Barack Obama’s editorial on Iraq in today’s New York Times is generating lots of dialogue. I’m really glad everyone’s covering the story so well, because it leaves me free to bring up a couple of things that are starting to bug me.
First off, I’m getting frustrated with Barack Obama on the surge. From the op-ed:
In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.
But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.
While he doesn’t directly say so, my direct impression is that knowing what he knows now, he would still oppose it.
How is that possible? Maybe Obama’s forgotten what the situation was in Iraq 18 months ago, but I haven’t. The country was spinning madly into civil war, and casualties — both civilian and military — were horrendous and rising daily. Pulling out at that time, it was widely understood, would have resulted in genocide and anarchy, and the entire region was at risk of being pulled into the maelstrom.
Yet even though I’d opposed the Iraq war vehemently and vociferously in 2002/3, I argued in favor of the surge — because it offered a hope, however slim, of heading off a complete meltdown. I took a lot of heat for saying we should try; that I was naive to “hope”; that it was too long a shot (and it was indeed a long-shot) … but folks, the situation today is vastly improved from late 2006 / early 2007.
It’s been incredibly expensive, in lives and resources. That’s true. But would Obama seriously have been happier with the inevitable outcome without the surge? I think, on this question, I’d love to have a direct answer:
Senator Obama, knowing what we know now, would you still oppose the surge?
None of which is to say, by the way, that it isn’t time to start pulling out. It clearly is. Which brings me to the rocks John McCain’s been throwing today from his glass house:
McCain, a Republican senator from Arizona and advocate of the war, criticized Obama’s stance on Iraq, particularly his opposition to the surge of U.S. troops there. [Snip]
“But the major point here is that Senator Obama refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong,” McCain said.
One might assume from that statement that John McCain’s position on Iraq has ever and always been right — yet he was a strong proponent of going in initially.
Now, lots of people thought, with the information they had, that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat — and most of them have since been quite clear that, had they known then what we know now (or knew in late 2003, even), they’d not have supported the invasion. But in June 2004 — long after the Iraqi realities were known — John McCain wrote:
Last August, during my first trip to Iraq, I was struck not by hostiility toward the United States for toppling Saddam Hussein–I encountered none–but by a burning ambition among Iraqis to build their country anew. Nothing I saw then and nothing I have learned since has changed my conviction that the war was just. We were right to liberate Iraq and end Saddam’s threat to the world. [Snip]
Added to this justification for war were the potential benefits to the region–the ripple effects that a free and democratic Iraqi state can still have on the Middle East. Naysayers have accused hawks of playing dice with people’s lives: How could we possibly know that a democratic Iraq would have a demonstration effect on the region? On one level, they are correct; we cannot know. But we did know what would happen if we didn’t try. The ossified situation in the Middle East, with its utter lack of political freedom or economic opportunity for millions of men and women, helps breed murderous ideologies that threaten the United States. And the region’s autocratic but pro-American regimes are increasingly incapable of stifling these deadly, anti-Western tendencies in their own people. The Saudi regime pledges its love and respect for the United States, yet 15 of 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudi. Establishing a democratic Iraq in the heart of the region was, and remains, our best chance for encouraging the necessary transformation of the Middle East. […Snip…]
But were we wrong to invade? No. On the biggest question of all–whether Saddam had to go, by force if necessary–we were right. I would do it again today.
(Note: the article has been removed from McCain’s site. The complete Op-Ed is available via a google-cache)
I can understand people who supported the war initially because they thought there was a clear and present danger to the US and our interests. What I cannot understand is anyone voicing support for preemptive war in pursuit of “trickle-effect” transformations — the very foreign policy theory that led us down this path in the first place..
So… while it would be fine with me if Barack Obama recalls the horrors of the pre-surge months and gave an attaboy someplace, I’d be even happier if John McCain would answer the following question from the 2008 vantage point:
Senator McCain, knowing what we know now, would you invade Iraq all over again?
I’m pretty sure I know what he’d say — but I’d still like to hear him say it. Because there’s wrong, and then there’s Wrong.
(Modified and cross-posted from The Moderate Voice)
Just read your piece at TMV, and stalked you here, Polimom. (WordPress confounds me, making a TMV comment impossible). Just wanted to tell you that your post is brilliant, spot on. Both candidates have missed the boat at times on Iraq. Before reading your post, I watched MSNBC’s Howard Fineman marveling at Barack’s prescient ability to foresee the next big thing (in this instance, an Afghanistan surge). My reaction was similar to yours- if he had such an ability, why didn’t he support the Iraqi surge? Like most others, Obama missed it- he hardly foresaw its success (But hey, I missed it too. Like most others, I thought Petraeus’surge was too little-too late). Not a single MSNBC panelist took exception with Fineman’s ode to BO.
I won’t even bother arguing McCain’s misguided support of the incursion in 03.
Your post speaks of pragmatism. Colin Powell was right in wanting to slow walk the invasion- foreseeing the inevitable Pottery Barn dilemma. Many others foresaw that Rumsfeld’s light footprint occupation was doomed from the beginning.
No one gets it right all the time- we all make mistakes. But it would be nice to have a president who could size up a failed policy and quickly move to Plan B. GWB’s ultimate move from Rumsfeld to Petraeus was hopelessly slow, costing thousands of lives, billion of dollars, and gobs of political capital.
It’s my hope that we’ll next elect someone with a Plan B knack. I suspect Obama may have that ability in foreign policy, thought I’m skeptical that this skill extends to domestic policy.
Anyway, suffice to say that your excellent observations were/are appreciated.
Obama was wrong on the surge on almost every level.
He not only failed to predict it’s success; in fact, he was confident of it’s futility. His grudging acknowledgement of what has since gone right is still petty and small-minded as he still refers to a vague lack of political progress in Iraq. How this translates into any sort of “knack” wrt foreign policy is laughable in the extreme.
As regards Afghanistan (aka the “good” war), the difficulties there are largely due to the Pakistani sanctuary and the failure of many European nations to honor their commitments. That the U.S. doesn’t currently possess the excess combat troops required to redeem European bad faith is the real problem.
In fairness, most of us were wrong about the surge. I supported troop build-ups early on in the occupation, but figured that a late surge would be ineffective in the face of Iraq’s civil unraveling. Still, it’s a total misreading to see Obama as a sage or a seer. He didn’t foresee Petraeus’ marvelous come-back nor has he admitted that supporters such as McCain got it right.
kreiz — I’m glad you “stalked” me — welcome! I agree that we really need a president who is able see when situations have changed and say so. That Obama sees the improvements is not enough, imho.
But bello — I don’t agree that because Obama is reticent about saying he was wrong means he has no knack for foreign policy. I agree with his foreign policy for the most part.
However, I am concerned about the apparent inability to ever say “I was wrong”.
Which “foreign policy ” are we talking about? Yesterday or today’s?
Obama was “right” in his initial opposition to the war, not because of any fundamental understanding of our nation’s foreign policy and national security interests, but because his immediate interests (the “small ball” of Illinois politics) dictated that he oppose the war.
His reticence to honestly acknowledge the success of the surge is informed by similar concerns, the major difference being that he is now playing to a larger audience.
Wisdom? Judgement? LMAO!
bello, I disagree. While I’m not convinced that Obama took the “enormous political risk” his campaign says, he was not just standing there saying, “No war in Iraq”. He was quite clear about why, exactly, it was a stupid idea.
His articulation of those problems was correct. He wasn’t just being oppositional.
But once we went in and the disaster was upon us, it became essential to deal with the mess on our hands. And now that we are coming back out of that very dark tunnel, he’s looking petulant (and/or stubborn).
As kreiz said above — LOTS of people opposed it. But being wrong about the surge isn’t in and of itself a disqualifier. Stubbornly sticking to the wrong is potentially a real problem.
My problem with all this is: how do you decide which candidate is more wrong? The one who is stubbornly maintaining that the surge was not the right thing to do, or the one who thinks preemptively invading in the first place was a good foreign policy strategy?
My problem with all this is: how do you decide which candidate is more wrong? The one who is stubbornly maintaining that the surge was not the right thing to do, or the one who thinks preemptively invading in the first place was a good foreign policy strategy?
Personally I think organized terrorism was set back a decade if not more. That the empire they had built for themselves in countries is gone. I think it was a excellent idea. We just pursued it wrong is all. But then the USA is not exactly skilled at STARTING WARS, only finishing them
Neocon, al Qaeda isn’t an empire. It’s just not that kind of organization — and for sure they weren’t “organized” in Iraq.
“…(H)ow do you decide which candidate is more wrong?”
Which candidate adapted to changed circumstances and who maintained his alignment with party orthodoxy? Who recognized the need for, the utility of, and had the courage to support the implementation of “Plan B”?