Obama Confronts Reporter Over "Surge" Question (VIDEO)

At the Unity Conference in Chicago this morning, Barack Obama, for the 365,292nd time, was asked if he felt he needed to admit that the "Surge" worked, and by extension, that McCain is awesome and the Bush administration brilliant. Because the "Surge," a thin sliver of military tactic that lasted a few months and is now over, is the ONE THING about the ENTIRE IRAQ WAR that the press is trying to get their head around. (Exhibit A: Katie Couric)

Here's the question, as asked by Time magazine's Romesh Ratnesar:

RATNESAR: Senator, I want to ask you about a subject you've had to address repeatedly on this trip, which is the situation in Iraq and the question whether the surge has helped improve conditions there. During the primaries, you criticized Senator Clinton for failing to say that her vote authorizing the war was a mistake. Now we have commanders on the ground pretty much saying that the surge succeeded, and yet you've said that if you had to do it all over again, you still would have voted against the surge. We're not going to ask you to change your position here.

OBAMA: You're not going to ask me, but go ahead.

RATNESAR: I would like to know whether you feel that after the last five years, haven't we learned that a commander in chief needs to be willing to acknowledge mistakes or errors in judgment when circumstances change?

So Obama should admit the "surge" has worked because the commanders on the ground say so? The funny thing about those commanders on the ground -- the Bush administration sure had to fire or otherwise hound out of their jobs a WHOLE LOT OF COMMANDERS before we were left with the ones who deploy nothing more than SURGE LOGIC (TM) and knee-jerk reactions whenever they are asked to summarize the strategic situation in Iraq.

And that's the irony of SURGE LOGIC - it actually thrives so long as the conditions include the commander-in-chief never being willing to acknowledge mistakes when circumstances change.

Anyway, Obama's response was this:

You know, I have to say, it is fascinating to me the to hear you guys reemphasize this over and over again. I have not heard yet somebody ask John McCain whether his vote to go into Iraq was a mistake. i haven't, during the entire week that we were having this conversation. And so the question is, what are the strategic judgments that have to be made in order to make America safe? I strongly believe that going into Iraq was a disaster, strategically. It distracted us from finishing the job in Afghanistan. I have acknowledged, repeatedly, in every one of these interviews that the fact that we put more troops in there helped to quell the violence. i've been saying that all week. The question is whether or not my position in suggesting that we need to begin a phased withdrawal, we should have begun it earlier, whether that position that I took was a mistake, and I do not believe it was, because I continue to believe that the only way for us to stabilize the situation in Iraq -- I believed it then, and I believe it now -- is for the parties to arrive at a set of political accommodations.

Story continues below

advertisement

Actually, Obama's wrong about one of his contentions: McCain was asked once about whether it was a mistake to go into Iraq. Wolf Blitzer questioned him about it on Friday. Watch SURGE LOGIC in action:

BLITZER: But he says that when it comes to judgment, back in 2002 and 2003, early 2003, before the war, he made the right call in opposing the war to begin with, and he says you blundered, you made the wrong call in supporting going to war against Saddam Hussein.

MCCAIN: I would be more than happy to go through all of that again, and historians will. The fact is that Saddam Hussein was bent on the development of weapons of mass destruction, and I'll be glad to discuss that.

The fact is, what did we do at a critical time when we were about to lose the war? We were losing the war.

Senator Obama wanted to get out, I wanted the surge, which was not popular. The surge works. And now what do we do in the future? Do we continue on the path to victory -- and we've succeeded -- or do we set a time for withdrawal and jeopardize and possibly reverse all the gains that we have made? That's the question on the minds of the American people today.

See what I mean? Surge! What it is good for? Avoiding questions of judgment, that's what. Dodging inquiries about the way circumstances have changed. Hewing to the party line long after reality has trumped it.

And like an addict in the throes of meth psychosis, Surge Logic allows for reality to be interpreted in any nonsensical way imaginable. That's what allows McCain to stand in front of the world today and tell us that we were, in fact, greeted as liberators in Iraq. Obama needs to keep on fighting back against Surge Logic, and continue pressing hard for an intervention.

UPDATE: Over at TNR, Noam Scheiber has positive reviews for Obama's answer on the "surge" during his Meet the Press appearance this morning.

Comments

[mcqball]

I object to the way commentators refer to the 'surge' as a strategy. Additions or subtractions of troops to a field of conflict is a tactic, not a strategy. We have no clear strategy for the Iraq war.
Another thing: the surge was initiated in Jan 2007. With all the factor operational over the next year such as Iraqis learning security, Al Qaeda coming and going, Sunni - Shia tension ever-changing, and so forth, on should not feel compelled to conclude, a year later, that a change in violence is due entirely to the 'surge.' Finally, the surge was not meant primarily to contain violence, but to give Iraqis time to complete their politically organization and this is still evolving. So the surge cannot yet be considered a success.

[BCubedReg]

McSurrogates keep hammering home that the surge worked so that the intellectually challenged republican voting block will support McCain. The republicans know their voters are not smart enough to distinguish cause from effect.

[goldnchyl]

I love HuffPo. More than many sites that I've found, there are really insightful, intro/circ­umspective views presented here. Folks that are paying attention. A clear indication that the masses are not as dumb as some candidates and the MSM seem to think.

[blaqntelligence]

Amen!!!

I literally stumbled on this site and have been here ever since.
I was desperate for this type of discourse, the most intelligent, insightful collection of opinions I've seen anywhere.
Excluding trolls, republicans, and pumas.....

[blaqntelligence]

I must amend the "republicans" snark.
Not true in all cases.
Trolls and pumas, on the other hand.....

[Cowtippin]

The fire in Iraq has just started. In the coming months it will be all over the news that:
The Surge is working and everyone can freely enter the Green Zone
More Terrorist have been captured
A plot to bomb a US Embassy was stopped in the nick of time
Iran agrees to halt Uranium. Wink wink
What all the flag waiving Americans can't seem to grasp is the fact that the middle east has been fighting for hundreds if not thousands of years and all the terrorist have to do is lay low for 6 months and when we pull out then the real fire storm will start. Think about it. if Al-Qaeda can unity with Moktada Al-Sadr and control Iraq and it's oil the USA will be hit hard and I'm talking 100,000 dead. I fully expect this to happen in the next few years. Then the republicans will of course blame Obama

[JXJASON]

You are right about " the middle east has been fighting for a long time".

Look at the bombings this week in India. George Bush screwed up and John McCain is worse.

Our country would have been better off if we had concentrated in border security, higher mileage standards, conservation and the development of clean coal, natural gas, solar and wind power.

While John McCain was in the US Senate he could have voted for all of the programs that we do not have today. Instead, McCain voted for the Iraq war and look what we have gotten out of it.

OBAMA 08 - THE SMARTER CANDIDATE

[MaryfromMontcoPA]

Moqtada al Sadr won't unify with Al Qaeda.

Al Sadr is an Iraqi nationalist (whatever else he may be) who has been demanding a unified Iraq and the end to the U.S. Occupation and the U.S. nurturing sectarianism. Iraqis had integrated neighborhoods and no sectarian fighting before our illegal invasion, the dismantling of the unified Iraqi army, and our brutal occupation.

Al Qaeda is a fundamentalist theocratic network that wants the world dominated by their brand of Islamic rule.

No basis for unity. The only reason Iraqis would tolerate the likes of Al Qaeda is to help oust the occupiers. After that, forget it.

[aturner18]

O Here's how he can end this. "The surge worked however there is still much work to be done in Iraq" Now that wasn't hard was it.

[CyrusBeaucephus]

So where is the political progress? Just around the corner? I'm tired of staying the course in this illegal immoral war. Its an embarrassment to America

We are spending five years to use brute force to unsucessfully stabilize a country whose brutal dictator was a former recipient of US military aid?

Couldn't we have just not propped up Saddam in the first place? The WMD lie was made intentionally by Bush, then he changed his tune to wanting to rescue the poor Iraqis from Saddam. They were so busy guarding oil infrastructure in 2003 they let Iraqis walk off with hundreds of tons of high explosives, which have been used to slowly blow up our troops ever since. Any on else would have been impeached for that level of incompetence and deceit

Screw the Surge --- there were hundreds injured and scores killed yesterday. The 'improved' level of security is a JOKE. There has been no political reconciliation. This is all a ploy to save the sorry as*es of the GOP in November

[Alethea]

I know. The hypocrisy is quite astounding isn't it?

[goldnchyl]

"We are spending five years to use brute force to unsucessfully stabilize a country whose brutal dictator was a former recipient of US military aid?"

Indeed. And its unlikely that Sad dam would have even risen to power without our assistance.

[Praedor]

What is ALWAYS left out of this nonsense about the "surge working" is the actual POINT of the surge. What was that purpose again? Was it to surge for the sake of surging? I'm sure it was the point for certain private contractors that make gobs of money (taxpayer money) for more and more military nonsense but that wasn't the (acknowledged) point of the surge. No, the surge was intended ONLY as a means of reducing violence so that the Iraqi people could all get together, hold hands, and create a capitalistic hell in the Middle East for the benefit of oil companies and other corporations. There was supposed to be reconciliation, peace, justice, the American Way in Iraq, etc.

So, how's THAT going? Not so good. I mean, the US isn't even getting permanent bases out of this deal! It now looks like Exxon-Mobile WONT be 100% owners of IRAQ'S natural oil resources! Peace and justice have NOT broken out, there has been no political reconciliation, in fact, the elections keep being put off further and further into the future because the Sadrites are STILL set to win big which means the US is OUT big.

Since nothing is actually going as planned the surge has been repackaged to be its own point. We "surged" for the sake of "surging". Now we just need to stay forever because to do otherwise would be to "lose" and render the "successful" surge unsuccessful.

[Alethea]

Well said!

And the sad thing is that the Mahdi Army is the only group in Iraq that isn't affiliated with Iran, Saddam's Bathist party or Al'Qaeda. In fact, they are the only Shiites that would actually be interested in creating a truly sovereign Iraq that would be somewhat secular.

BUT, they've also been the ones blowing up our troops. And as you said, they would kick us all out in a heartbeat if they could (which we should leave anyway). Oy!

Hence - why we need to take a step back and reexamine everything. Iraq is such a complicated place with complicated people. And Bush's black and white approach has only made things worse. Hence - while the Surge may have "worked" it still remains to be seen whether it "worked, worked."

Just because there is less violence now, doesn't mean it will stay that way if no true reconciliation happens between all the various tribes. And that's a fact that cannot be disputed.

[KarenJW]

Why doesn't OBAMA concede that the surge is working? READ THIS - BY JAMES ABOUREZK

THE DROP IN CASUALTIES HAS LITTLE OR NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SURGE.

1) The drop in casualty rates in fact coincided with the near completion of the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis that the Shiite militias had undertaken in Baghdad. In effect, the Sunni minority already had either been killed, or they had fled to other parts of Iraq, or had fled to Syria and to Jordan to save themselves and their families. To simplify the equation, there were very few Sunnis remaining to be killed who were within reach of the Shiite militias.
2) Adding to this milestone was the OUTRIGHT U.S. BRIBERY OF SUNNI TRIBESMEN IN WESTERN IRAQ , many of whom once had been allied with Al-Qaeda, and who made up the bulk of the insurgency, but who are now FIGHTING ALONGSIDE THE AMERICANS.
3) THE THIRD FACTOR ACCOUNTING FOR THE DROP IN U.S. DEATHS IS THE CEASE-FIRE CALLED BY MOKTADA AL-SADR, which has been of great help in saving American lives.

No Americans lost would be my preference, which would have been the case had Bush not lied in 2003, and had not invaded Iraq that year. - JAMES ABOUREZK

[NURREDIN]

ONE MORE TIME...I have relatives in Iraq I talk to on a weekly basis. The success of the surge is a lie! All the surge did was turn Central Iraq into walled enclaves of Christian,Jewish, Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods. They are no Christian or Jewish men 15 years of age or over left alive. Half the Sunnis are either dead or in Syria and Jordan. EVERY church and synagogue in Iraq has been bombed out of existence.­The neighborhoods are patrolled by the Shiite army and if you wear a Crucifix your life is measured in minutes. ANYONE who believes the surge worked has their head up their a**! Ask John McCain what church he prayed at in Iraq, Ask Joe Leiberman what temple he prayed at. Just because there are fewer American casualties doesn't mean people don't get murdered on an hourly basis. Maybe American casualties are all McCain and his supporters care about. This invasion turned the country over to people who hate the U.S. and Israel (Shiites) but noone seems to want to face that fact. Ask Maliki if he favors bombing Iran or if Israel should exist. He wants us out so he can align himself with Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah,his fellow Shiites.

[Janney]

All McCain talks about is the "War"! What about the economy? That is what's killing us and he needs to quit bashing Obama and tell us how is he going to tackle the economy and the housing crisis and health insurance, Social Security, etc. Enough about the "surge" it is getting sickening!

[goldnchyl]

war is all he knows ... and he doesn't really seem to know that very well.

[condew]

I posted a comment 12 hours ago, it still hasn't shown up.

[goldnchyl]

it might have been deleted. you can check in your profile

[oldwiseone]

If I remember correctly, the purpose of the surge was to enable the Iraqi government to work together, there were no expectations of decreasing the violence. Also, I do remember that a cease fire was called, and that is why the violence decreased. So, did the surge achienve its original purpose or not?

[genseric13]

McC may have just earned a lot of new votes http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25873521/

[genseric13]

Has anyone noticed BO appears more ethnic or African when he is outside as in the German address, but when he is in the studio he looks more w-hite. Any idea why?

[jbeach]

Possibly as simple as studio makeup. Not to make him look white specifically; all videotaped subjects have makeup put on them, to control reflections from their skin for the studio lights and cameras.

[Big0725]

It's called lighting.

[wearyvoter]

Indoors, you have more control over the lighting. Outside, as in the Berlin rally, you're going with natural light. And in a sit-down interview, you're working with lights, reflectors, softboxes, and such, so you're controlling light and shadow.

[oldwiseone]

There is a rule in public speaking that you acknowledge the audience and speak to it.

[goldnchyl]

ya

[LeftLeanWing]

As a black man myself, I really don't see in a scale from Ethnic to White. I do know what you men though.

It is mostly the studio makeup...

I have noticed lately that he has allowed his hair to grow a little and maintain it's natural curl.

It would be so COOL, if he brought back the brush-in waves like we had before the AFRO came to power.

Everyone looked sharp, neat and well groomed with the Waves, but it would look kind of tacky if Obama was seen walking around the White House with a DooRag on his head and hair full of Duke or My Knight or Bergamot or Dax

[JasText]

yeah, or Jheri curls...

[goldnchyl]

huh?

[DontBeFoolish]

Com'on people, give it a break. Ok, I'm a black man so I'll say it for Obama. THE Surge Worked! However, we never should of been there in the first place. Now, will someone ask McCain if they were wrong for starting the war in the fist place.

Oh yea, I better not forget to say this. Make sure the question is asked more than once, in several different way and not by Wolf Blitzer. That was some of the weakest questioning that I think I've ever seen Wolf do.

Remember: You Vote For McCain, You Can't Complain.

[Big0725]

Why do you mention the surge in the past tense. Aren't there more troops in Iraq now then when the surge started?

[Lendall]

I wasn't in favor of the Iraq war, basically because I'm opposed to "sending the troops" pretty much anywhere, for any reason. Call me an "isolation­ist." That having been said, the "war" was "won" when Saddam Hussein and the Baathists were removed from power. Whether you approve of his methods (and I certainly do not), Saddam had done a good job keeping a lid on the centuries-old religious and ethic tensions in that arbitrary landmass called "Iraq." Remove the strongman, and all hell breaks loose. What we see now is no longer a "war" but a massive police action which is not our job, but the job of the new "democratic" government. The "insurgents" are not fighting us as much as they are fighting each other. And our troops get caught in the crossfire. It does not matter if we leave tomorrow, next year, in sixteen months, or in a hundred years. Therefore, the best thing to do is to leave now. Pay the Iraqis fairly for their oil, stop spending U.S. tax dollars to police and rebuild an inherently rich country, and start addressing our own problems. And most important: Next time, STAY HOME!

[oldwiseone]

Sadamn was doing a much better job keeping the peace than we ever did. If we had been smart, we should have supported him in his war with Iran, but instead we allowed Kuwait to invade and occupy 900 sq miles of Iraq, let the Sante fe Drilling company steal Iraqi oil, and double crossed Sadamn when he asked us if he could take his land back.. So we paid the price. If we stay the course, we will allow Israel to bomb Iran, which will then unleash everything it got, and our warships will be forced to defend themselves and voila we will then find ourselves in yet another war, and again the price of oil will increase another four hundred percent, our transportation industry will stop, the stock market will collaspe, China, who already has all our manufacturing capabilities, will buy most of the stock which will be nearly worthless, the Muslims will buy the rest, and we will wake up in the moring wondering how all this came to be.

[Big0725]

More like old cranky one! This entire region has been a cluster f**k since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Iraq isn't a real country, nor is Kuwait or Qatar or Jordan or Syria or, for that matter, Israel. They're all created in the early 20's by the British and French. The oil belongs to whomever can get it. And yes, Saddam kept the peace, like Tito, Stalin, and every other piece of crap dictator in the last 150 years.

[CtJean]

Off thread and redundant for some but

O's birthday is August 4th

Let's give him the biggest $$ day in history

Please pass this on

[DontBeFoolish]

I lke that Idea.

[OneArizonan]

It's all too hard to take! Bragging about the success of the splurge is like bragging that your team didn't give up too many runs in one inning of a game in which you are trailing by a thousand. The war was still a mistake, violence still occurs, we are still losing American soldiers, we still have 140,000 troops in Iraq, Afghanistan is still in jeopardy, American taxpayers still contribute 10 billion dollars a month to fund the war, we still have achieved very few of our objectives, and he's BRAGGING!!

Why does the media allow McCain to gloat over this?!

Sen. Hagel had it right. Stop talking about the surge. It has cost us dearly in lives and dollars.

[oldwiseone]

More realistically, it is like hitting a home run while losing ten to nothing.