Barack Obama is Right about the Surge
By Nick Gier, Unfiltered 8-05-08
 | |
|
BARACK OBAMA IS RIGHT ABOUT THE SURGE
By Nick Gier (nickgier@adelphia.net)
The McCain campaign is running ads slamming Obama for his position on the surge, which McCain claims has been a great success in a justified war, but which Obama correctly describes as a "tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder."
The current situation in Iraq--much lower American and Iraqi casualties-- would look very different if two other events had not occurred: (1) the decision of tens of thousands of Sunni insurgents to take $300 per month from Uncle Sam instead of fighting us; and (2) the year-long ceasefire declared by the Shiite Mahdi Army.
Without these two developments Obama's prediction that the surge would have intensified sectarian violence may well have come true. It is important to note that neither of these developments required extra American troops. Instead, they came about by diplomacy and good will, not by military action.
It is also likely that both the Sunni alliance and the Mahdi ceasefire could have held during a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops. Very few surge troops were sent to Anbar Province, so the relative calm there is essentially a Sunni achievement.
For one who claims the advantage of commanding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, candidate McCain doesn't always have his facts straight. Recently he stated that Shiite Iran was training Al Qaeda jihadists (not true of course), and he also talked about a non-existent Iraqi-Pakistani border. He has also claimed that Sunni militants switched sides because of the surge.
The fact is that the Sunni Sahwa (Awakening) began in August 2006, six months before the surge was announced. In early 2006 Sunni leaders in Anbar province proposed a plan for money and arms with a promise to liquidate Al Qaeda, but the American military initially turned them down. The Iraqis had never liked the presence of foreign jihadists, and they became more and more outraged at their indiscriminate killing.
We have to remember that there were no Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq until President Bush offered his infamous "Bring Them On!" invitation. Primarily because of the cooperation of 80,000 Sahwa fighters, Al Qaeda in Iraq has been set back dramatically.
Even though they have protected their towns successfully, the Sahwa forces are not happy. The Shiite dominated central government does not recognize them, and refuses to remove Shiite governors who discriminate against them. The Sahwa also complain about not being paid on time and not being integrated into the Iraqi security forces.
Muqtada Al-Sadr, leader of the Shiite Mahdi Army, has been consistently anti-American from the beginning of the 2003 invasion, and his forces have engaged in fierce battles with U.S. troops and competing Shiite militias. Al-Sadr's call for a ceasefire in August 2007 drew praise from Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond, who said that Al-Sadr's "decision to order the freeze has been most honorable."
All throughout 2007 U.S. and Iraqi troops built barriers between Shia and Sunni enclaves. They also went door to door disarming the populace, mainly Sunnis. This led to a substantial Sunni flight such that by the end of 2007 the Shiite majority in Baghdad had increased from 65 to 75 percent or more.
It is not surprising that the Sunni flight and Al-Sadr's ceasefire would cause a decline in violence. As CNN correspondent Michael Ware states: "The sectarian cleansing of Baghdad has been . . . one of the key elements to the drop in sectarian violence in the capital."
It is important to know how the Iraqis themselves feel about the surge. A March 2008 poll found that 70 percent said that the extra American troops had made security worse or had made no difference.
In January 2007 Bush explained that the main goal of the surge was to "help make reconciliation possible." The conditions for that happening are just as remote as ever. It appears as if provisional elections, a key event for Sunnis who boycotted the 2005 elections, will not happen.
The most important result of Obama's trip to the Middle East was the announcement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki that Obama's 16-month troop reduction plan "could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq."
Polls of American opinion about the Iraq war have been consistent, despite the surge and regardless of the polling agent. The most recent CNN poll shows that 66 percent oppose the war, and 62 percent agree with Maliki and Obama that there should be a timetable for bringing our forces home.
McCain is now is a bind about his refusal to set a schedule for troop withdrawal, not only by Maliki's support of Obama's plan, but also by Bush's declaration that Iraqi progress was good enough to bring some of the soldiers home.
Commentators have said that Obama has too easily escaped criticism for his position on the surge, but I would rather see it as one based on what the American and Iraqi people want for a reasonable end to Bush's "huge strategic blunder."
Nick Gier taught philosophy at the University of Idaho for 31 years. His other columns can be read or heard at www.NickGier.com.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
john McCain is wrong, he thinks that he said have a surge in Iraq, sending 30,000 troops & that won the war, he is wrong.
it was the tactics that won the war, not sending 30,000 people there, they went there with the surge of troops & all the terrorist left then came right back & they where getting killed again the same way.
it was 4-5 months after the surge that they started to put check points around the market, to stop a car bombs killing 700 people at a time, and road blocks / check points every where,
then sniffer dog where used door to door sniffing for explosive /guns, the made full proof id cards, spraying there hands to see if they have touched explosive / shot a gun.
and about 20 different tactics.
so john McCain had no idea about wining a war.
obama just will say what a angry public wants to hear.
Not even a American come up with the ideas to win the war it was a australian person from Adelaide.
>>>>>>>>>>
It would be foolish, inartful even, to view deadly suicide bombings as a clear sign of progress in Iraq. What is remarkable is how jarring such news has become in the months since a controversial increase in U.S. troop strength helped bring some semblance of stability.
Today, those four attacks on religious processions Monday stand out as a departure from the norm. It will not be the last violent burst from a withered terrorist insurgency that once ran entire cities and large parts of the capital, Baghdad.
About 18 months ago, when President Bush revealed an increase in troop levels combined with an aggressive new counterinsurgency strategy, such violence was common. Iraq appeared lost to sectarian civil war. This newspaper and most Americans opposed the surge.
We're not too hard-headed to admit we were wrong. It would be impossible to solely credit the surge for the turnaround. It would be just as foolish to deny its role and ignore the signs of a safer, more stable country that allow us to argue about how much longer the Iraqi people need us to stay.
The New York Times revealed another such data point with news that the Mahdi army, the feared militia led by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, had lost much of its influence, along with its bite.
It once controlled much of Baghdad, including local governments and police, from its base in the Sadr City slums. Its decline in influence coincided with the surge, although opinions vary as to which led to what. Less in dispute is the Mahdi army's diminished standing, as the U.S.-trained Iraqi Security Forces increasingly have taken over.
<<<<<<<<<<<<
Obama was wrong about the Surge when he opposed it. He was wrong about the Surge when he failed to note its success which insulted our military. Such arrogance of a shoot, aim, ready decision process should not be the character of the next CIC. It's not the exercise of wisdom to make knee-jerk political decisions based on polls, make 180 degree pirouettes on a variety of issues, and then claim he is being consistent. The Dallas Morning News is "...not too hard-headed to admit we were wrong," but Obama is.
Simply repeating McCain's campaign lines doesn't constitute a response to my column.
OK, McCain has been to Iraq more frequently, but why does he still make fundamental mistakes about what is happening in that region? Obama has been thoroughly informed about Iraq and he knows the difference between Sunni and Shia, among many other things. McCain's fumbles are as embarrassing as Bush's ignorance.
I'll simply repeat what I said in my column: "For one who claims the advantage of commanding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, candidate McCain doesn't always have his facts straight. Recently he stated that Shiite Iran was training Al Qaeda jihadists (not true of course), and he also talked about a non-existent Iraqi-Pakistani border. He has also claimed that Sunni militants switched sides because of the surge. The fact is that the Sunni Sahwa (Awakening) began in August 2006, six months before the surge was announced."
The Dallas Morning News has their opinion, and I have mine. I note in particular their honesty about the reasons for the Mahdai
Army stand down. Al Sadr called off killing Sunnis 6 months before the surge and his ceasefire made the pacification of Baghdad much easier. But that achievement looks, as the CNN correspondent concludes, more like pacification through ethnic cleansing.
Your obligation is to show where my argument has gone wrong. So do your homework and I will respond.
Secondly, you completely ignored my argument that Obama is using a dangerous and flawed decision process of shoot, aim, ready to justify his decisions about Iraq and the Surge. Again, he did not speak to the commanders in the field, the current Iraqi govt. or military, the US State Department, or visit Iraq first before his crystal ball gazing and announced positions. Now he, and his supporters, are stuck tap dancing. I would want a CIC that follows a more mature and tested decision process. See: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/15801 for a rebuttal of Obama's NYT's op-ed which he wrote BEFORE visiting the country, talking to the military, or discussing with the Iraqi's.
I've tried to keep my response germane to your claim of Obama being right about the surge. I have not mentioned McCain because he is not relevant to your claim or the discussion of Obama's crystal ball guesses. We cannot afford guessing in a dangerous world...and we cannot ignore the arrogance of the guessers who refuse to admit when they are wrong. Al Sadr is quitting military action because he cannot win that way given the ramp up by the Iraqi military and the Surge. The Surge policy was an act of commitment by the US that gave the Iraqi military the confidence they would not be abandoned. In my most humble of opinion, like yours, neither al Sadr's change in approach or the betterment of the Iraqi military would have occurred without the Surge. Attacking McCain does not repair Obama's faulty arrogance.
You do indeed have an obligation to respond to my column rather than spout McCain slogans and send another's opinion.
Obama is not guessing on his Iraq policy. He has considered it thoroughly since the beginning of the war. For me and many other it is indisputable that although the surge is a "tactical military victory" (Obama's own words on 2-21-08) in a "huge strategic blunder." That is where Obama is right about the surge.
The final goal of the surge was political, and those political goals have not been met. The Iraqi Parliament went on vacation today refusing to pass legislation for provincial elections.
The opinion of the Iraqi people is also important. I gave you the results of the most recent polls. They do not feel any more secure after the surge and they wants us to leave.
Do you have no respect for their opinion or the opinion of the Iraqi prime minister who agreed with Obama's plans for withdrawing troops?
Contrary to your claim, Sadr's order not to kill Sunnis and the Sunni Awakening happened before the surge and would have held even with the gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops.
McCain's errors are entirely germane because we cannot afford to have a president who does not know Mideastern borders and still cannot tell Sunnis from Shias. Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 12 years and writes his own books, unlike McCain. Obama also has a large stable of foreign policy experts who know (not guess) what is happening in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Obama website's opposition to successful surge gets deleted
A funny thing happened over on the Barack Obama campaign website in the last few days.
The parts that stressed his opposition to the 2007 troop surge and his statement that more troops would make no difference in a civil war have somehow disappeared. John McCain and Obama have been going at it heavily in recent days over the benefits of the surge.
The Arizona senator, who advocated the surge for years before the Bush administration employed it, says the resulting reduction in violence is proof it worked with progress on 15 of 18 political benchmarks and Obama's plan to withdraw troops by now would have resulted in surrender.
When President Bush ordered the surge in January 2007, Obama said: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse," a position he maintained throughout 2007. This year he acknowledged progress, but maintained his position that political progress was lacking.
Tuesday, while Obama gave a speech on foreign policy, the New York Daily News was the first to notice the removal of parts of Obama's campaign site listing the Iraq troop surge as part of "The Problem." An Obama spokeswoman said it was just part of an "update" to "reflect changes in current events," as our colleague Frank James notes in the Swamp. The update includes a new section on the rise of Al Qaeda violence in Afghanistan.
But some might see the updating as part of Obama's skip to the political center now that he's secured the Democratic nomination. "Today," McCain said Tuesday, "we know Sen. Obama was wrong" to oppose the troop surge.
An old quote of Obama's criticizing the "rash war," which helped him with the left wing of his party and helped differentiate his stand from that of Sen. Hillary Clinton, a primary opponent who voted for the use of force in Iraq, has been replaced on his site by one saying that ending the Iraq war will make America safer. That's more of a general election message.
And hat tip to the folks over at the Wake Up America blog for their continuing trenchant analyses of the summer campaigns in general and, specifically, for highlighting the video below that contrasts Obama's pre-surge position with a more recent interview of David Axelrod, his chief campaign strategist, denying Obama's statements. A reminder of how carefully voters must listen during these last four campaign months.
--Andrew Malcolm
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
His begrudging acknowledgement of a "tactical victory" is further demonstration of his over inflated arrogance. His removal of his Surge criticism speaks volumes. Axelrod's denial is politics as usual. Regarding you claim that Obama writes his own shtick, many believe Axelrod writes his speeches and ghostwriters penned his books. See: http://www.ontheissues.org/Audacity_of_Hope.htm Even Chris Matthews remarked on MSNBC that Obama's second book was a collaborative effort.