Obama’s stunning shunning of surge
By KEITH PHUCAS
Times Herald Staff
NORRISTOWN — Given that liberal Democrats bet their political fortunes on the U.S. going down to defeat in Iraq, it comes as no surprise that their chosen presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, said he would not have supported the "surge" strategy even if he knew it would succeed.
Army Gen. David Petraeus’ counterinsurgency strategy, of which the troop surge is only a part, was greeted in 2006 with understandable skepticism when announced. But a significant reduction in violence in cities across the war-torn country is directly attributable to this brilliantly executed plan.
Obama, and so many other Democrats, counted on our military defeat as their springboard to recapture the White House and Congress. So, the Illinois senator and his supporters must be terribly disappointed with these positive developments.
The senator’s stunning denial of the wisdom of the surge strategy came this week in interviews on ABC’s "Nightline" with Terry Moran, and with CBS News anchor Katie Couric, who grilled Obama repeatedly to explain his puzzling position.
Not having been to Iraq since 2006, Couric asked what had surprised him upon returning there.
"Well, there’s no doubt the scary situation’s improved. And it was very encouraging to see that markets are reopening; that in places like Anbar Province you have seen a complete reversal in terms of the attitude of Sunni tribesmen towards American forces there," he told Couric, according to cbsnews.com. "That I think is a terrific momentum builder. And we’ve gotta keep on making sure that we’re making progress on those fronts."
While admitting the successes in one breath, he shunned the military plan in the next breath.
Growing more defensive with each Couric question about the surge, Obama complained that the Iraq war costs too much money and was holding us back from sending more troops into the Democrat’s preferred war – Afghanistan. He has called Afghanistan the central front on terrorism.
Arguably, the U.S. has won both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, but has fallen far short in winning the peace. Those are difficult and dangerous works in progress.
It is imperative that we succeed in both wars, because both are legitimate battlefronts against our enemies. And no aspiring commander in chief should discount the strides American troops have helped achieve.
Obama’s unwavering lack of support should offend anyone in the U.S. military who has or is currently serving in Iraq.
For the past few years, Democrats could always be counted on to badmouth Iraq that they saw rightly as Bush and the Republicans’ Achilles Heel.
In April 2007, just weeks before the troop surge officially got underway, Democratic Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaimed publicly "that this war is lost". I don’t understand how this kind of treasonous talk is tolerated.
Though the security situation in Iraq began to change for the better last year, those same critics still cling to their anti-Iraq orthodoxy, denials and double talk.
My guess is that Obama, Reid and the other liberal Democrats would be hard pressed to explain the specifics of the counterinsurgency that turned the war around. Let me help.
During the 2006 "Awakening in Anbar," in al-Anbar Province, Iraqis began turning against the al-Qaeda barbarians who had "raped too many women and boys, cut off too many heads, brought drug into too many neighborhoods," according to war correspondent Michael Yon.
Yon’s book, "Moment of Truth in Iraq" should be required reading for Obama and anyone else truly interested in what’s gone on in Iraq in the past few years.
Another must-read is "How They Did It," an article in the Nov. 19, 2007 issue of The Weekly Standard.
In 2007, Gens. Petraeus and Raymond Odierno conducted three large-scale military operations – the Baghdad Security Plan, Operation Phantom Thunder and Operation Phantom Strike.
In Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi troops shared the same quarters in the city’s neighborhoods, building rapport and trust of Iraqi citizens. By protecting the population execution-style killings fell.
Phantom Strike aggressively targeted the Karkh-Rusafa car bombing network operating in Baghdad significantly reducing deadly car bomb attacks, according to The Weekly Standard.
In many others towns and villages in Iraq, troops attacked numerous al-Qaeda strongholds and sanctuaries. The terrorists were routed.
According to Yon, Al-Qaeda was out to humiliate Americans by provoking a civil war between Sunni and Shia.
Eventually, in a "A Spartacus Moment" tribal sheiks in Anbar allied themselves with U.S. Special Forces with the intent of killing al-Qaeda.
Obama’s recent comments shunning the counterinsurgency seem politically shallow and opportunistic at best. At worst, his sentiments do a disservice to those who’ve fought and died in Iraq.
Times Herald Staff
NORRISTOWN — Given that liberal Democrats bet their political fortunes on the U.S. going down to defeat in Iraq, it comes as no surprise that their chosen presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, said he would not have supported the "surge" strategy even if he knew it would succeed.
Army Gen. David Petraeus’ counterinsurgency strategy, of which the troop surge is only a part, was greeted in 2006 with understandable skepticism when announced. But a significant reduction in violence in cities across the war-torn country is directly attributable to this brilliantly executed plan.
Obama, and so many other Democrats, counted on our military defeat as their springboard to recapture the White House and Congress. So, the Illinois senator and his supporters must be terribly disappointed with these positive developments.
The senator’s stunning denial of the wisdom of the surge strategy came this week in interviews on ABC’s "Nightline" with Terry Moran, and with CBS News anchor Katie Couric, who grilled Obama repeatedly to explain his puzzling position.
Not having been to Iraq since 2006, Couric asked what had surprised him upon returning there.
"Well, there’s no doubt the scary situation’s improved. And it was very encouraging to see that markets are reopening; that in places like Anbar Province you have seen a complete reversal in terms of the attitude of Sunni tribesmen towards American forces there," he told Couric, according to cbsnews.com. "That I think is a terrific momentum builder. And we’ve gotta keep on making sure that we’re making progress on those fronts."
While admitting the successes in one breath, he shunned the military plan in the next breath.
Growing more defensive with each Couric question about the surge, Obama complained that the Iraq war costs too much money and was holding us back from sending more troops into the Democrat’s preferred war – Afghanistan. He has called Afghanistan the central front on terrorism.
Arguably, the U.S. has won both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, but has fallen far short in winning the peace. Those are difficult and dangerous works in progress.
It is imperative that we succeed in both wars, because both are legitimate battlefronts against our enemies. And no aspiring commander in chief should discount the strides American troops have helped achieve.
Obama’s unwavering lack of support should offend anyone in the U.S. military who has or is currently serving in Iraq.
For the past few years, Democrats could always be counted on to badmouth Iraq that they saw rightly as Bush and the Republicans’ Achilles Heel.
In April 2007, just weeks before the troop surge officially got underway, Democratic Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaimed publicly "that this war is lost". I don’t understand how this kind of treasonous talk is tolerated.
Though the security situation in Iraq began to change for the better last year, those same critics still cling to their anti-Iraq orthodoxy, denials and double talk.
My guess is that Obama, Reid and the other liberal Democrats would be hard pressed to explain the specifics of the counterinsurgency that turned the war around. Let me help.
During the 2006 "Awakening in Anbar," in al-Anbar Province, Iraqis began turning against the al-Qaeda barbarians who had "raped too many women and boys, cut off too many heads, brought drug into too many neighborhoods," according to war correspondent Michael Yon.
Yon’s book, "Moment of Truth in Iraq" should be required reading for Obama and anyone else truly interested in what’s gone on in Iraq in the past few years.
Another must-read is "How They Did It," an article in the Nov. 19, 2007 issue of The Weekly Standard.
In 2007, Gens. Petraeus and Raymond Odierno conducted three large-scale military operations – the Baghdad Security Plan, Operation Phantom Thunder and Operation Phantom Strike.
In Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi troops shared the same quarters in the city’s neighborhoods, building rapport and trust of Iraqi citizens. By protecting the population execution-style killings fell.
Phantom Strike aggressively targeted the Karkh-Rusafa car bombing network operating in Baghdad significantly reducing deadly car bomb attacks, according to The Weekly Standard.
In many others towns and villages in Iraq, troops attacked numerous al-Qaeda strongholds and sanctuaries. The terrorists were routed.
According to Yon, Al-Qaeda was out to humiliate Americans by provoking a civil war between Sunni and Shia.
Eventually, in a "A Spartacus Moment" tribal sheiks in Anbar allied themselves with U.S. Special Forces with the intent of killing al-Qaeda.
Obama’s recent comments shunning the counterinsurgency seem politically shallow and opportunistic at best. At worst, his sentiments do a disservice to those who’ve fought and died in Iraq.
posted by Keith Phucas at
1:19 PM
3 Comments
