Why Obama Cheered the Surge on O'Reilly

What could Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama have possibly been thinking when he told Bill O'Reilly that the Iraq war surge is not only working but working beyond his wildest dreams? Though Obama quickly added that he still thought the war was a mistake and that we should turn things over to Iraqi civilian rule as quickly as possible, that didn't blunt his surge endorsement; let alone his over the top praise of it. The surge has been Republican rival John McCain's mantra for the past year. McCain defiantly shouted it again in his acceptance speech at the Republican convention. Each time he says it he punctuates it by sneering, mocking and nose thumbing at the Democrats, and by extension, Obama for saying that in his demanding more troops, artillery, and attacks, he was right and they were dead wrong.

There are several explanations for Obama's parroting McCain's line to O'Reilly. One is that he was talking to O'Reilly and anything less than a full court exuberance on the Iraq war would bring the O'Reilly hammer down on him. But Obama has seen, heard and dealt with the attacks from the win-the-war critics before so we'll give him a pass on O'Reilly dread. Another explanation is that he's changed his tune on the war. He gave a hint of that some weeks ago when he said that he'd "always" said that he'd rely on the generals and the Pentagon brass to decide what works and what's failed in Iraq. Since they say the surge is working he's simply taking them at their word.

The other explanation for him tossing this political bone is McCain's politics. A big reason for his vault past the other would-be Democratic contenders, especially Hillary Clinton, was his peace candidate pitch. Mid-Democratic pack candidate Obama repeatedly lambasted his then Democratic competitors for backing the Iraq war authorization and appropriations, and implied that he wouldn't (he subsequently did). However, the game quickly changed when Obama became the sole Democratic candidate. A too hard end the war and end it now line would get wild cheers from Moveon.org, and other antiwar activists, but by the time he secured the nomination he had them firmly stuffed in his bag. Getting those same cheers from blue collar workers especially those with sons and daughters, nieces and nephews, brothers an sisters, and relatives of close friends in Iraq in the must win battleground states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Missouri is another matter. These are the voters who Obama desperately needs to snatch the White House.

The truth is that a simplistic bring the troops home now has never been their sentiment. In an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll last January, the question was asked, when it comes to dealing with Iraq which party would do a better job. Stunningly, the Democrats got only a marginally better rating from respondents on the handling of the war than the Republicans. One in five put the GOP and the Democrats on par with each other. Other polls since then have showed something just as curious. While Americans still think the war is a mistake, an equally significant number think that the war should be fought and won -- if possible.

The public mood and the polls on the war have always carried mixed signals. While the Iraq war is seen as a disaster, there is still uncertainty in the public's mind about what to do about it, and who best to do something about it. This uncertainty gives McCain enough room to make his case that he can handle the war better than Obama.

But money and votes aren't the only issue in which Obama sent a different message from the impassioned get-out-of-Iraq-now speeches he once thundered before audiences. The other issue was when to withdraw. Obama backed up his end-the-war-now rhetoric with another public demand that a firm timetable be set for withdrawal. In fact, a timetable with a specific withdrawal date was set by a Democratic senator. But that senator wasn't Obama. It was John Kerry. His bill set the goal of withdrawing combat troops from Iraq by the end of March 2008. In contrast, Obama's withdrawal plan does not set firm deadlines and would keep troops in Iraq if the Bush administration and the Iraqi government met a laundry list of benchmarks.

March has long since passed, the troops are still there and McCain is busy on the campaign trail taking credit for them being there in bigger numbers and seemingly winning.

The Iraq is no longer the hot ticket item with voters that it once was. It's been far overshadowed by economic woes. Obama can now have it both ways he can claim to be the antiwar candidate and at the same time he can back the generals. The joust with O'Reilly was obviously just the right time for that.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is How the GOP Can Keep the White House, How the Democrats Can Take it Back (Middle Passage Press, August 2008).

Comments

[EnviroLitigator]

It all depends, of course, on what is meant by "the surge". As a student of guerilla warfare tactics for the last four decades, there are a few basic rules that the U.S. keeps forgetting (such as, help the people, don't carpet bomb, provide medical and education and agricultural aid]. These have been well known since the Brits did so well in Malaysia. If by the surge one means adding a few brigades, then LOL. If you mean talk to the Sunnis and bring them onboard [bribes are fine if it saves lives], talk to the radical Shias [ditto], build schools and clinics etc., then good idea. Should have been done five years ago. What one can legitimately say is that the Shrub and friends did not have the vaguest idea what they were doing; they were drinking from the fountain of stupidity. Billions wasted. Fraud run rampant. Thoiusands of wasted U.S. lives. Tens of thousands of Iraqi lives lost. We still are not doing it right, and probably never will. Obama is right that Afganistan should have been the focus, and we have blown that opportunity too. It is really a crying shame. Literally.

[norgotoad]

According to PNAC, the goals of the Iraq war were: 1) to dislodge a nationalistic leader contentious to a mid-east US hegemony; 2) the establishment of a Pax Americana as the paradigm of order; 3) to secure the energy assets to coincide with "American interests" (i.e., special interests of big oil and military contractors -- not stated, but implicit in reality).

Goal 1: Mission accomplished. Goal 2: In progress, but not likely. Goal 3: In progre$$. McCain is a risk to goal 3 if he escalates war beyond the scope that can be managed by mercenary enhanced forces (i.e., the risk of a draft). If the war is a total failure, Goals 2 and 3 are history-- can't have that!! So the goal of the "surge" was to make a war-happy U.S. ('cmon Americans "don' t" like war like NASCAR viewers don't like car crashes.. yeah right..) satisfied that a "perceived" -- NOT based upon empirical analysis -- "improvement" can be presented sufficient to hose the public and Demo contenders til' a McCain victory in Nov. McCain can be controlled to stay the course for big oil and Halliburton (hello nurse Palin!), but Obama is a big threat to 2 and 3 cause he don't know the drill. However Obama's endorsement is continuing the delusion of the "surge is working." Therefore, it is. Nice going..

[research]

The surge increased violence against the Iraqis, killed more of them, and created more terrorist worldwide!

how exactly is that "success"??????

[theone718]

There was NO WAY he could have answered that question without knowing exactly what he was doing. After he said it I was like "WOW, is that REALLY the answer he wants to give." That stubborness didn't get Bush anywhere and it won't get Obama anywhere I said this the moment the Dem's started this "political reconciliation" counter attack. You can say the surge worked but you can also make the larger counterargument about the ENTIRE war along with the political reconciliation one. Interesting interview indeed but I will be watching the one on countdown come monday.

[Ifeomamn]

Stop buying into the Right Wing spin on the interview. If you take the time and read things like Frank Rich of NYT does you will stop giving giving RNC/ Mccain credence.

[mouselion]

McCain senses he can garner the blue collar swing vote with his surge mantra -- but he's also making up for his mistake of saying that Iraq could be "won" with even fewer troops than even Rumsfeld called for.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_mccain.html

The surge itself *contributed* to the lower casualties -- but was not the main cause. The military-payola-to-"former" insurgents scheme can be credited to more of that than not. O'Riled-up dread, or not. O should not have capitulated on the surge. At best, Petraeus is dog-paddling over there.

[Jezreel]

Sen. Obama's appearance on the O'Reily Factor was a bold and politically astute move on his part.:

"First, the man. The Barack Obama I witnessed is self-confident, determined and driven...He looks you in the eye and touches your shoulder. He understands how to connect one-on-one...

On the foreign policy front, Obama has convinced me that he is tough but cautious. He rose up quickly because he vehemently opposed the Iraq war. But now I see a man who understands the victory that has taken place in Iraq. I don't believe he wants to screw that up. I could be wrong.

After going mano-a-mano with Obama on television, I am also persuaded that he is a sincere guy"that he wants the best for all Americans. He's an ideologue, but not a blind one. He understands that his story is incredible, and, I have come to believe, he is grateful to the American system for allowing it happen.

It is true that we don't know whether Senator Obama has the ability to solve complex problems, but you can say that about all presidential contenders.

Like most politicians, Obama has used guile and good luck to accumulate his power. He can be ruthless, kind, unfair, and generous. In short, he's a real person trying to achieve an unreal position"that of the most powerful person in the world.

God help him."

http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn;jsessionid=F7452BC06F11B0BC793B063EA1DD2460?pid=24183

[Jezreel]

Mr. Ofari you could have saved yourself both time and creative energy by either reading Sen. Obama's statements to O'Reilly or listening to his remarks in context.

Sen. Obama did not say anything that he has not been saying all along. Since his visit to the Middle East and Europe, Mr. Obama has consistently expressed his appreciation of how well the troops have performed in Iraq both before and after the military surge.

However, he has also acknowledged that other factors have contributed to the current decrease in violence and deaths in the country. He has repeatedly said that the Anbar Awakening, as well as other joint efforts between the Iraqis and US military personnel which began before the troop surge also played a large role in quelling the levels of violence.

In his interview with Mr. O'Reily, Sen. Obama acknowledged the success of our troops with the caveats that he opposed the war from the beginning. While Sen. Obama said: "I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated. It"s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams." He also reiterated his own impatience with the political situation on the ground by stating; "The Iraqis still haven"t taken responsibility," he said. "And we still don"t have that kind of political reconciliation."

[KiwisCanFly]

Obama was telling the truth.

The surge has reduced violence. Who wouldn't cheer less lives lost or maimed?

BUT

The surge wasn't just about reducing violence. As Obama has repeatedly said.

The surge was supposed to pave the way for a stable Iraq, to survive into the future.
Without a functioning Iraqi government the surge has been a failure.

Petraeus has repeatedly said that there is no military solution.

So why are our troops still there?

[countryjoe8]

Exactly.

When Bush announced the surge he listed the goals/objectives to be met. Unfortunately, less than half of them have been achieved.

It's irresponsible for Mccain to keep telling everyone that the surge was a great success. Just reducing violence isn't real success.

The sad reality is that, until the more important goals of the surge are achieved (such as political reconcilation), when we pull out our troops, the violence might escalate back to presurge levels or worst.

[ron071]

The tragedy for America in Iraq has been only one part of the 8 year Bush/McCain/Cheney tragedy for America.

WANT MORE PAIN ??????????VOTE McSAME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JimR]

Obama has ALWAYS said that the surge would have a positive effect. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or military expert to figure that out. Put highly trained troops in a violent area, that's going to have a positive effect on putting the violence down. But whether or not the surge is working is the wrong question.

Let's say you're walking by a dam, and see water pouring out of through a small hole. You surge forward and stick your finger in the hole. The water stops. The surge worked! YAY! But now your standing there with your finger in a dam.

So the real question is... now what?

[loum]

The neo-cons use simplistic thinking. You come down on th insurgency - violence declines. The Iinsurgency will be back. After we leave, the century old tribal wars will begin again. Iraq will be embroiled in civil war and violence. We never should have been there. We should get out. The neo-cons have an amazingly naive outlook on every issue. They are far from scholars. They resent scholars. Their vp pick exemplifies this anti intellectual attitude. She's proud of comparing herself to a pit bull!.

[Totto]

As Obama said, there are two parts to the surge: suppression of violence, and the Iraqi government taking responsibility. Obviously, more troops reduced violence at risk to their lives but the second part of the surge hasn't happened. The Malicki government has not stepped up to the plate.

[ino11]

I certainly hope you're not serious that this presidential candidate would change his opinion about something as serious as his war position and the surge because he's fearful of ramifications from the interviewer?????? THAT would be a problem. Would he likewise be fearful of stating his true positions to heads of states???????

[Chillinout]

Read the whole article, that is not what is being said.

[nomobull]

and that headline is no allt obama said, mr hutchinson was a hillary supporter and dalways attacks Obama no matter how little evidence he attempts to stretch to make his point.

[larry278]

It looks like Obama played O'Reilly like an MP3. Progressives have learned how FAUX NOISE operates & what Ailes likes to see from his talking heads. Progressives now know the FAUX NOISE routine or formula, know what a FAUX talking head will ask of them, how a FAUX talking head will react to any response a progressive will give to a FAUX formula question & how to deal with loaded questions, bluster, sarcasm, pseudo-patriotism. The FAUX scthick & formula never varies.
Mr Murdoch is happy with the FAUX formula as long as it brings in money.
A President Obama will use words but say nothing. The establishment likes that from a POTUS.

[ceti]

The surge "worked" because Iraq has been destroyed. Nothing is left of its secular mixed culture. It is a divided country, with a large portion of its population living as refugees wherever they can be accepted.

The amazing thing about many Americans is that they would forgive the Republicans if this surge was a "success" and the Iraq War was won. All the scandals, all the lies, all the death and destruction, all the incompetence and rank venality, and all the terrible inhumanity brought about by an illegal war such as this would be forgiven, even if the American public had to pay for it for decades to come. The complete amnesia and moral turpitude exhibited here, just so one can yell out USA USA USA like a pavlovian dog, and the Democrats cowardice and complicity is what is on display here. Obama cannot mention the truly unmentionable -- that some has to take responsibility for the of horror and death, but the political establishment here, both Republican and Democrat will surely not, as they are even still looking to fight more wars. Sick.

[tbone99]

The "surge" is working equates with Reagan paying the Iranians to hold the hostages longer so as to influence the election so he would be elected and not releasing them til inauguration day.
The "surge" is just some suitcases of money changing hands. ... and people holding their fire til Jan 20 2009.