July 22nd 2008
Whose Waterloo?
Y
es, of course the quote of the day is this, from Barack Obama, answering ABC’s Terry Moran:
“Here is what I will say. I think that, I did not anticipate, and I think that this is a fair characterization, the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni awakening in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with Al Qaeda, in the Shii’a community the militias standing down to some degrees. So what you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, I think that my assessment would have been correct.”
So, Obama still refuses to call the surge a success, despite the evident truth that since the surge, Iraq has become a very different place. Did we ever think he would reverse his core position?
His new position can be restated as this:
“The bravery and competence of the American armed forces had little or nothing to do with the improved situation in Iraq. We have the Sunni awakening to thank, because even though our troops did terrific work, it wasn’t that terrific work that changed things.”
Well, he just might be right. And oh so wrong.
There was a certain political, not military, factor that is primarily responsible for the change we see in Iraq. It was George Bush’s commitment to doing it right, even after the 2006 GOP melt-down. Instead of reading the cards that had been dealt and waffling, Bush sent more troops to Iraq. The number wasn’t all that much, but the psychological message to the Iraqi government and those who would overthrow it couldn’t have been more overwhelming: We are going to stay until it’s right, no matter what.
For Maliki and the Iraqi government, it meant breathing room that was needed to carry out new initiatives and check off the boxes on Congress’ checklist for progress.
For al Qaeda it meant their terror efforts building up to the election got them nothing, and they were on the ropes.
For Iran it meant that their continued support of anti-US efforts in Iraq would come at a price to dear for them to pay.
For the Dems in Congress, it meant that America would continue to put the troops and victory first for at least another two years, and there was nothing they could do about it. (And Lord knows, they tried.)
And for our military it meant a green light to continue to work with Shi’a and Sunni alike to create a new set of alliances that Obama merely passes off as Iraqis deciding a new way to go on their own – as if the groundwork laid by military officers in Iraq over the past several years had nothing to do with it.
Maliki’s infamous quote is being passed off as the end of the McCain campaign. Witness Matthew Yglesias today, under the title McCain’s Waterloo:
[McCain had] spent several weeks with the main theme of his campaign being, quite literally, to criticize Barack Obama for not having been physically present in Iraq recently. This (of course) got Obama to go to Iraq, thus setting up a dilemma. Either Obama would survey the “progress” in Iraq and change his position, thus making him a flip-flopper, or else he would refuse to change his position, thus making him obstinate and out of touch with reality. But instead of either of those things happening, Obama went to Iraq and Iraqi leaders said he’d been right all along!
That’s about as close to “game, set, match” as you get in terms of real world events influencing your political campaign.
So it might seem, as long as you’re looking at the world the way Barack Obama does. But about half of us U.S. voters don’t see it that way, and what I, as just one of that group, now see happening is this: Obama will get a false confidence from his trip because he hadn’t been right all along, he just happened to be right at this perfect moment of time, and had he been “right” about the surge as a doomed prospect, Maliki wouldn’t be in a position to be calling for short timeframes today.
Thus, once again, Obama is developing a false read on certain things we hold dear – our military, our commitment to victory – and therefore he has considerable opportunity to plunge from today’s high peak. He is, today, the hare in the race, with McCain plodding along far behind but steady.
The finish line is a long ways away, and my bet’s on the tortoise.
Posted in 2008, Bush, Iraq, McCain, Obama, War in Iraq | 4 Comments » | |
Trackbacks/Pings
Leave a Reply
[The "Comment Box" is WYSIWYG except that you have to double space between paragraphs!
Type it the way you want it to look -- Just remember to double up those line spaces.]
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Comments
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
”…I think that this is a fair characterization, the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni awakening in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with Al Qaeda, in the Shii’a community the militias standing down to some degrees. So what you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, I think that my assessment would have been correct.”Did Senator Obama just give credit that belongs to all the US soldiers who have fought, been maimed, and died in Iraq (particulary those since the “successful surge”) to THE SUNNIS WAKING UP AND THE SHIAS STANDING UP?????The SUNNIS AND THE SHIAS?!? I am NOT believing this!!!!!
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
”…I think that this is a fair characterization, the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni awakening in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with Al Qaeda, in the Shii’a community the militias standing down to some degrees. So what you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, I think that my assessment would have been correct.” <p><p>Did Senator Obama just give credit that belongs to all the US soldiers who have fought, been maimed, and died in Iraq (particulary those since the “successful surge”) to THE SUNNIS WAKING UP AND THE SHIAS STANDING UP????? <p><p>The SUNNIS AND THE SHIAS?!? I am NOT believing this!!!!!
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:53 pm
“Had those political factors not occurred, I think that my assessment would have been correct.”Therefore Mr. Obama’s assessment was wrong, totally wrong. The fact that Americans were there is the reason why “Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had enough with Al Qaeda”, in other words they started to fight with some chance of success after Anericans got their act together.He forgot to say that if there had been no surge, there could have been a defeat for his flagless country, and American soldiers would be now scavenging for Taliban weapons in Afghanistan. Is this not what he said when he knew so much about military matters.I do agree with Vivian Berryhill.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:17 pm
I agree with both of you – well put!