Posted by
Armanius on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:43:33 PM
A year and a half ago, Obama was opposed to the surge of troops in Iraq when the Bush administration decided to add about 30,000+ troops to combat the mounting terrorists and insurgent attacks. Obama stated that the surge would not only fail, but that the surge would increase violence in Iraq. A year and a half later, the facts are undisputed that the violence in Iraq has decreased to the point that there are reports that some American soldiers in Iraq "itching" for action are complaining of boredom. Obama's current Iraq policy is to withdraw all American troops within 16 months. It's an artificial timetable that Obama actually opposed back in 2004 (which he conveniently forgot). However, as of today, this timetable is the backbone of Obama's current Iraq policy. The Iraqi government of Maliki was recently quoted as "supporting" Obama's timetable. And of course, the Obama campaign has utilized Maliki's statement as a "confirmation" of Obama's superbly thought out Iraq policy. Consider the irony of it all ...
If the surge had never been implemented, Obama's timetable of 16 months would have been moot, given that the war against terrorists and insurgents in Iraq would have been lost by now. If the surge had never been implemented, Maliqui's government would not be around to "support" any type of timetable for American troop withdrawal. It is even doubtful that Maliqui would be alive today if American troops were not still in Iraq. If the surge had failed as Obama predicted, Maliqui's government and Maliqui himself would not be around today. In fact, the only reason that Maliqui is even talking about American troop withdrawal from Iraq in recent days is the very fact that the success of the surge has actually allowed Maliqui to feel secure about his position in Iraq. Maliqui's sense of security (whether real or perceived) is what allows Maliqui to talk about American troop withdrawal. The success of the surge is what provides the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the U.S. will be able to pull its troops out of Iraq -- whether in 12, 16, 24, or however many months. So the surge, which Obama was AGAINST and which McCain was for, and the success of the surge, have in a round-about way actually helped Obama's policy on Iraq. The very surge of troops Obama opposed has lent credibility to Obama's self proclaimed "foresight" about how it is perfectly feasible for the U.S. to withdraw its troops from Iraq in 16 months. Of course prior to the conclusion that the surge has indeed succeeded in stabilizing Iraq from violence standpoint, Obama's intent/motivation to withdraw all troops within 16 months was based on his perception that the fight in Iraq was hopelessly lost. Now that the surge was succesful, Obama is spinning the facts to support his 16 month timeline for withdrawal on the basis that even Maliqui supports the 16 months timetable. Obama of course will never point out that Maliqui would not be around to support the 16 months timetable proposed by Obama IF Obama had had his way a year and a half ago, and there had never been a surge at all.
When Obama was asked today whether or not he would have supported the surge a year and a half ago, knowing everything that he knows today, Obama answered "no." Given that the success of the surge has actually lent his Iraq policy credibility, maybe one of his 300 campaign advisors ought to tell Obama that he should give credit where credit is due.