It’s unlikely to make a difference to the Democratic primary electorate, but it’s clear to me that Barack Obama has committed either an inexperience related gaffe or a deliberate misrepresentation of circumstances in Iraq. Here’s the quote:
I welcome the genuine reductions of violence that have taken place, although I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province — Sunni tribes — who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shi’as.
So the Anbar awakening was a result of the Democrats taking Congress last year? That’s funny, as Bill Roggio wrote about the phenomenon in 2005 here, and in March of 2006 here. Long before the Democrats took Congress. Obama may not be trying to associate the Democrats with a success they fought bitterly to prevent, but it certainly looks like it from the cheap seats. Add to that his famous “Invade Pakistan” strategy, and yeah, I’m a bit worried.
Update: Some further thoughts. The gaffe(?) mentioned above, and the “Invade Pakistan” strategy worry me, it’s true. Obama’s support for withdrawing from Iraq, is, I think, wrongheaded, but I believe he’s at least realistic enough to re-evaluate that position once he’s secured Democratic votes with it and has received his National Security briefings. I don’t view the above as disqualifiers, but they do make me very uncomfortable.
Update 2: WaPo concurs with my evaluation of the gaffe(?):
What Ms. Clinton, Mr. Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson instead offered was an exclusive focus on the Iraqi political failures — coupled with a blizzard of assertions about the war that were at best unfounded and in several cases simply false. Mr. Obama led the way, claiming that Sunni tribes in Anbar province joined forces with U.S. troops against al-Qaeda in response to the Democratic victory in the 2006 elections — a far-fetched assertion for which he offered no evidence.
Filed under: Barack Obama, Democrats, Election 2008, Iraq, Politics
He’s as stupid as Hillary, with her comments on the elections in Pakistan. And he’ll probably offer an equally idiotic cop-out when called on it.
These people expect that we are all morons. Unfortunately, they are mostly right!
Who would you trust to discuss when the Anbar Awakening really began to bite and take hold to change the situation in Iraq?
J.D. Johannes, maybe, in his blog “Outside the Wire?”
Friday, 04 May 2007
“Ah yes, just 7 months ago Al Anbar was ‘lost.’ . . . It is so wildly stinking lost that…wait, it is not lost. In fact, the situation has flipped so much in 7 months that the heavy lifting in Al Anbar may be coming to a close–the heavy lifting being the political work of flipping the tribes to support the coalition and take charge of their own security.”
http://www.outsidethewire.com/blog/outside-the-wire/tribal-mojo-part-ii.html
The congressional elections took place roughly 6 months before May 4, 2007.
It’s probably an exaggeration to say that the one “caused” the other. But I don’t think it’s a “deliberate misrepresentation of circumstances in Iraq” to suggest that the results of the American election, which were widely reported as a rejection of Bush’s Iraq policies and a statement by the American electorate of impatience and dissatisfaction with the war, played some causal role. I guess we won’t really know until all the major Awakening leaders reach their comfortable retirements and write their memoirs.
twc: There you go again :-) Roggio’s not a good source why? Not that there’s anything wrong with Johannes, but here’s MNF-Iraq:
The point is that the Anbar awakening is classic, by-the-book counterinsurgency warfare, something that GEN Petraeus knows backwards and forwards. I think it’s pretty cheesy for Obama to try to claim credit for the Democrats for results predicated on a strategy (the surge, of which Petraeus’ counterinsurgency strategy is a big part) they bitterly opposed.
Joe: Is this what you call an “invade Pakistan” strategy?
“I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” — Barack Obama, August 1, 2007
I’ve also seen Obama refer to “striking” Al-Q targets in Pakistan if we have actionable intelligence and Pakistan won’t do it.
What are your concerns about that?
Well, first off, Pakistan has nukes. Secondly, Musharraf isn’t exactly the most stable, beloved leader in Pakistan’s history. Third, striking Al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan without the approval of the Pakistani government would turn Pakistan fully, permanently against us (ask Madeleine Albright about that one). Oh, it’s something I’d consider, but would discard after thinking it through. Somehow I don’t believe it’s anything Obama would consider in the first place, other than as a hawkish comment to throw out there for moderate Republicans to lap up.
Not that Pakistan is a great ally now, but sheesh…things could be a lot worse.
Joe: I didn’t say Roggio is not a good source, nor did I say that the Awakening began only after the election. Obviously, it began in some form back in 2005 as local resistance against AQI. (I actually wrote that line in the post initially, but took it out because I thought it was evident — see, I actually do proofread occasionally!) I was just looking to see when the Awakening really started to take hold, spread out from Anbar Province, and begin to change the bigger picture in Iraq, which I think is what Obama was referring to. He speaks of the Sunnis beginning to consider their power relationship to the Shia, which is not something that the Sunnis in Anbar Province itself need to think about much since there are virtually no Shia there.
I don’t disagree that the Awakening is a classic counterinsurgency tactic, or that Petraeus knows that doctrine well and has implemented it effectively (more effectively than I thought he could — I should acknowledge that).
But I don’t think the Democrats actually opposed that particular tactic. I don’t recall any Democratic figures criticizing the concept of pursuing and broadening the Awakening, or even really discussing it at all.
Was Obama’s effort to grab some of the credit for the Awakening cheesy?
Yeah, o.k., I’ll accept cheesy.
Cheesy’s as far as I’m prepared to go :-)
After all, it’s more than likely this is our next President I’m talking about here — Don’t want to get on his bad side right off the bat. Oh, wait…
I’m screwed. I can feel the audit coming already…
Damn, buddy — hope you kept all your receipts for the last five years!
It’s hilarious how the left says anything negative happening in Iraq is related to the Bush administration, but anything positive happening in Iraq is related to the Iraqis simply biding their time until we cut and run.
What’s sad is that seemingly intelligent people don’t recognize this trend for what it really is–pure defeatism.
This is off-track, but I just wondered if Joe or anyone else here could give me any information about this (below). I just posted the following on a thread on Gen. Russel Honore’s retirement on The Daily Kos site (cross yourself or take whatever gesture you deem appropriate), in response to a comment by a guy who said that putting your guns down and starting to rebuild is often a good action. But I realize, to my regret, that I can’t quite remember many specifics of this incident now, several years later. Can anyone recall where or when this happened, what unit this was (seems to me it may have been airborne, but that’s vague), or who the officer was? I saw it on one of the evening news shows and I do remember the male anchor (Schieffer, maybe?) making a comment commending the guy’s coolness under the circumstances.
Here’s the post:
I recall a major or Ltc. in Najaf (0 / 0)
Fairly early on in the Iraq war, maybe early 2004 or so, there was an angry confrontation brewing in a Shiite holy city — I think it was Najaf. An American patrol had apparently advanced too close, in the minds of the local folks, to an important Shiite mosque and holy site. And angry crowd formed in the street, gesticulating and chanting and shouting (in Arabic, of course) and making it clear that they were very displeased with the American troops. The American soldiers, naturally enough as a combat force, had their rifles up and were prepared to inflict some very severe damage on the crowd that was plainly hostile and right on the borderline of violent. It was a very dangerous situation.
I recall being immensely impressed with the personal courage and cool head of the American officer who ordered his men first to lower their weapons, then to smile and wave. He had to shout that order several times, as his men were initially confused (and probably not certain that they’d heard him correctly). Then he ordered them to begin to back away, keeping their weapons down. The crowd stayed put and began to calm down, and the moment passed without any bloodshed. That guy made a judgment call and took a risk, and he turned out to be right. Had he been wrong either way (had someone in the crowd opened up with a weapon, or had he ordered his men to fire or move aggressively to defend themselves) people could have gotten hurt or killed. But he kept his cool, and he turned out to be right. I wonder who that guy was. Some day I’d like to meet his kids (if he has any) and tell them that their father has guts and wisdom that few men can aspire to, and that he showed himself in that encounter to be a leader and a model.
Ahh, the benefit of hindsight.
I guess Obama meant it, after all.
Yeah.
It looks like he’d beter send some troop support in there too. That way we’re not just air raiding villages and killing civilians.