Obama's reluctance to admit surge success is not aarogance!

[elkston]

As Howard Finemann suggested on Hardball. I was surprised by this. He said Obama shows a slight streak of arrogance when bakced into a corner.

The truth is, he is playing politics. He is deliberatlely toying with the Republicans to get them distracted. By not giving in, he makes them continue to spin on this increasingly less relevant issue while he forges ahead.

He gains nothing by saying. "OH, I was wrong, sorry about that." The Republicans want you to think that it will show his strentgh of character by admitting his mistake in this case, but they are just going to sting him on it. They will come out with : "His judgment was wrong, and he admitted to it. You want this guy as your commander in cheif?".

No. Obama is correct. Don't give in to anything about the surge. The effects of that one decision are nebulous when considering other factors so keep driving that home.

[TwilightGardener]

1. Obama's take on the surge is correct--and he's not alone, Reed and Hagel

backed him up and signed the report released by the CODEL.

[Mass]

2. Most Democrats agree that the surge did not do what it was designed to do.

Obama is not the only one in this case. Now, it would be surprising that MSM hacks like Finemann would recognize that.

[elkston]

3. There he goes again (Finneman) ... "his hubris"...

for not admitting success for the surge. Finneman things it wouldn't hurt the campaign that much if he just admits to it.

[kurtboss]

4. The Surge was Wrong

I agree Obama shouldn't apologize, but I also think he hasn't answered the questions well. He not concede the success of the Surge. He should frame his answer that he wants to leave Iraq and it makes no sense to put more troops in. He should forcefully say that of course he wouldn't support the surge, it was PUTTING MORE TROOPS in, against his whole idea of leaving the ridiculous war in Iraq. If we had surged the troops home would could be out of Iraq by now. Instead we're still there with no end in sight.

[kennetha]

5. Here's the problem -- for Obama and Democrats more generally

If we Democrats grant that the surge has "worked" -- especially if we leave it open for the Republican's to spin just what working amounts to -- then it undercuts Obama's argument (one that many Democrats including me accept) that the war in Iraq "should never have been fought." That's because one of the stated objectives of the war -- to establish a stable, democratic, Iraq that is an ally in the war on terror, right in the heart of the turbulent Middle East, free of the murderous oppression of Saddam Hussein and to provide proof positive to all the naysayers that the Middle Eastern Arab states need not, after all, be governed by oppressive, brutal tyrants -- was certainly laudable, when taken in a vacuum. The Democratic argument was and is that thinking that we could achieve those objectives by a preemptive invasion was sheer lunacy and hubris. When it looked like Iraq would devolve into interminable genocidal civil war and that our troops had been sent on a fools errand merely to stand between people who hated each other and wouldn't stop killing each other (or us), we were winning that argument. Especially when it became clear that there were no WMD, that Saddam was a threat to one one except the innocent citizens of Iraq and that he had nothing at all to do with 9/11. We were winning that argument overwhelmingly.

But Saddam has long been off the scene and is completely irrelevant to the current state of play. Now the question is what is achievable from here and how did that come to be achievable. The McShame Repugnants have an argument that a kind of victory is still achievable, that the surge has been instrumental to making that victory possible, and that Obama's approach amounts to a kind of surrender. Never mind the original folly of Bush's original mismanagement of the war -- which McShame did indeed constantly blast Bush on. Never mind that the original fear tactics about WMD and giving them to terrorists were all based on lies and self-deception. McShame and the Repugnants want us to focus on where things stand now, what is achievable now.

To grant that the surge "worked" is to play into their hands. It is to let the debate be cast on their terms. It is to declare the old debates over and done with and no longer relevant -- no matter which side of those debates you were on. But if those debates are no longer relevant -- because they have been overtaken by (positive) events on the ground, then I fear that the war is a winner, not a loser for the Repugnant Thugs.

I think Obama must feel the same way. In the democratic primaries, there was a completely different calculation. So many of my fellow dems were just livid at Hillary and others for voting for the IRWR that they could never forgive, let alone forget. Obama exploited that astutely and maximally to his benefit. But now he's in danger of not being able to be a "father" to what the Republicans will sell as an emerging victory in Iraq. (Failure is an orphan, but success has a thousand fathers. But what if you're not even in a position to claim partial fatherhood of success? )

Anyway that's my two cents worth.

[jaysunb]

7. You've nailed it !

:thumbsup:

[Political Heretic]

6. The surge was wrong. Saying it "worked" is a disgusting distortion of reality.

Insofar as the "surge" has, for the time being, seemed to stop the steady flow of American casualties in Iraq, I am very glad that it has had that effect. After you've already created a disaster, and then when some strategy for containing the total catastrophe finally works - its OK to feel relieved and happy that the containment strategy worked. But it doesn't make the original disaster somehow OK.

So let me ask you, how exactly has the surge "worked?" What does "worked" mean? Did it erase the deaths of over four thousand American boys and girls, or undo the tragedy felt by their mothers, fathers, their children, their spouses?

Did it take back the over ten thousand Americans wounded?

Did it somehow resurrect the tens of thousands of murdered Iraqi women, children and men who died as casualties? Or died as innocent civilians shot by private Blackwater mercenaries in the name of the United States?

Did it change history, somehow erasing the fact that every single reason we were given, every single reason congress was given - every. single. reason. for war was a provable, verifiable, documented lie? Not just an unpopular opinion - these were lies that were later proven false by leaked government documents, transcripts, and sworn testimony by members of the executive branch, the DoD, even members of the intelligence community itself.

Did it somehow give back the nearly 1 trillion dollars squandered on a war based on complete, willful fabrications?

Because that would be a surge worth getting excited about.

[damntexdem]

8. The surge was not a success -- that's the bottom line.

It did not accomplish its stated goals.

Other events converged that changed how things were going in Iraq -- something that Obama has noted.

And there is plenty of potential that things will blow apart again in Iraq -- especially given the autonomy goals of the Kurds and the political concerns of the 'Sunni awakening.'

Of course, if things go south soon, McCain will say that we can't pull out because conditions are bad.

[kennetha]

10. I tend to agree in substance.

But don't think this line of argument is strong enough. Cause it still leaves the Repugs with the claim that either through good luck or better strategy or a combination of both we are in a position to achieve victory and Obama's approach amounts to surrender.

We've got to alter the dynamic of the argument that makes our side the side of defeat, retreat, and surrender and their side the side standing for victory.

Before good luck and/or the surge conspired to make something that could be called victory conceivable, ours was the winning hand. Not sure it is now. So we need to somehow reshuffle the deck.

[Imagevision]

9. Will the successful surge only remain successful provided the US. troops remain In Iraq?

[kennetha]

11. probably not an all or nothing thing

Provided we don't leave in a mad rush out, things won't go to hell in a handbasket. Obama and McCain seem pretty close on this point -- except Obama is determined to end this thing on a reasonable timeframe. McCain's goal post is something that can be called "victory" So withdrawal as a consequence of victory is his mantra.

Again, problem for us is that the quelling of violence makes that look plausible.

[ErinBerin84]

12. Howard Fineman was really annoying.

He can get kind of two faced, depending on what program he is on. On countdown, he said "Obama had little choice left after the Pentagon told him a day before" (about the troop visit). On Hardball, it was "Obama made a mistake!" Also, he contradicts himself and just confuses me. When they were talking about "Why isn't OBAMA DOING BETTER IN THE POLLS!" He said "I patently disagree....yeah, Obama should be doing better than he has been in the polls". Uh, ok. God, Andrea, of all people, has been coming through in the Obama defense.

[yellowcanine]

13. Trumpeting the "success" of the surge is akin to saying "Mission Accomplished" in 2003.

I am convinced that by November we will look back on the talk of the success of the surge in the summer of 2008 with the same disdain now accorded the dressup act of the Chimpster on the Abraham Lincoln.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

14. Don't worry McCain doesn't know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite