How can Obama say that, knowing what he knows now, he would still have opposed the surge?

Tom

Watch at 42" where he realises 'uh oh, what have I just said' V. funny

ACT

Yeah, that's a superbly spot on tack for all you *supporters* of the war to take. Thank God you haven't got any "ideological blinkers" that the undiluted last five years of triumph in Iraq should in any wake affect.

David

Because he has dug himself into a gigantic hole by trying to be populist and going against any significant action being taken in Iraq? He just knows he'll look even more foolish if he has to now admit he was wrong.

James Wildbore

I disagree.

I suspect Barack's position accurately laid out would be - I would never have gone to war in Iraq. Knowing what he knows now I suspect he still holds that position.

He could also argue that if the war was inevitable - he would have gone in with enough troops to ensure that the surge was never required. The insurgents only took hold of parts of Iraq due to the power vacuum caused by disbanding all of the security forces and not sending enough troops in to fill the gap. Lives were needlessly wasted in the time between occupation and the surge.

I defy anyone to state that knowing what we know now they would have proceeded to plan and execute the war and operations in Iraq as the Governments of the US and UK have done.

The surge was a response to a failure in the initial campaign. The campaign was a result of a failure of intelligence (or political opportunism - depending on your view). Knowing what we know now - if we removed these failures we would probably be a lot better off. Our army would not be as demoralised and the appropriate number of troops could have been committed in the early days to Afghanistan where they are needed.

fulcanelli

If Obama is elected the next President it does not bode well for the future.

He will either spend most of his time backtracking on campaign promises of troop withdrawals etc, or throw the efforts and actions of the last few years into complete chaos. He quite clearly is either very badly advised, or so intent on taking an opposing view to the Republicans, and Bush in particular, that he really does not care about the real world political ramifications.

He is clearly out of his depth!

murray

Great post James.

Chris M

Never ones to let inconvenient things such as facts cloud their judgement, the left.

How does Obama have the nerve to stand next to the forces whose defeat and ignominy he would have assured? God forbid that he gets the chance to cause defeat and ignominy elsewhere.

Coming soon - 'Jimmy Carter 2 - The Disgrace' 'this time it's personal...'

Verity

James, you baffle me; you really do, with your blinkered faith in the manipulative, greedy, nasty Obama.

A man who thinks "Change you can believe in" is an actual thought has no interest in communicating anything other than VOTE FOR MEEEEEEEE!!! When he won the primary, he said "now the oceans will cease to rise ...". He said he's visited "all 57 states". On another occasion, he said he had visited "all 48 states and Hawaii and Alaska" (which have been states since before he was born).

Geography does not seem to be Obama's strong point. I wonder what is ...

He knows nothing, repeat, nothing about Iraq or the conduct of war. It was only a soldier's discipline, I'm sure,that enabled the very fine General Petraeus to keep a straight face as this little idiot gadfly warbled away.

He doesn't understand warfare. He doesn't understand the economy. He understands that he feels entitled, for a reason that escapes tens of millions of Americans, to president. He's put in his time in the corrupt Chicago machine. He has funding from people who very badly want to see him in office. He's an egoist. They know if he gets into office, he will do as he's told.

Michael Hargrave

For heaven sake James, it was not the surge in troops that delivered calm in Iraq. 20,000 extra soldiers could not turn chaos into calm over night.
It was General Petraeus' strategy to enlist the Sunnis in the Awakening that delivered the security, by paying them a salary, and he could have done that without a surge of troops.
The American military have been largely ineffectual in conrolling the Sunni and Shia malitia, because they own the place. The soldiers are just tourists. C'mon!!

Tony Colvin

Obama is correct.
The militias made a deal and they stopped killing each other.
It had nothing to do with 'the surge'.

Verity

David - You're right. The little scuzz ball's all about ego. He is identical to Tony Blair. Me me me me me me me me! Aren't I simply too wonderful??? Don't you just love me?

Interesting that one of Blair's nicknames was so close in sound to Obama. Bambi.

Bruce, UK

Power before Politics and Politics before Principle. That's the Chicago Way.

Eleanor

Has there ever been a campaign like this?

So many in the Press won't cross-examine Obama on this because they all bought shares on "we can't sort out Iraq", so that's part of it.

But the other part is the Obama halo.

Don't ask questions - just worship.

This article by Tom Leonard touches on that. Why is no-one allowed to lampoon Obama and his entourage? The whole campaign is like one tedious coronation. Why? Anybody else can expect to have all the usual ridiculing brickbats but even the humourists seem to have gone into hiding (perhaps not surprising given the reaction to The New Yorker's front cover).

There's something deeply disturbing about a politician people feel afraid to laugh at.

It's like the Diana tyranny all over again, when no one could say anything about her for ages. I guess that's why Melanie Phillips dubbed him Princess Obama. The reaction to him from all quarters is most odd.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/search/sitesearch.do?queryText=obama&action=doBasicSearch&advSearch=false&Go=Go&reset=false

fulcanelli

I fear the perceived race issue is yet again the reason. These people seem afraid to attack, chastise, or otherwise criticise him for fear of reproach from wishy washy liberals. Or be called racist.

It will all end in tears. Just look at out situation with the perceived saviour 'Blair'. A complete waste of time!

Verity

Eleanor nails it. There is indeed something disturbing about a politician people fear to laugh at, and the bully boys and girls around Obama (and that shriek of a wife) have created this atmosphere around him.

And he has the great advantage that anyone criticising him for his own dear self, not his skin colour, which no one gives a crap about, will have their criticism dubbed "racist". Republicans can point out that they would gladly have voted for Colin Powell had he wanted to stand - that doesn't count. X it out. They can say they wished Condoleezza would stand. That doesn't count. X it out. Fast forward. Delete.

Obama and his people are vicious sleazes - very much along the lines of Alastair Campbell and the people who surrounded the rather stupid, inept, vacuous, self-regarding Tony Blair.

I think Americans are more sophisticated voters than the British, and people like Charles Krauthammer have enormous power. He draws a bead on Obama and hits a bullseye.

Ian C

Let's not let the facts get in the way of a good old fashion prejudicial point of view.

The facts are that Iraq was a cock-up becuase Rummy thought he knew better and Bush backed him and for too long. This is regardless of whether you were for or against the invasion at the time.

This resulted in a dire situation that had to be recovered by end 2006 and fortunately for Bush Petraeus came along with the surge which was sold to Congress. In the meantime Petraeus had initiated the Sunni awakening so that the surge would work best if it got through Congress and would help improve the situation if it did not. That was his strategic wisdom.

For Obama to say now that he still would have opposed the surge amounts to him saying that he was then and still is of the opinion that it was better to have walked away from Iraq and suffered the consequences on the Iraqis left behind and the rest of the Middle East and the fight against terrorism.

This is what the facts tell us. The interpretation is up to us all.

Ian C

Tom, what was that link?

Wilfred

Tony Colvin said: "The militias made a deal and they stopped killing each other.
It had nothing to do with 'the surge'".

And what, do you suppose, caused them to make a deal?

The present calm is down to the Sunni's rejection of Al Qaeda, the recognition that their interests will be best served by a genuine secular democracy (they do not love fundamentalist Shia Iran), and the forcible suppression of the Shia militia armies (massively assisted by the increased US military presence).

James

Verity - I am not backing Obama or not backing Obama. I am British and don't have a vote. That wasn't the intention behind my post.

My post merely stated that the entire Iraq war (with the exception of the surge and the Sunni Awakening) has been pretty appalling.

I am Tory voter - so not left-wing idealogue - I have no particular preference for Obama. However, I didn't support the Iraq war at the beginning and can honestly say -knowing what we know now I haven't changed that position.

thomas

How is it a Bush-like quality? Bush was the one who stood against widespread incredulity in instituting the surge. How is that not responding to changing circumstances?

Verity

James, thank you for taking the time to reply.

benjamin

Actually if you take the time to read the whole interview he explains very well why he would still oppose the surge.
He explains that first he doesn't think the surge was the only element that contributed to the current lower violence and that most of these elements would have still happened regardless.
Second he explains that there is no way to know how the strategy proposed by the ISG would have turned out and he insists it would have worked better than the narrowly-focused-on-military affairs Surge strategy
And finally it says that as President he would have to see the big picture, and that all in all all the money and lives and time spend on reducing the violence back to 2005 levels (hardly peace) did not bring us any progress on the political front and that they would have been better spent on fighting Al Qaeda where it really is - Afghanistan/Pakistan - and that as much as we hope Iraq to get better, we have no way to "win" this quagmire - only try to contribute to a peace that will be decided by Iraqis, not forced upon them - and that American energy money and time is better spent on fighting the wars that should be fought rather than obsess over what is ultimately is a distraction from the real threats to the US which Iraq was not and still isn't, regardless of the propaganda.