trying to take the credit. Timetable is being talked about now because of the progress made in Iraq. But he is saying that "look, everybody is agreeing with the timetable concept." Timetable is not the issue. The issue is still that what he wants is an artificial timetable whether we win or lose. While Bush and the Iraqi' timetable is withdraw when the war is won. The liberal doesn't want to make the distinction, they just want to spin. Ask the Iraqi, do you like the US to withdraw? YES. Do you want US to just leave, no matter what. NO.

[YC]

The strategy of the surge was to place our troops closer to the Iraqi people by setting up small posts in the population. It eventually led the Iraqis to come out and work with the troops. It's all about having your back covered. If there wasn't such Amercian support, I think we would be looking at a very different outcome. As smart and slick as Obama he knows the surge was the key for the turn around - he just can't admit it because he is afterall a politician posing to be clueless here. It seems Obama wanted the war to fail since that would be his sure ticket to the White House. He lost my respect here.

[Big Headline here]

Each time I see a headline with a big slam on McCain I can be sure there will be no place to comment. Only the reasonable articles have space to comment - thanks for keeping your article balanced.

Lets try a few examples from the front page, then we will reverse the names to see if it feels any different:

'Obama lavished with airtime - and criticism' now the switch
'McCain lavished with airtime - and criticism'

'Obama buys expensive ads for the Olympics' now the switch

'McCain buys expensive ads for the Olympics

And one more -
'Obama calls the commander in chief role an art not a science.' and
'McCain calls the commander in chief role an are not a science.'

[Ramadi 2006 Veteran]

It amazes me that every comment here is baseless- none of you have any proof or experience to speak from- only your personal opinion!

This is the reality- the "surge" in Ramadi first began in 2005 when 2/28 Infantry Brigade (Pennsylvania NG) experienced a significant increase in insurgent attacks as Al Qaeda moved from Fallujah to Ramadi. I MEF (the Marine controlling force in Anbar) directed more units to Ramadi, including more armor (3/69 AR to the east), and later 1/506 Infantry of the 101st ABN. I MEF and 2/28 prepped Ramadi for a surge which began in late May of 2006 with the arrival of a new active duty armor brigade (1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division). BG MacFarland followed a previously successful strategy by deploying troops into outposts across the city over the next 6 months. This was THE BLUEPRINT for the 2007 Surge in Baghdad. (Please excuse the oversimplification if you were there)

Contrary to every fairy tale told by the NY/LA Times, etc., the Sunnis were not rolling over to join up with US forces against Al Qaeda in 2006. The insurgents, and criminal gangs, had extensive freedom of movement throughout the city until the COPs started being built across the city. By August, the US was able to convince 9- yes, NINE, Iraqi tribal sons to attend police training. At the same time, CPT Travis Patriquin and others worked ON A DAILY BASIS to try and get the tribal leaders to send more males to police training and work with the US forces. Because of the environment of increased security created by US forces, one particular event (Al Qaeda killing another tribal leader on Aug 21) tipped the Sunnis in favor of working with coalition forces. The next month, the tribes sent 10x as many males to train as police. This increased month after month as US forces trained the "sons of Anbar" at the Phoenix Academy at Camp Ramadi. Sunni and US forces then worked together through Spring 2007 to finally defeat the majority of remaining Al Qaeda forces.

Senator McCain was IN RAMADI in 2006. He knows full well what went on, how, and when. For those of you have no clue of what you're talking about- EVERY COMMENTATOR ABOVE- making things up because your personal opinion has clouded the facts of what actually happened on the ground - please do not denigrate the value of the lives of my friends who were lost TAKING BACK RAMADI from Al Qaeda during the surge in 2006. The fighting there equal any during the initial invasion or fallujah, and the security established across the city because of the 2006 surge operations provided the direct conduit for the Sunnis to have reason to work with US forces.

For Senator Obama, who WAS NOT IN RAMADI IN 2006, there never would have been a Sunni reconciliation without the 2006 Surge. Al Qaeda had so influenced the everyday Iraqis on the streets of Ramadi that they could not have stood up to these killers who never hesitated to murder those who wouldn't support them. Looking ahead, go beyond what the Shiite-led government leaders are saying in their support of Obama, and listen to what the Sunnis are saying. If the two sides disagree now, imagine what the day will be like when those troops are gone before a more conciliatory government with more equal representation is established. Recent history and sectarian killings provide pretty clear examples of what could be. When we leave early and Iraq falls apart, will you then say we left TOO EARLY???

[Rob Opulencia]

Whatever position Obama had taken on the surge, there's no way he could lose. Call it a stroke of luck!

If the surge had not worked, he would have been right all along to oppose it.

Now that the indications are that it has contributed to the lull in violence, he can claim that his timetable of 16 months to withdraw American forces in Iraq is just right and there's no need to stay a day longer.

But keep flip-flopping Barack! Whatever suits the American public, do as they see fit. Then, when you are in the White House, you can serve the interests of partisan politics.

Politics is dirty but it's there for good reasons.

[Democrats 08]

If anyone is stupid enough to believe that what we have done in Iraq and are still doing there has somehow made the USA and our allies safer, they should really just go build a house over in Iraq and make themselves right at home. America has fallen and the ying yangs of the world are gravely concerned about Iraq. President Idiot Bush cares more about what happens in Iraq than HIS OWN COUNTRY. It is time to LEAVE there, we have dome what we could, we are bleeding, and it is time to stop our bleeding before we are all bled to death here in our OWN country. Obama is the man. McCain is a loser and so is his failed idiot destructive party.

[Democrats 08]

"For the anti-war liberals, where is the outrage when Obama is opening up another front in Afghanistan"

There is no outrage, although some Liberal minded folks don't like it, the point is that Obama is doing what 90% of America wanted all along, supporting an actual REAL war on terrorism. As we all know President Stupid Idiot Bush couldn't even figure out which country was which when he bombed Iraq after 9-11. Bush is a complete and total failure, it is a wonder the man even knows which end to stick in the toilet when he defecates.

[Tim_CA]

Are you people kidding me? You goofballs have to be the last 20 people who still subscribe to this feeble old leftist rag (I've always sort of wondered).

How about you drop the partisan BS and just admit that your Messiah once again got caught saying something that has been proven wrong? Some of these posts are absolutely ludicrous. The junior senator is actually laughable in the Couric interview and yet you jokers spin away in useful idiot mode.

And before you start throwing flames, I'm not a McCain fan. I trust that tired old RINO about as far as I can throw Al Gore (whats up with that...are Carbon Credits actually edible?).

His liberal leanings aside, (I won't argue ideology with you people, you're too plugged into "the party" to answer in anything but "talking points speak") do you really want another President who's too arrogant to just admit that someone else may have been right about something (talk about four more years of Bush - sheesh)?

Anyhow, please go back to trying to spin the Empty Suit out of this, the sane among us (i.e. those of us who drink neither party's partisan kool-aid), will continue to watch..... and laugh.

[Disgusted with Obama]

Thank you very much Katie Couric, for finally TRYING to get that weasel to answer a question. 4 times Obama was asked, but still doesn't give a clear answer.

Obama knows he was wrong for opposing the surge, but doesn't have the balls to admit it. Obama can only speak in front of a teleprompter, using the script written by his 400 advisors. This country doesn't need a rookie politician doing on-the-job training.

[MKochinski]

So, if the surge was a success, we can leave now, right? The mission was accomplished, right?

As far as I can tell, the Republican plan is: We can't leave now because things are getting worse, and we can't leave now because things are getting better.

We'll leave when the Iraqis tell us to, except when they tell us to, because they don't know what's best for them.

We'll listen to the generals on the ground, except for the ones who disagree with us, whom we'll "retire."

When do we leave? When the Iraqis are all holding hands and singing Kumbaya? (And conservatives call liberals naive.)

And to the people who clearly don't understand - the front is already open in Afghanistan, we've been fighting there for longer than Iraq, and currently we are losing ground to the Taliban. You might remember them, they were harboring Bin Ladin, who actually might have attacked the United States, unlike Iraq. There was justification for invading Afghanistan, and we never finished the job.

As it stands, we seem to be leaving both countries in worse shape than they were in before we invaded.

There are some additional failures of the surge -
Electricity and clean water levels are still below pre-invasion levels. The laws required for the surge to be a success have not been passed.

Violence is down , and that is good. We honor our soldiers for achieving exactly what they can and should - military solutions. Unfortunately, for the surge to actually succeed, we need political solutions.

[MKochinski]

Ramadi veteran - I appreciate and thank you for the service of you and your friends. I also thank you for the perspective you offer. However, I think we are talking about different things here.

The surge, as we define it, cannot of begun in 2005.

The surge was sending additional troops to Iraq, not shifting soldiers from one location to another. While the strategy might have been born there, the actual surge did not begin until after 2006, after the elections, when the American people were expecting a draw-down in Iraq and instead Bush announced an escalation.

But the goal of the surge was not simply a lull in violence, even if is good that we have achieved this.

It is sad that the standard for success has become so low that we have to cheer a lull in violence at the mere cost of 18 months, hundreds of billions of dollars, hundreds of our soldiers, and an unknown amount of dead Iraqis. This is in addition to the cost of the Iraq war before the surge.

This is what Obama means. Success in Iraq has never been a military problem. Our soldiers accomplished their missions heroically time after time. We are keeping them in harm's way because the problem is political, and we have no way to make the Iraqis cease their internal strife. The "leaders" we have attempted to foist on them have failed and lack the ability to solve their own problems. Until someone steps up in Iraq, we seem doomed to keep our soldiers there, policing another country, successfully doing the only thing they can - keeping the violence down.

I can't consider the surge a success, it's only a temporary band-aid until the Iraqis get their act together.

[MKochinski]

"Are you people kidding me? You goofballs have to be the last 20 people who still subscribe to this feeble old leftist rag (I've always sort of wondered)."

:) You still seem to be here, Tim.

"(I won't argue ideology with you people, you're too plugged into "the party" to answer in anything but "talking points speak") "

Gee, project much?

[juan]

Obama said that not only would the surge not work, but the additional troops would cause MORE VIOLENCE!
Now he says it is obvious that adding troops always helps???

[MKochinski]

Juan wrote:
"Obama said that not only would the surge not work, but the additional troops would cause MORE VIOLENCE!"

And for 16 of the 18 months of the surge so far, he was correct.

The current lull may very well be temporary, too.

[Pemdun]

Whatever, adding or reducing troops, I saw Obama at live coverage at al-Jazeera TV (l live in Indonesia), speaking to thousands of Berliners, talking to heads of states who are willing to hear him.
Trust, is key to solve US war problems. We are going to banish war from our world. We want economic and global brotherhood of humanity, not Christian or Islam, nor figure like Bush or McBush anymore!

[Michael]

I for one could care less about "the surge". Is that all people care about with all the problems we have right now?

If you media types had paid this much attention to Bush and Co's lies before Iraq, we would not need to talk about "the surge"

How much is McSurge paying you to push this drivel?

[Robert]

If you think the surge had much to do with the reduction of violence in Iraq, think again. Even Obama falsely concedes that the surge worked, but it had little to do with it. Take a look at this article from Reuters that covers research by satellite that shows the reduction in violence was largely due to elimination of Sunni populations through ethnic cleansing via violent death and the relocation of those fleeing violent death:

[www.reuters.com]

This and other factors quoted here from another article:

"The vaunted decline in violence must also be put in perspective. There are still more than 575 attacks a week, well more than 2,000 a month. The number of attacks has declined only to early 2006 levels, one of the deadliest years of the war. Moreover, the drop cannot necessarily be attributed to the US military presence. As American officials on the ground have admitted, the move by Sunni groups to rein in Al Qaeda has made a huge difference. So has the decision by Muqtada al-Sadr to order his militia to stand down. Iran is also said to have used its influence to curb the violence by certain Shiite militias. They all had their reasons, unrelated to the American strategy, for trying to quell the violence.

"There is also an ugly flip side to the recent calm, which is that the surge was preceded and accompanied by a surge in sectarian cleansing. Thus any drop-off in violence reflects the fact that much of the ethnic cleansing that was part of that violence has already taken place--entire neighborhoods in Baghdad, for example, have been emptied of their Sunni residents. In this sense the worst of the civil war may be over--and it took place on America's watch. Another possible explanation of the lull is that the Iraqi population has been decimated, with hundreds of thousands of war deaths and massive refugee flight, 26,000 detained by US forces and thousands more languishing in Iraqi prisons."

For the complete article, go to:
[www.thenation.com]

Very importantly, the Sadr stand down and Sunni about face both began just before the surge. Yes, The Nation is a progressive, "liberal" publication, but they are citing well-documented FACTS here that are easy to confirm, but which so many Republican airheads want to ignore just because their favorite media won't talk about them and because they think anything a progressive publication says is suspect, no matter how well documented or incontrovertible. Inconvenient facts don't seem to bother people who make up their minds first and then look only at the ideas that support their views.

Unfortunately the parties on both sides of this mess tend to operate this way. This is NOT a good thing for democracy, which to operate well depends on an informed and reasonably intelligent citizenry. Republicans who operate this way are great fodder for what FAUX News infotainment pukes out. Some FOX employees have testified that every morning FOX editors brief their newscasters on what spin to put on that day's news. Heaven help us! When are we going to wake up and cease to be a nation of blind sheep who will sacrifice themselves for the very people who sucker them with this kind of garbage? Some of these "brave" sheep are clearly here on this blog.