Score One For David Brooks

In the course of finding something good to say about George Bush, David Brooks said this about opponents of the surge in Iraq:

And now the cocksure surge opponents, drunk on their own vindication, will get to enjoy their season of humility. They have already gone through the stages of intellectual denial. First, they simply disbelieved that the surge and the Petraeus strategy was doing any good. Then they accused people who noticed progress in Iraq of duplicity and derangement. Then they acknowledged military, but not political, progress. Lately they have skipped over to the argument that Iraq is progressing so well that the U.S. forces can quickly come home.

Well, intellectual denial includes denial;as if on cue, here is Ezra Klein:

"the argument over the surge was never an argument positing that more troops couldn't lead to less violence."

John McCormack of the Weekly Standard finds Barack Obama making exactly this argument.  Ooops.

How does that go?  Those who control the past control the present, and the future is now!  Or some such.  But with Web 2.0 control of the past ain't what it used to be.

POKING AROUND:  Barack Obama was speaking with Olbermann and Matthews (transcript).  Here is Dick Durbin:

Twenty thousand American soldiers are too few to end this civil war in Iraq and too many American lives to risk on top of those we‘ve already lost.

From which a casual listener might infer that Durbin thinks that 20,000 additional troops won't reduce the violence.  Here is Obama, from the top:

OLBERMANN:  Were you convinced at all by that speech?  And if not, what are you going to do about it? 

OBAMA: Well, the one thing I share with the president‘s assessment is the belief that the American people and American troops have done everything imaginable that has been asked of them.  And they‘ve done a great job in difficult circumstances. 

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:  I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. 

So I am going to actively oppose the president‘s proposal.  I don‘t doubt his sincerity when he says that he thinks this is the best approach, but I think he is wrong.  And I think the American people believe he‘s wrong.

And we are looking at a variety of options here in Congress to place some sort of conditions, some sort of meaningful consequences to the failure of the Iraqi government to meet the benchmarks that the president mentioned in his own speech.

Well, that analysis did not work out.  Just for starters, some Sunnis were already unhappy with Al Qaeda in Iraq and were happy to work with the US to subdue them.  It's harder to imagine that turnaround gaining momentum if US troops had been headed towards the exits.

The RNC provided a second example of Obama's prescience on the surge from Jan 23, 2007:

Obama Said “I Don’t Think The President’s Strategy Is Going To Work.”

Obama: “But right now what we have is, I think by all accounts, a disaster unfolding in Iraq. We all have a responsibility, Democrats and Republicans, Congress and the White House, to make sure that we can come up with the  best strategy. I don’t think the president’s strategy is going to work. We went through two weeks of hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; experts from across the spectrum -- military and civilian, conservative and liberal -- expressed great skepticism about it.” (MSNBC’s “Reaction To The State Of The Union Address,” 1/23/07)

That is not a specific comment about US troops reducing violence, so today, Obama's apologists will want to claim that he was focusing on political reconciliation, which has occurred slowly but not up to Bush's benchmarks.

Comments

[Martin]

"Web 2.0 control of the past ain't what it used to be."

So use the web 2.0, asshat. Are you denying Howard Dean called for more troops in Iraq in 2003 and Rumsfeld and all his fellow Bushbuttlickers ridiculed him?

Let's go. I got links waiting for you, candyass.

[Thomas Collins]

Unfortunately, MSM is going to continue to play down our Iraq successes. Thus, the benefit for McCain of success in Iraq will be limited. What is happening with MSM's coverage of Iraq is a perfect example of how MSM won't need phony documents (a la Rathergate) to help B57O. Playing down Iraq success could make the difference in battleground states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania.

[Martin]

Never mind. I just read the Ezra Klein piece you linked. Wow. That's a nice thoughtful post that would make any of your babbling superfluous.

I'll leave now and let your comment section get back to the regularly scheduled repetitive dolts and grandmas kvetching.

[Wilson'a a Liar]

And which Republican was most vocal about the need for more troops from the beginning of the war, and most critical of Rumsfeld?

John McCain. And he's the one on the ballot this year, not Bush or Rumsfeld.

[Rick Ballard]

On the June 22, 2003, edition of NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert asked Dean: "[H]ow many men and women do we now have on active duty?" After Dean responded, "I can't tell you the answer to that," Russert said, "But as commander-in-chief, you should know that." Dean responded: "As someone who's running in the Democratic Party primary, I know that it's somewhere in the neighborhood of one to two million people, but I don't know the exact number, and I don't think I need to know that to run in the Democratic Party primary."

I think Howard Dean has a lot more military experience and a deep and substantive understanding of the troop levels necessary for any task at any given time. In comparison to Obama, of course. Or to a doorstop.

[steve sturm]

SOME of those opposed to the surge weren't arguing that American troops wouldn't reduce the level of violence but rather that (1) the Iraqis wouldn't get their political and military act together and (2) the reduction in violence would only last as long as American troops stayed engaged (American troops were the finger in a leaking dike, with no hope of ever extracting said finger).

While the final pages haven't yet been written, the Iraqis have done precious little with the opportunity they've been given over the past number of months, with no reasonable expectation that they're ever going to step up to the extent needed, and even surge supporters concede the Iraqis can't handle much of anything without American troops.

But go ahead and call the surge a great success.

[ganjala]

How many times are you tools gonna declare victory in this war before we can leave?

[Cecil Turner]

Ahh, the "surge" is nothing more than the old "more troops" argument. Klein makes it:

Pretending that Iraqi violence and instability is an output with one input -- in this case, the number of American troops -- is foolish.

What's foolish is thinking the counterinsurgency plan constructed by Petraeus is nothing more than adding a few troops . . . or that Moqtada al Sadr decided to declare a cease fire entirely out of the goodness of his heart (as opposed to losing a critical percentage of his fighters). If this represents the sum total of strategy expertise on the left (and sadly, it apparently does) then they are still unserious on national defense.

While the final pages haven't yet been written, the Iraqis have done precious little with the opportunity . . .

Right. Maybe you haven't been keeping up with current events, but the latest efforts (particularly ops in Basrah, Sadr City, and Mosul) have all been Iraqi-led affairs. Tom Friedman said it well:

What seems to have happened in Iraq in the last few months is that the Iraqi mainstream has finally done some liberating of itself. With the help of the troop surge ordered by President Bush, the mainstream Sunni tribes have liberated themselves from the grip of Al Qaeda in their provinces. And the Shiite mainstream — represented by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and the Iraqi Army — liberated Basra, Amara and Sadr City in Baghdad from both Mahdi Army militiamen and pro-Iranian death squads.

That looks like a bit more than "precious little" to me. And this cheerleading for defeat thing is getting more than a little old.

[PWT]

All this is nonsense. All doubts about Obama will be washed away when he travels to Davos in order to mount his filibuster against the evil FISA legislation. Obama's sense of entitlement makes Kerry look bush league.

[Soylent Red]

the Iraqis have done precious little with the opportunity

My guess is that this informed citizen, in between bong hits, isn't reading Bill Roggio, or any of the various and sundry other independent journalists who are reporting the exact opposite. And who are where the deal is going down, rather than a comfy WDC office.

Uh, here's one from last Saturday, just for starters ganj:

On Saturday, Iraqi forces detained Sayyid Tahseen, a senior member of Muqtada al Sadr's political movement, in Al Kut in Wasit province. Iraqi police described Tahseen as "one of the most important individual wanted by security forces" who is "wanted for more than 45 cases, including armed operations against security forces, in addition to killing and abduction of innocent people."

[Sweetie]

By the leftie response you've apparently left a mark, Tom.

[MarkO]

"Candyass?" What's next? "A-hole?" I love a real intellectual. Obama lacks experience and his "judgment" is poor. So, call me some schoolyard name. Try "Master."

[PeterUK]

Interesting,
al Qaeda wants you to leave Iraq,so does Iran, as do half wits like Martin and ganjala. The Democrats ooze retreat from every pore.Barack Hussein Obama is in good company.
Anything to get those helicopters taking off from the embassy roof.

[Ranger]

By the leftie response you've apparently left a mark, Tom.

Posted by: Sweetie | June 25, 2008 at 04:15 PM

Well, victory, or anything even beginning to resemble victory, is a bitter pill for the left to swallow. Thus the anger, and even rage, they feel at the success of the surge.

It is hard to see though why the elected left was so quick to abandon victory in 04 yet so slow to abandon defeat in 08. Did they feel they could only turn about once on this issue? I suspect that they realize they went so overboard in their declarations of defeat last summer that there is no way to walk back from it. So now they are stuck in a "see no victory, hear no victory, speak no victory" mode and will be way too late getting on the victory band wagon.

[steve sturm]

For all of the so-called successes you point to, if things are going so well, then why ain't our troops home yet? That's right, it's because they can't leave. Things are going so well (sarcasm for Tom's special readers) that even talking out loud about bringing them home makes you all freak out.

Pre-surge, Bush wouldn't commit (or even speculate, dream out loud, or wish upon a star) to a timetable for bringing home the troops. Post-surge, more of the same mind-numbing chant of 'staying the course'.

It's a heckava success, Brownie, when the date our troops come home is only closer in an abstract 'uh, it's just as not as far off as it used to be' sort of way.

[Neo]

What seems to have happened in Iraq in the last few months is that the Iraqi mainstream has finally done some liberating of itself. With the help of the troop surge ordered by President Bush, the mainstream Sunni tribes have liberated themselves from the grip of Al Qaeda in their provinces. And the Shiite mainstream — represented by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and the Iraqi Army — liberated Basra, Amara and Sadr City in Baghdad from both Mahdi Army militiamen and pro-Iranian death squads.

The many voices that rose in favor of the invasion, that have now claimed some sort of buyer’s remorse or insanity in the aftermath, have learned nothing. It’s easy to be a wimp.

When Bush started the adventure into Afghanistan (before Iraq), the first thing that the local partners in the region asked was whether America was in this for the duration, or would they be left with an American mess to clean up. Clearly, Bush said what he meant and meant what he said.

Friedman’s column can be read to say that finally, in the last year or so, the Iraqis believe Bush meant it too. Beleived it enough to take on UBL’s al Qaeda that planned to make Fallujah the capital of the caliphate. Believed it enough to take on their Shia brothers from Iran. Believed it when the Democratic leadership in the Congress showed none.

[Soylent Red]

For all of the so-called successes you point to, if things are going so well, then why ain't our troops home yet? That's right, it's because they can't leave.

The ignorance of this statement is simply breathtaking.

And goes right back to Brooks' point.

[Rick Ballard]

SR,

Ixnay - don't let these dolts figure out this year's October Surprise so early. Next thing you know they'll be guessing why DoD is booking ships for Basra/Norfolk and Basra/Houston voyages.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Under the bus for Scar Jo:

....speaking to reporters aboard his campaign plane, Obama said the actress doesn't have his personal email address. "She sent one email to Reggie, who forwarded it to me," Obama said, referring to his 26-year-old personal assistant, Reggie Love. "I write saying, 'thank you Scarlett for doing what you do,' and suddenly we have this email relationship"

[nom]

@Soylent Red :My guess is that this informed citizen, in between bong hits, isn't reading Bill Roggio, or any of the various and sundry other independent journalists who are reporting the exact opposite.

I hear a variation of this slur from people on the right all the time.. people who apparently aren't aware that there are conservative pot smokers. Not only are there pot smokers who are "right of center" but many of them are quite high-functioning and successful people, just like the many other people who use mild intoxicants for social or recreational purposes. Many of these dread pot smokers even read Bill Roggio!

I conclude from this that the number of beers you drink or bong hits you take is unlikely to be a good predictor of how politically informed you are. Lazy stereotype based slur.

#$#

[PeterUK]

"I hear a variation of this slur from people on the right all the time.. people who apparently aren't aware that there are conservative pot smokers."

You lot sound more "Class A" than pot,though skunk does induce schizophrenia.

[GMax]

Martin does a throw down and then quicker than Snagglepuss exits stage left? Too too funny.

I dont think it was the blog posting, which of course will leave a mark, but rather the factor that their messiah dropped into a tie today in the Gallup poll and since its a three day rolling average, may fall out of the lead tomorrow, that has them in a near panic.

If the drilling focus of the Republicans and all of the anti drilling rhetoric coming out of the Democrats does not have a huge impact I will be shocked. I think the Hansen ( of NASA ) harrangue is a similar response.

The left thought it was going to be a waltz to a Stalinist takeover. The death of Republicans, to paraphrase Samuel Clemens, has been greatly exaggerated. And the damage Democrats have done with their policies and will do in the future given any opportunity, is just now starting to spread to the muddle.

[qrstuv]

SS: "While the final pages haven't yet been written, the Iraqis have done precious little with the opportunity they've been given over the past number of months, ... "

Excuse me, but how the frak would you know?

There are 25 million people in Iraq. If all you listen to is their political opponents, and/or people who regard those 25 million as so many chess pieces*, how the frak would you know what they can or will do?!

*Name me a lefty who has expressed respect for the Iraqi majority, the ones who voted instead of bombing.

[Patton]

The only surge Obama supports is the gas price surge.....

[bad]

from Byron York at thehill.com

In Chicago, Obama’s talent was for convincing people to believe in change, not in actually changing things.

I remember dating guys like Obama back in the day; big talk, no susbstance. They were amusing and fun for the short term but not someone with whom to plan a future.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I'll leave now...

Good.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

For all of the so-called successes you point to, if things are going so well, then why ain't our troops home yet?

Yep. Damn German quagmire.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I hear a variation of this slur from people on the right all the time.

It's not a slur, Nom. It's charity: we figure if you weren't chemically enhanced, you couldn't manage to be quite such a collection of halfwitted clowns.

If you'd rather we not grant you that excuse, and figure you really *are* either completely ignorant of the situation or completely mendacious, I suppose we can.

[Porchlight]

Sure there are conservatives who smoke pot, but anyone who thinks the pot-smoking population doesn't generally skew left is, uh, high.

[Elliott]

Porchlight,

Have you received House of Cards from NetFlix? Ian Richardson's character has a line in the first episode that is rather apt.

[kim]

nom, maybe so....but lefties bogart more than righties.
==================================

[Cecil Turner]

The ignorance of this statement is simply breathtaking.

Yep. And I'd go back to my earlier statement and claim that's about par for lefty strategists. They ain't gonna study war . . . (ever), and it shows.

[kim]

Martin in comment #1; did you mean licks instead of links? I'm trying to put 'candy ass' in context.
====================================

[kim]

Hey Rick, Dean hasn't the spine for combat.
==========================

[kim]

I hope the Left and Obama keep pushing the 'Iraq is a quagmire' theme. It is a surefire way to lose the muddle, who aren't that muddled about it at all.

Sorry to say, lefties, Blood for Oil is beginning to sound almost reasonable.
================================

[MikeS]

My own opinion is that the surge tactics would not have been as successful early in the conflict.
I think the U.S. would have been accused of being unnecessarily brutal.

After witnessing a couple years of barbaric savagery by al Qaeda and Shia militias, our tactics are acceptable by comparison. Most importantly, it seems that the Iraqis are fed up with the violence and are willing to do what's necessary to end it.

There was never any question that we could lose the war on the ground. The only question was would we stay until we achieved victory.

[king]

If you have different figures let me know:

- between 100,000 and 600,000 Iraqi civilians killed, and many more wounded

- Over 4 million Iraqis displaced

- over 4,000 American soldiers killed

- over 30,000 American soldiers wounded

- over $600 billion from American taxpayers by the end of 2008

[Porchlight]

Elliott,

Not yet. My kids don't want me to return Kiki's Delivery Service and Escape to Witch Mountain. But you know what, too bad - the red envelopes are going in the mail tomorrow. Thanks for the reminder - I'll watch for that line.

[Terry Gain]

It's not just Obama''s conclusions that ought to concern us but the way he reached them.

"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: I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there".

Sending more troops to kill the killers was somehow going to result in more killing? And yes, he really did buy into the Dem/MSM idiocy that Iraqis were engaged in wholesale killing because their legitimate political ambitions weren't being addressed.

"So I am going to actively oppose the president‘s proposal. I don‘t doubt his sincerity when he says that he thinks this is the best approach, but I think he is wrong. And I think the American people believe he‘s wrong".

He thought the President was wrong but he was too arrogant to consider that his own uninformed views conflicted with those of the one American -Petraeus- who knew more about the subject than anyone.

Someone worthy of the job as CIC would have studied the proposal for a Surge rather than dismiss it based on Democratic talking points.

Someone who understood what's at stake if we (the country) lost Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran wouldn't have dismissed the Surge out of hand.

Someone who understood the impact on the fortunes of the Democratic party of Bush being defeated in Iraq would have approached the issue of the Surge exactly as Obama did.

[kim]

King, here's a figure for you. One dead American soldier = 2,500 enfranchised Iraqi voters, a stiff, but fair price.
===================================

[kim]

TG, it's simple; Obama simply doesn't understand. He's been reared in a hothouse, and he won't understand why his support steadily erodes. Americans know a lot about used car salesmen. Hey wait a minute, I've just insulted used car salesmen. Most of them have a real product to sell.
=================================

[narciso]

It's as much as concession as the Dhimmi Times will allow; now Harper's is so far on the BDS cycle that Lapham's stewardship of the editorial cycle is Olympian by comparison; Among the highlights, that I glanced at, so you don't have to. The editorial had some extended metaphor of the Sean Bell case to Guantanamo & Iraq. A piece by Jon Hulsman comparing styles of foreign policy strategy to the Godfather; with Bush being the Sonny Corleone;seeing how he ended up at the crossfire of the Jersey Turnpike. A more wise strategy is Michael Corleone, and his attack onSolozzo and the Captain played by Sterling Hayden. I guess that's the Obama strategy. Their cover piece is about the 'lame horse
status of the GOP" and how it needs to be put down; in the event they win, there is
always a coup d'etat to be considered! This was not an original thought, sometime novelist Kevin Baker, made this suggestion five years ago.

[Cecil Turner]

between 100,000 and 600,000 Iraqi civilians killed, and many more wounded

Surely you recognize that figure is ludicrously wide? And if you're exceeding the IBC number, odds are pretty good you're overcounting. So I'd put the upper bound on the dead at about 93,000.

And who's to blame for these? Seems to me blaming Bush for Al Qaeda's car bombs is more than a little bit of a stretch.

[MikeS]

Someone who understood what's at stake...

I think you nailed it Terry. At every turn Obama underestimates the gravity of the situation.

He underestimates the gravity of a situation if we should leave Iraq at the mercy of al Qaeda and Iran.

He underestimates the gravity of our current energy crisis.

He underestimates the gravity of the global jihad movement.

In 2002 he underestimated the gravity of the risk imposed by Saddam Husein with the capacity to produce chem/bio weapons.

[Soylent Red]

Easy nom. No one is coming to get your weed. Chill dude. Have another cheetoh.

(Jeez, I thought hippies were peaceful...)

[Jane]

Obama is currently underestimating how much he is pissing off Canada via Glenn. LUN

[MikeS]

Obama is currently underestimating how much he is pissing off Canada

How about Pakistan?
And those Europeans who have been trying to get Iran to stop enriching uranium.
And Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari.

[Soylent Red]

Hey MikeS...

How about all Iraqi politicians who aren't conducting democracy fast enough for the Obamessiah.

And Mexico with the NAFTA thing.

And Columbia.

But have no fear. Brahman Bhama likes Obama

[Tina]

President Bush met with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani this morning in the Oval Office. (Transcript)

President Talabani: I am proud to have the honor of meeting President George Bush, whom we consider the liberator of Iraq from the worst kind of dictatorship, as a great friend of the Iraqi people.