Obama’s Stubborn Blindness
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:49am Mark Noonan
Amongst the left’s varied anti-Bush narratives, one of them is that President Bush is a rather dense man who stubbornly sticks to a policy even after it has been proved a failure. This was used to great effect in the 2006 campaign when the Democratic narrative about Iraq being unwinnable seemed confirmed by events in Iraq. But, as it turns out, President Bush could change - and take on the policy of his staunchest GOP critic, John McCain - and so the “troop surge” was begun, and it has now proven to be one of the most amazing military and political successes in the annals of American arms. Meanwhile, Barack Obama not only refuses to admit to the changed reality, he seems determined to carry off his 2008 campaign as if the situation of 2006 still exists, as Michael Barone notes:
In January 2007, when George W. Bush ordered the surge strategy, which John McCain had advocated since the summer of 2003, Barack Obama informed us that the surge couldn’t work. The only thing to do was to get out as soon as possible.
That stance proved to be a good move toward winning the presidential nomination — but it was poor prophecy. It is beyond doubt now that the surge has been hugely successful, beyond even the hopes of its strongest advocates, like Frederick and Kimberly Kagan. Violence is down enormously, Anbar and Basra and Sadr City have been pacified, Prime Minister Maliki has led successful attempts to pacify Shiites as well as Sunnis, and the Iraqi parliament has passed almost all of the “benchmark” legislation demanded by the Democratic Congress — all of which Barack Obama seems to have barely noticed or noticed not at all. He has not visited Iraq since January 2006 and did not seek a meeting with Gen. David Petraeus when he was in Washington.
I can remember how opponents of the Vietnam War simply tuned out news of American success when at Richard Nixon’s orders Gen. Creighton Abrams pursued a new strategy. Opponents of the Iraq war, including Obama, seem to have been doing the same.
We’ve seen that here on Blogs for Victory, on a necessarily smaller scale - still our leftist readers insist that its all a failure and we must get out and they still search for any iota of negativity to use as justification for their dissent against victory in Iraq. In the American political family, Barack Obama and his Democrats have become the dissenting juror who has never seen 11 such stubborn men in his life - everyone is catching on to our stupendous victory, except for them. My guess is that Obama and his Democrats just don’t know what to do with victory in Iraq, so they simply pretend it isn’t happening.
The fundamental problem here is that the American left is not animated by love of country - they are animated by a desire for power and a desire for affirmation that they are, indeed, the smartest, wisest and most caring people around. Had the left been animated by love of country they, first off, wouldn’t have gone in for all that conspiracy-theory nonsense mostly saying “Bush lied, people died” - but even if they did at one time feel justified in saying that, anyone who loves America would now admit to our victory and, if once opposed to the effort - especially the troop surge - they would admit they were wrong about it and join in congratulating our military, the President and those (like John McCain) who advoated the surge even when it was unpopular to do so. We can expect precisely nothing like this from the left - because to admit they were wrong would mean they aren’t the smartest people in the room and if there’s one thing they’ll never do, it is to admit that.
As for how this will play out in the 2008 campaign - who knows? Obama will continue to talk of a failed 8 years and how McCain just promises more failure. We will see if this ends up making Obama look like a fool - or, to be more accurate, more of a fool than he already appears. McCain, meanwhile, will be able to continually point to his advocacy of the surge - and its complete success - as proof of his abilitiy to analyse a difficult situation and come up with the correct solution…which is just what we need, all else being equal, in a President.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Republicans, War on Terror
14 Comments
1. Dennis | June 23rd, 2008 at 1:58 am
The fact is that Mr. Obama frequently recognizes “the reduction of violence in Iraq” (his words) and has said he is “encouraged” by it. He has never said that he would refuse to consult with commanders on the ground, and he has never called for a precipitous withdrawal. His mantra on Iraq, to the point of tedium, has always been that “we must be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.” His roughly 16-month timetable isn’t hasty and isn’t “retreat.” As The Economist, a supporter of the war, recently put it, a safer Iraq does not necessarily validate Mr. McCain’s “insistence on America staying indefinitely” and might make Mr. Obama’s 16-month framework “more feasible.”
After all, the point of the surge, as laid out by Mr. Bush, was to buy time for political reconciliation among the Iraqis. The results have been at best spotty, and even the crucial de-Baathification law celebrated by Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain in January remains inoperative. Mr. Obama’s timetable is at least an effort to use any remaining American leverage to concentrate the Iraqi leaders’ thinking. Mr. McCain offers only the status quo: a blank check holding America hostage to fate and ceding the president’s civilian authority over war policy to Gen. David Petraeus and his successors…
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/opinion/22rich.html?em&ex=1214366400&en=2501a171c026ac0b&ei=5087%0A
2. Mark Noonan | June 23rd, 2008 at 2:07 am
Dennis,
Nice try, but we’re long past anything like “spotty” political progress in Iraq - like Obama, you are just being willfully blind to the splendid victory we have achieved there. Heck, we might be able to withdraw most of our troops by June of 2009, at this rate…but that won’t get you, or Obama, off the hook - you, and Obama, were calling the campaign lost years ago…well, its won, and won rather handily in the event.
You, and Obama, first have to admit you were wrong, wrong, wrong about it…then you can start having realistic views on Iraq.
3. Dennis | June 23rd, 2008 at 2:11 am
Deleted - off topic; Ed Note: look, you were wrong, very, very, very wrong. Not wrong like “one plus one equals three”, but in the nature of “one plus one equals yellow”. You’ve been so wrong on this that you’d have to improve mightily just to be an utter screw up in your Iraq opinions. So, don’t try and change the subject to 2002. This is about 2006 to 2008….concentrate. You can do it!
4. Dennis | June 23rd, 2008 at 2:24 am
Deleted - off topic.
5. The New Conservative | June 23rd, 2008 at 4:53 am
The truth is Obama knows things are better in Iraq, but he can’t admit it because he put all his eggs in the wrong basket.
http://thenewconservatives.blogspot.com/
6. OpChaosUK | June 23rd, 2008 at 5:59 am
The truth is Obama knows things are better in Iraq, but he can’t admit it because he put all his eggs in the wrong basket.
Period.dot.bingo. This is the same as Kerry in ‘04, and all the pundits who backed the alleged Vietnam hero. Once they’ve gone past the point of rescue, they stick with their lies and denial, because they have the backing on the drive-by’s, and their base is the least intelligent in the country.
If Barack is elected, just see how quickly things “turn around” in Iraq, without any change in policy. The “turn around” will start in the drive-by media, and Barack will get the credit for it. This is their playbook; it’s why they can lie and deny…
7. Baton Rouge | June 23rd, 2008 at 8:01 am
Never even in the times of war in some of the most ardently right wing states in Europe in the mid 20th Century did I read such transparent propaganda mixed with coherent argument. Honestly if you stopped hugging Dubya for one minute and looked at what has happened in the last two years you would realize the whole anti-Obama thing could have been stricken and allowed the post to stand on its own merit. But lacking combat experience and deciding that wars are political things rather than extensions of diplomacy I can grasp your need to go in that direction. However, you are still dead wrong on several points.
Isn’t the goal of beating the drum for a cause supposed to make it appear as if you aren’t doing something uncomfortable? Noonan you make it appear as if there are no Democrats in foxholes or manning checkpoints in Iraq. The point of a professional army made up of citizen soldiers is that you have a fighting force that is not manipulated by political forces back home.
I am wise enough to understand why you are an anti-intellectual and why you don’t want to discuss the run up to the war, the failure to put the proper number of troops in and the resistance to an increase in troop levels until February 2007. There’s no need to plow that ground that has been turned over so much that nothing likely will ever grow there. I think the truth about why Bush went to war is unknowable and both the Left and the Right should just let that go until history reveals itself in a century or so. America can only hope that David McCullough’s beautiful daughters share his passion for writing history.
Getting back to the point the troop surge has only been one tine in a fork of success in Iraq. The United States government has spent billions of dollars in cash in the provinces of Diyala, Salah ad Din and Al Anbar as well as in the Sadr City region purchasing the loyalty of the sheikhs, imams and local militia officers. Only Moqtada al Sadr’s Mehdi Army have held out from the cash payments because the Iranians are doing an able job keeping them in currency both legitimate and counterfeit.
I am not saying if this policy of purchasing loyalty is right or wrong I only know from what I have seen that it is effective in the present. I also know that Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani is growing increasingly annoyed at the prosperity of Sunnis in Al Anbar, and they are doing well compared to Sadr Citizens, and Sistani’s Basrati, and have been condemning the continued American presence in “his country.”
Do not be alarmed at the violence in Baghdad or other cities there will be suicide bombers here and there but it will take a fatwa from al Sistani to light the fuse to renewed civil war. If the power shifts from a Baghdad focus to a Basra focus you will see Shi’a violence rise, the Americans move into the south anew and pressure applied from Tehran.
This is the actual war that you are beating the drum for Noonan not acceptance of a victory in Iraq. You won that war years ago what America did was lose the peace and that peace as long as American troops are still there and Iraqis are not doing their own work without the aid of over 150K troops they still will have lost the peace.
Before I close I would like to have everyone look at a few of the things that you say that I find counter to the purpose of winning a war or achieving peace in an occupied but not pacified heterogeneous nation.
“The fundamental problem here is that the American left is not animated by love of country - they are animated by a desire for power and a desire for affirmation that they are, indeed, the smartest, wisest and most caring people around.”
When this occupation was in a tailspin during Ramadan 2006 I heard more people that I would call conservative say they wondered why America got into this mess in the first place. For the first time I listened to men and women alike who have gone into combat call this event a Charlie Foxtrot that was not thought through well enough. The American people even voted for a change in policy on the war and slowly that change I think will come through improved conditions on the ground and on pressure on Maliki to get his house in order. That sort of pressure can only come from Barack Hussein Obama.
Now we are in a curious place for the people who know so little of war that they can blame “liberals” as being anti-American for dissenting about the war or hoping to come to power via the ballot box and not the bayonet to change the course the country is on based upon it’s current foreign policy. If violence escalates in Iraq it would be yet another sign that the troops need to be there and that America needs to have a permanent presence in Iraq as it has in South Korea and as it had in Germany for the better part of five decades.
If this is what the United States under Bush and McCain want then that is what they should say. There’s no need to go on about how the left sold you out or isn’t on board’ the right just needs to stop making political mistakes with the lives of its servicemen and women and bite the bullet. The sole reason this occupation was a disaster up until the surge was the president’s fear that casualties would become so high that the war would become unpopular at home. And where he failed was that he and those that advise him did not gauge that the length of the war even more so than the number of casualties would be what would become unpopular.
It was the goal of the Bush doctrine to have troops in Iraq at a level of approx~ 50K after a brief war and a two year occupation. By this time violence should have been down to even levels lower than it is now and the Iraqi model of democracy should have been gaining interest in the nations of Syria and Iran. Despite the constant trickle of deaths to roadside bombs, truck bombs and the growing number of female suicide bombers the Bush administration still does not get it that it is the time and the rotations of troops that the American people are weary of because they cannot see the value of the return.
They cannot see the value of the return at the gas pump, nor can they see it at the grocery store, nor can they see it at the gravesite of their lost loved ones. To the American people Mark Noonan, conservative and liberal alike nothing of value has been won. The “freedom and liberty” of the Iraqi people is meaningless to them and sounds hollow even in the ears of people who support the Bush administration today. And for the desire for power statement you made, well all I can say is that while I have never been a politician I have read enough about the last two administrations both being in permanent campaign mode, however, it was the Right who were seeking permanent majority which would change America, socially, culturally, economically and spiritually forever. There is a huge divergence between a group of people attempting to herd the American democracy down a road toward permanent neoconservative dominance in all branches and the liberal intellectuals and their helpers stepping up to the plate to clean up your mess.
The fundamental problem is that the neoconservatives given the most fit and capable troops in the world did not support them by placing them on the board in great enough numbers and then they moved them about the board with such irregularity as to bypass caches of weapons that others could and have used to cause mayhem. You can have your partisan loyalty all you want Mark Noonan that is your right as an American but when you decide that when you go to war and things go wrong the people who point that out want troops to fail in their mission or lose of even die is an outrageous and ignoble thing to say. America sat back and watched the Taliban take over Afghanistan and did nothing about it until after 9/11. That mountainous nation was only a cold war battleground between proxy armies until the defeat of the Red Army and their ultimate withdrawal. That war is now raging and will continue to do so for many decades to come because it has fallen into a fashion of the war the Russian fought there. There will always be arms dealers who will fund an army no matter their dogma. If not an Iranian it will be an America if not them a Chinese officer looking to sock away some cash in their booming economy. This will always be so.
8. Dollardays | June 23rd, 2008 at 8:43 am
7. Baton Rouge | June 23rd, 2008 at 8:01 am
Nice!
“…anyone who loves America would now admit to our victory.” June 23rd, 2008 at 12:49am Mark Noonan
If you are talking military victory you are a little late but good to know we are now all on the same page. Military victory was won in 2003. You should now be urging the Cons to support measure to bring the troops home.
9. Smokedsalmon | June 23rd, 2008 at 8:57 am
Is Obama Another Carter?
He was a Senator for 2 years before setting out on his Presidential Campaign. He offers tax & spend policies of the past, which won’t work to encourage investment or job growth. At the same time he promises the monumentally expensive gift of health care for all.
He has chosen to surround himself long term with: a radical race baiting minister (Wright), a man up on racketeering charges (Rezko) whom he also has financial dealings with, a couple of 1970’s hippie radical bomber/bank robbers (Ayres) who were convicted but pardoned by Clinton, and a woman who does not exude a comfort level with America or her role in it (Michelle). You have to ask questions about a persons character given that purposeful choice of long term friends, associates and life partners.
If this were any other candidate he would not have made it through the primaries!
It looks like we are headed toward another inexperienced Jimmy Carter scenario with a host of inexperienced carpetbaggers soon to be flocking to Washington. Even the Iran Scenario is starting to smell of deja vu.
Can we really afford to risk The Presidency and our future, on this inexperienced individual who has made such odd if not bad choices in terms of his associates in the past? What sort of people will he bring to Washington, considering his record on being able to judge people in his own personal life?
10. Smelly Cat | June 23rd, 2008 at 8:58 am
Obamas Lack Of Historical Perspective On Iran
In October 2005 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a conference in Tehran, said he that “Israel must be wiped off of the map.” Speaking to a large gathering of students on an October 26 program titled, “The World Without Zionism,” Mr. Ahmadinejad called on Palestinians to take control of the land, saying that “The establishment of a Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world.” On December 11, 2006 the “International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust” opened and was called for by and held at the behest of Ahmadinejad, and it was basically a Holocaust denial conference.
Despite this on July 2007 Barack Hussein Obama said that he would be willing to meet with the Iranian President (as well as various other dictators), anywhere, anytime with no preconditions.
Ahmadinejad declared on Monday June 9, 2008 that Israel “has reached its final phase and will soon be wiped out from the geographic scene.” He has also indicated he looks forward to being able to work with a President like Obama.
Understandably Mr. Obamas statements have confused Mr. Ahmadinejad and that is exactly the problem with Obama. You are on the world stage now, even though you are not the President and your lack of foresight is frightening given the allies you upset and the enemies you encourage.
11. Smelly Cat | June 23rd, 2008 at 9:00 am
Our troops were stabbed in the back by liberals who have publicly proclaimed the war unwinnable and publicly preach cut and run. Don’t you have any idea what that does to Muslim fanatics morale, recruiting and fundraising. If the Democrats had shown a firm and steadfast commitment to Iraq and Afghanistan think of how much better things would be going. INstead they give the enemy propaganda sound bites
12. OpChaosUK | June 23rd, 2008 at 9:11 am
You should now be urging the Cons to support measure to bring the troops home.
DreamOn, you MoveOn idiot. Do you really think Iraq would be where it is today had we left in ‘03?
That sort of pressure can only come from Barack Hussein Obama.
Bwahahahaha!!! Your post, Red Stick, was pretty interesting up until that. Here’s how Barack Hussein Earbama would “apply the pressure:”
Barack: Looky here, Sistani, looky here, Al-Sadr, I’m withdrawing our troops now. Please be nice now. And tell your buddy Ahmedinejad that I’m disarming our nukes, so he doesn’t need to make any anymore. Don’t worry, I’m a nice guy, and I trust you’ll do the right thing. We won’t even demand proof; we’re for change, and change is me not bullying you. We’re all human; can’t we just get along? Let’s do lunch.”
They cannot see the value of the return at the gas pump, nor can they see it at the grocery store, nor can they see it at the gravesite of their lost loved ones.
Barack: “Hey Sistani, Al-Sadr, and Achmedinijad, I’ll pull all the troops out and disarm our nukes, and you guys can lower the price of oil to fifty dollars a barrel. While you’re at it, can you pressure the food stores to lower their prices too? I know the war caused all this inflation, even though I can’t, for the life of me figure out why we had even worse inflation under Jimmuh Carter. Were we in a secret war back then. Also, I’m going to stop the military draft, so all those brave troops don’t go to war involuntarity.
(adviser whispers in Barack’s ear)
Barack: What? there’s no draft? Well, I’m going to have to disband the military; those poor souls aren’t smart enough to figure they’re gonna get shot at. They should’ve gone to college.”
Thanks for the essay, Red Stick. I’m impressed by your mental prowess…not!
13. Tractatus | June 23rd, 2008 at 11:11 am
You, and Obama, first have to admit you were wrong, wrong, wrong about it…then you can start having realistic views on Iraq.
This sort of calculus being applied by somebody who repeatedly gets very basic facts about Iraq wrong wrong wrong (and adamantly refuses to correct himself) is always good for a laugh.
14. FmrMarine | June 23rd, 2008 at 7:17 pm
SC
Earbama is a mulatto who has rejected his white heritage for an Afrocentric racist cult.
He has a one page resume as a “community organizer” = WTF ?
and a two year gig as a junior senator.
His views besides racist, are pure marxism. This makes him very dangerous. Rookies usually swing in the dark at any noise. He has proven this in his campaign. Neither he or his disappointed wife can take any heat.
If he is elected he will prove to be jimmah kartah on steroids. He will replace jimmah as the countries WORST president, and we as citizens will pay the cost.