Obama gets it wrong
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
Charles Reichley
Published: June 5, 2008
Ever since they took the reigns of government in 2007, the Democrats have been trying to “end the war” in Iraq by quitting the fight and leaving Iraq in the hands of our enemies. Time and again the House and Senate took up legislation to force troop withdrawals and to deny money for supplies and weapons.
Instead, the United States, under the lead of General Petraeus, embarked on a new strategy of increased troops, more direct military confrontation with the enemy, more involvement by increasingly trained Iraqi troops and more commitments by the fledgling Iraqi government.
Month by month conditions improved in Iraq, American losses decreased and attacks against civilians were reduced. The wheels of the Iraqi political machine turned ever so slowly toward long-sought goals and achievements. And the war’s opponents often denied what their eyes were seeing long after it was clear things were finally turning around.
None were more opposed to the troop surge than Senator Barack Obama. And no one stood more firmly for the surge than Senator John McCain.
In January of 2007, the two men appeared on the CBS show “Face the Nation,” to discuss the war. McCain made the case for the new surge strategy, “that we will go in and we will clear and hold and build.” “Do I believe it can succeed? Yes, I do.”
Democrats derisively labeled the plan “The McCain Doctrine.” Obama favored a plan to “constrain and condition what the president is doing” and to begin withdrawal “four to six months from now.” He said the surge would make things worse: “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.”
Obama introduced legislation which would have started troop withdrawal in May of 2007. In July, Obama told a crowd in New Hampshire “Here’s what we know. The surge has not worked.” In December, he told another audience “The surge is not the solution to Iraq’s problems,” and in a January 2008 response to the State of the Union, said “Bush said that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know
that’s just not true.”
But a funny thing happened on the way to the Democrat’s Iraqi surrender — we are actually succeeding. It is possible that by the time the next president takes office, our troops could be coming home — under a banner of victory, rather than the shame of defeat.
Even Obama has grudgingly acknowledged success, saying in a recent debate “I welcome the genuine reductions of violence that have taken place.” In fact, the surge has done more than just reduce violence. By clearing out terror cells and insurgent strongholds and holding the territory, the surge has brought real progress for the Iraqi people.
As a result, some say the Iraqi government has met 12 of the 18 political benchmarks and is making progress on 5 more. The surge gave the Iraqi people the space they needed to turn things around — as it was hoped to do and as John McCain said it could work.
Because of the McCain Doctrine, there is new hope for Iraq. If Barack Obama had been president in 2007, we’d face an Iraq torn apart by war and controlled by a terror-backing Iran. If leaders are judged by their effectiveness, the McCain doctrine was implemented and has succeeded in turning Iraq around, while Obama was unable to get his own party to follow him down the path of defeat.
And if a mark of a leader is the ability to learn from their mistakes, there is no sign Obama even acknowledges his error. In a debate in January of this year, Obama contradicted his previous position, claiming “Now, I had no doubt — and I said at the time … if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.” And his continued insistence on troop withdrawal without preconditions shows a lack of reflection and correction.
In his defense, Obama has little time in national politics and little experience in foreign affairs or the military. He has only been to Iraq once, before the surge. If he finds time to visit Iraq again, he may recognize the surge has succeeded and that now is not the time for a premature and ill-considered retreat.
Charles Reichley has been a Prince William County resident since 1981. He can be reached at critically .
Page 1 of 1
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( edwinking ) on June 06, 2008 at 10:58 am
Mr.Reichley,would you please tell us just how many American lives is the number that we should be willing to sacrifice in this “lost cause” war? Do you have any family members who should be in this number? As a matter of interest, did you know anyone that was sacrificed there? So long as it is my war and your fight all is well but it is another kettle of fish when it gets to be my fight.Very few chicken hawks participate, they stand in a very safe place, hide behind others,and cheer.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( RonCharest ) on June 05, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Pwanon,
I note that both Mr. Jacobsen and I are veterans. Are you? If not, why not? If you believe so strongly in the war on Iraq, why haven’t you volunteered to go help fight?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( pwanon ) on June 05, 2008 at 11:45 am
Always fun to hear the liberals belittle the fine service of our men and women in uniform by degrading what they’ve accomplished.
Most of our brave soldiers believe in what they’re doing in Iraq. They believe in what they’ve accomplished. They see tangible evidence that the Iraqi people are enjoying more freedom than they have in 30 years. They see Iraqi schools reopening. They see reconstruction everywhere, while violence dips to new lows month after month. They (and those of us who appreciate them...also known as anyone but liberals) understand that we are extremely close to success. This greatly annoys liberals, as they hate to see the United States succeed when would could have followed their policy of quitting when conditions become adverse.
In any case...the enemies of America (woops, liberals) have now trotted out B. Hussein Obama...a man with scant domestic policy experienc, no foreign policy experience, and zero experience in military affairs. He claims to represent change, and different way of thinking. Rarely, if ever, does he actually define what “change” means, but apparently substance doesn’t matter to liberals. He wants to negotiate, without conditions, with nations like Iran and Venzuela...when all this would do is confer legitimacy and strengthen our enemies. One minute, Iran is “barely a threat”. Three days later, Iran “represents a grave threat to our national security”.
He associated with known terrorists and terrorist sympathizers for 20+ years. He had no problem with anything they said or did until it became a political liability. He then claims he doesn’t know them well...or wasn’t present...or something else convenient when it comes time to explain. Perhaps placing himself somewhere other than where he actually was is the “change” he speaks of so often.
You see...it’s beyond easy to tear BHO apart, on so many different levels. I only hope McCain has the stones to do the same, rather than the mealy-mouthed sissy approach he’s shown lately.
And if B. Hussein Obama wins, then the liberals can accomplish the number one mission they’ve been striving for...to surrender, appease, capitulate, and just bend over in general for everyone who has any problem with any thing we do.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Grant Gary Jacobsen ) on June 05, 2008 at 8:05 am
The people who support the war in Iraq are invariably those who will never face the risk of losing a leg or an arm from an IED on an Iraqi road.
Also, please tell us again who our “enemies” are in Iraq. Do they include women and children?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( RonCharest ) on June 05, 2008 at 7:51 am
I’m not sure which parallel universe Mr. Reichley lives in. But in this universe, the good news out of Iraq is that only 19 soldiers died in Iraq in May, the lowest total since the war began. And 4 of those did not result from combat! This brought our total number of combat deaths since we invaded Iraq up to a mere 4,084. This total is not counting the number of non-combat deaths or casualties for other coalition troops. The 4,084 total is also not counting the number of US troops who have committed suicide, which are now estimated to be around 10,000 since 2003. The number of physically wounded now total about 29,911, and the number of troops suffering PTSD now totals about 300,000.
Also this past month of May, General Petraeus himself stated “it’s unlikely that Iraqi security forces can take the lead in all 18 provinces this year, as was recently predicted by the Pentagon.”
Let us not forget Sen. John McCain’s visit last year to a downtown Iraqi marketplace. He observed no signs of violence - surrounded by dozens of armed soldiers backed up by armored vehicles and Apache helicopters. I’m sure his reality was the same one experienced by all Iraqis, all day every day.
Mr. Reichley sort of finished his column by stating: “If Barack Obama had been president in 2007, we’d face an Iraq torn apart by war and controlled by a terror-backing Iran.”
So let’s see; The best Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) estimates of Iraq casualties now exceed 1 million civilians killed as a combined result of US military actions and intersectarian violence (civil war). There are over 2 million Iraqi refugees. Many of them are living in squalid camps along the Jordanian and Syrian borders, hoping to go somewhere else (Our country has only granted residency visas to a few thousand Iraqis). Meanwhile, there is now less electricity, less sewage treatment, less food and medical supplies, fewer jobs and less oil production since we invaded. The schools are blown up as fast as our soldiers paint them. Bagdad and other major cities are controlled by militias working for different Iraqi factions, all shooting at each other when they’re not actually shooting at our troops.
The Iraqi government is now holding regular diplomatic talks with the government of Iran, which would be the same Iranian government President Bush - and Sen. McCain - claim are too evil for us to talk to. It is commonly acknowledged by our military - which live in this universe - that Iran now has more influence over the areas of southern Iraq than they ever did during Hussein’s regime.
For all this, we’re only spending approximately $3,000 per minute, all of it borrowed from countries such as China and Saudi Arabia.
But, to be fair to Mr. Reichley; I note his lack of experience in national politics, little experience in foreign affairs, and apparently no experience in the military, as explanation for yet another inane column.
Report Inappropriate Comment