Now The Surge Is Succeeding?

Reality has overtaken Obama at long last:

The troop surge in Iraq has been more successful than anyone could have imagined, Barack Obama conceded Thursday in his first-ever interview on FOX News’ “The O’Reilly Factor.”

As recently as July, the Democratic presidential candidate declined to rate the surge a success, but said it had helped reduce violence in the country. On Thursday, Obama acknowledged the 2007 increase in U.S. troops has benefited the Iraqi people.

“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

Here is an old post with links to the vast Obamafuscations last July when Obama struggled to pretend that (a) the surge was not successful and (b) he had always said the surge would succeed as it had.  John Dickerson raised an excellent question about Obama's judgment:

If Obama was wrong about the tactical gains that would be made by the new strategy and wrong about how the Iraqi political leaders would react, can his larger theory about how Iraqis will respond to a troop pullout remain intact? Perhaps, but he has the burden of explanation.

Right - Obama will be in a big hurry to tackle that hypothetical "what if?" puzzle - how might Iraq have developed if his "surrender now" policy had been adopted in the winter of 2007?  Who can tell?  But the National Intelligence Estimate of Jan 2007 said this:

Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation.

OK, so Obama opposed a surge that succeeded and advocated a policy that the NIE said at the time would lead to a disaster in Iraq.  Troubling - maybe he can commiserate with a Times pundit.

As to whether anyone could have predicted that the surge would be effective - well, Bush did introduce it this way in his January 2007 speech:

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons:  There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents.  And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.  Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does.  They also report that this plan can work.

...

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not.  Well, here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents, but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned.  This time, we'll have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods -- and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

I can believe that none of the people Obama speaks with thought the Surge could succeed.  But Bush, McCain and Petraeus expected success.

PILING ON:  Jeff Goldstein:

I simply must point out that this line, “I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” is not really a political winner I suspect, especially given that the man he’s running against believed in the surge (as did those who planned it). Had they not, the charge Obama is making here is that the military was simply throwing away American lives on a strategy that they didn’t really think would work — and that they really just kinda lucked into success.

And shorter Dale Franks: Obama would like us to believe that history is bunk.  Or at least, this history.

Comments

[Antimedia]

You find what you're looking for. Thus liberals find defeat where others find success, and liberals find peace and love where others find only tyranny and misery.

[Elliott]

“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

McCain's campaign will hit him hard for this. Maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of the campaign.

[Sue]

The best part about it? All of the headlines are saying Obama says surge succeeded, or words similar to that. ::grin:: His base will go balistic!

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

It doesn't matter what Obama says. John McCain told his wife to go up to the balloon Sarah Palin inflated, stick a pin in it, and he'd come along and strike a match and blow it sky high.

What an imbecile. I've never seen anything more self-destructive by any politician. EVER. The 1964 Phillies weren't this embarrassing.

[RichatUF]

I can believe that none of the people Obama speaks with thought the Surge could succeed.

But Obama has his secret weapon to deal with Iraq. Biden, a guy that is less popular across Iraq than al-Sadr.

[Sue]

Play it again, Elliott...

[Elliott]

But Bush, McCain and Petraeus expected success.

And they would have been irresponsible to advocate/implement it if they hadn't.

[Sue]

The 1964 Phillies weren't this embarrassing.

Well, keep it up and you might be able to compete for the title.

[Rick Ballard]

Does Obama have a flare for the bleeding obvious or what?

Elliott,

Like Sue said - play it again. McCain should take the tack that Megan McCardle outlined - Obama is much more thoughtful and reflective than is McCain. He's vastly deeper than McCain could ever hope to be. He's so damn intellectual that he can cling to belief in any absurdity that his fantastic intellectual prowess can rationalize far beyond the time when someone with a lesser intellect would simply note that it was wrong and give it up.

Obama's gonna need tourniquets for this, not bandages. He's heading into Black Knight territory quite quickly.

[Sue]

What we aren't seeing on tv or at least I'm not.

[Elliott]

Yes, Rick, the insights of the One can only be truly comprehended by his acolytes, whose blessed dispensation it is to disseminate same across the land.

In other words, he'll always have parrots.

[Jim Rhoads aka Vnjagvet]

BHO's multi-million dollar McSame media buy is now obsolete and mouldering in the grave.

Bush has been thrown under the bus, but I suspect he doesn't mind. He will gladly wait until November 5 to get his appreciation from his party.

[JB]

So let's see...

Obama's big selling points -

1) Judgment - Obama wrong on the surge, McCain right.

2) Change - Obama virtually nonexistent record of change, Palin took on her own party.

Shrug...hey, look, my kids are as cute as the Palins'! C'mon, guys!

[bgates]

Elliott, you seem pretty sure we're going to end up in the Casa Blanca. I just hope we won't have to endure too much of Lindsey Graham, Mel Martinez, and the rest of the usual suspects.

[PD]

"Shrug...hey, look, my kids are as cute as the Palins'!"

Nah. The *real* genius of McCain's pick of Palin is that he gets Piper, who outcutes the Obama girls.

[Elliott]

Whichever ticket wins we'll be subjected to plenty of Renault-able energy nonsense.

[Neo]

Does Obama have a flare for the bleeding obvious or what?

It's part of his campaign mantra ...

Banality for the Common Man

[Neo]

1) Judgment - Obama wrong on the surge, McCain right.

Let's keep this kind of stuff above his pay grade.

[JB]

Piper isn't just cute, she's a character.

Did you see how pissed she was tonight? She wanted a piece of some those Code Pinkos, I bet.

[Elroy Jetson]

Obama's quote that the surge succeeded in ways noone anticipated belittles our own military. Did the troops operate in the field believe they were going to fail?
I think those brave men and women who did mulitple tours knew what worked and what did not. It took a brilliant General Petraeus and the rest to implement his plans to right the ship and lead us to the brink of victory. God Bless the men and women serving our great country.
And God bless Obama, the last person in America to realize that we are winning! This election is all about judgement, right?

[M. Simon]

jim,

I was just going to say the same thing. So let me say it again:

McSame is off the table.

It was a poor tactic IMO but it energized the O! base. He is pissing off his base. FISA and now this.

He is destroying his own campaign.

Maybe, like the USSR, it has the seeds of its own destruction built in.

He is no longer The One, Hope and Change have been co-opted, and McSame is gone. You can't keep destroying your successive campaign themes and keep the troops on message. No message. Fini.

The Obama campaign will be studied for years. How not to do it.

Axelrod will be reduced to running the campaigns of big city machine politicians - at reduced rates until he gets some wins.

BTW do you suppose the reason Obama is burning through money so fast is that there is no honor among thieves?

Obama now has to campaign against McCain/Palin instead of the worst President evah.

I read over at Althouse a comment by Biden that he will not attack dog Sarah for fear of winding up dog meat. (well not quite so colorful) He is going to test her on policy. Good luck with that.

Another note: the Shrinking Media has put the final nail in their coffin with this election. It drew the masks off. Not only have they not helped Obama - they destroyed themselves trying.

[M. Simon]

jim,

I was just going to say the same thing. So let me say it again:

McSame is off the table.

It was a poor tactic IMO but it energized the O! base. He is pissing off his base. FISA and now this.

He is destroying his own campaign.

Maybe, like the USSR, it has the seeds of its own destruction built in.

He is no longer The One, Hope and Change have been co-opted, and McSame is gone. You can't keep destroying your successive campaign themes and keep the troops on message. No message. Fini.

The Obama campaign will be studied for years. How not to do it.

Axelrod will be reduced to running the campaigns of big city machine politicians - at reduced rates until he gets some wins.

BTW do you suppose the reason Obama is burning through money so fast is that there is no honor among thieves?

Obama now has to campaign against McCain/Palin instead of the worst President evah.

I read over at Althouse a comment by Biden that he will not attack dog Sarah for fear of winding up dog meat. (well not quite so colorful) He is going to test her on policy. Good luck with that.

Another note: the Shrinking Media has put the final nail in their coffin with this election. It drew the masks off. Not only have they not helped Obama - they destroyed themselves trying.

[Daryl Herbert]

I'm sure McCain will release an ad in the last month showing all of Sen. Obama's various conflicting statements about the surge.

The "wind surfer" ad showing John Kerry skipping back and forth was very effective. We will probably see a whole bunch of those.

McCain's camp has probably already cut most of those ads (and would edit them a little to add a few new statements between now and when he uses them).

[Elliott]

I can't help myself, so here's more from the O'Reilly interview:

SEN. OBAMA: -- but the Iraqis still haven't taken a responsibility. And we still don't have the kind of political reconciliation.

Mister, I met a mantra once...*
___________________________
*I've said it before and I'll say it again.

[Mike G in Corvallis]

BTW do you suppose the reason Obama is burning through money so fast is that there is no honor among thieves?

*blink* Do you suppose that Obama's consolation prize if/when he loses the election will be a hundred million bucks or so that he funnels to left-wing "consultants" and "publicity efforts"?

Remember, he's already gotten away with this once. Depending on whether matching funds were ever provided by donors, Obama pissed away between $50 million and $150 million on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, with much of the money going to radical friends and causes rather than to schools.

I wonder how all that presidential campaign money will be laundered ...

[Neo]

MR. O'REILLY: I think you were desperately wrong on the surge. And I think you should admit it to the nation that now we have defeated the terrorists in Iraq. And the al Qaeda came there after we invaded, as you know. Okay, we've defeated them. If we didn't, they would have used it as a staging ground.

We've also inhibited Iran from controlling the southern part of Iraq by the surge which you did not support. So why won't you say, I was right in the beginning, I was wrong about that?

SEN. OBAMA: You know, if you've listened to what I've said, and I'll repeat it right here on this show, I think that there's no doubt that the violence in down. I believe that that is a testimony to the troops that were sent and General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated, by the way, including President Bush and the other supporters.

It has gone very well, partly because of the Anbar situation and the Sunni --

MR. O'REILLY: The awakening, right.

SEN. OBAMA: -- awakening, partly because the Shi'a --

MR. O'REILLY: But if it were up to you, there wouldn't have been a surge.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, look --

MR. O'REILLY: No, no, no, no.

SEN. OBAMA: No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

MR. O'REILLY: If it were up to you, there wouldn't have been a surge.

SEN. OBAMA: No, no, no, no. Hold on.

MR. O'REILLY: You and Joe Biden -- no surge.

SEN. OBAMA: No. Hold on a second, Bill. If you look at the debate that was taking place, we had gone through five years of mismanagement of this war that I thought was disastrous. And the president wanted to double-down and continue on open-ended policy that did not create the kinds of pressure in the Iraqis to take responsibility and reconcile --

MR. O'REILLY: It worked. Come on.

SEN. OBAMA: Bill, what I've said is -- I've already said it succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.

MR. O'REILLY: Right! So why can't you just say, I was right in the beginning, and I was wrong about the surge?

SEN. OBAMA: Because there is an underlying problem with what we've done. We have reduced the violence --

MR. O'REILLY: Yeah?

SEN. OBAMA: -- but the Iraqis still haven't taken a responsibility. And we still don't have the kind of political reconciliation. We are still spending, Bill, 10 (billion dollars) to $12 billion a month.

[Neo]

I wonder if Obama is holding up the moving goalposts during the interview.

[JM Hanes]

Does it count if I watch the late night/early am O'Reilly rerun? Obama didn't congratulate John McCain in the interview, did he?

[JM Hanes]

Thanks for the transcript, Elliott! Aside from the surge and Obama's boneheaded Sunni/Shia analysis, this little exchange struck me as extremely inartful -- and I'm not referring to the syntax. He's talking about Afghanistan and putting "more pressure on Pakistan":

MR. O'REILLY: Like what?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, for example, we are providing them military aid without having enough strings attached. So they're using the military aid that we use --

MR. O'REILLY: For nothing!

SEN. OBAMA: -- to Pakistan, they're preparing for war against India.

Geez! Obama is a diplomatic disaster zone. I hate to say it, Sue, but I think O'Reilly may end up handing the McCain response team some of the most fertile fodder evah.

[JM Hanes]

Obama's hair looked really weird. Has it always looked like that? Yes, I watched it. I just couldn't resist the temptation to check out his body language, but mostly, I just couldn't resist the temptation.

Good grief, Jane Hall thinks Obama did a credible job of explaining himself. Bill O'Reilly looked Obama in the eye and decided he was not a wimp.

[kim]

Yeah, Obama's funny. Let's invade Pakistan; they're planning to invade India, you know.
=========================

[BobS]

I was tired last night a school and a football game, so I didn't have the will to listen andy Dems, but I saw some excerpts. One of his speaking teachniques is always to segway when back into a corner with "I've always said" or "I've already said" .

Its a clever techinique to use when you are being less than forthcoming. I also disarms the person asking the question to an extent to prevent probing and followup.

O'Reilly's annoying and I don't like his taste for his taste in Pearl Harbor journalsim - even with libs. But he had Obama stammering in ways that I found astonishing.

I was able to watch Hillary's interview with O'Reilly being equally tough and she handled the interview with much more calm than did Obama.

Does Tim Russerts passing leave Bill O'Reilly as the one journalist who can be trusted to ask the tough questi on the big stage. I'll never forget Russert's habit of putting up previous quotets. It was effective.

[PeterUK]

"*blink* Do you suppose that Obama's consolation prize if/when he loses the election will be a hundred million bucks or so that he funnels to left-wing "consultants" and "publicity efforts"?

Yes,but without the funneling.This is Barry's big hit.

[kim]

What I'm curious about is if he loses, will he go the way of past failed Democratic candidates and seep back into the woodwork, or will he remain a viable politician.
======================================

[PeterUK]

Insert Obama and O'Reilly,in theDead Parrot Sketch

[Jane]

“I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

Has anyone else noticed that for Obama "I've already said" is code for "i'm changing my position - again."

[kim]

Yes, it's a common rhetorical trick for liars.
=======================

[kim]

It's awfully hard to refute on the spot.
================

[Porchlight]

I'm so confused. Did the Obama interview with O'Reilly air last night? I thought it was going to be on next week.

[MarkJ]

Interesting comment by Monica Crowley on Fox about Obama's surge comments: in short, his response to O'Reilly gave her the strong perception that Obama is a man congenitally incapable of admitting mistakes.

Oddly, this is precisely the trait that Democrats have been trying to tack on to GWB for years.

Go figure.

[kim]

I think it is two or more parts, Porchlight. The CAC segment is next Tuesday. He may have walked into a trap already. I mean, worse than 'English professor who lives in the neighborhood'.
======================================

[kim]

It's very interesting. He knows what they did with CAC, but he doesn't know what has been figured out by the opposition. So he's walking a tightrope. Really, he's already hanged himself with the 'English professor' bit. It only takes an IQ of 80 to figure out that was a big fat lie.
====================================

[kim]

Walking a tightrope painting himself into a corner without a safety net and on thin, baby, ice.
=============================

[kim]

Good point, MarkJ; what Obama is excellent at is pretending to be the boy with unmeltable butter in his mouth. Had he had close questioning during the run-up, he'd have been exposed and Hillary would be the next President. Thank God the Dems have given us yet another fatally flawed hubritic mess.
=============================

[pagar]

Good morning, Jane, Maybe we should call this the "I've already Said" campaign.

[Porchlight]

Thanks, kim. I know I can go find this out on the Web but I've suddenly developed an aversion to all things Obama. I'll read the transcript, though.

[east coast]

went back to watch o'reillys talking points with obama - initially interested in his answer to option b if negotions with iran didn't work - military response. not a good idea to "tip our hand" was his response. isn't that just what his side of the aisle and backers have been doing for over 7 years.

[bio mom]

Anyone post this yet? New CBS poll out taken MTW this week. Tied at 42. 8 point Obama lead wiped away.

[Captain Hate]

SEN. OBAMA: No. Hold on a second, Bill. If you look at the debate that was taking place, we had gone through five years of mismanagement of this war that I thought was disastrous

This really frosts me and I doubt that McCain will ever address this (for a variety of reasons) so I'll rant about it here: A couple of months ago at AoS a commenter stated that Rumsfeld is really being hung out as an idiot but that the Surge had to have been preceded by a lighter more mobile force in order to be flexible enough to seize the primary strategic areas. And that to have gone in with massive, bludgeoning force would've confirmed to the Iraqis what their quisling state-controlled media had been feeding them about how we were gonna rape and kill all of them. And that by doing what we did it enabled the Iraqis to eventually see that al Qaeda was the bad guys and realize that we were the good guys, at the expense of everything that was going wrong at the time. A lose the battle to win the war type of thing.

I'm sure things like this are debated and discussed at places like West Point with more insight than I have but this as presented struck me as extremely plausible. I doubt that McCain will attempt a Rumsfeld reputation rehabilitation because from his speech last night his tactic is to run away from Bush. And a ditherer like Barry seems to lack the ability to even entertain something so removed from his idyllic worldview where everything revolves around him.

[hit and run]

Rick:
He's vastly deeper than McCain could ever hope to be. He's so damn intellectual that he can cling to belief in any absurdity that his fantastic intellectual prowess can rationalize far beyond the time when someone with a lesser intellect would simply note that it was wrong and give it up.

NHD

Nuance Hyperactivity Disorder