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

[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?