Later today, President Obama will speak to the American
people about Iraq. No doubt he will laud the “end of major combat
operations” by the date he randomly selected some 18 months ago. His
press secretary Robert Gibbs also gave us a glimpse of what else he
might say, telling the Today Show this morning
that ”What is certainly not up for question is that President Obama,
then-candidate Obama, said that adding those 20,000 troops into Iraq
would, indeed, improve the security situation, and it did.”
Iraq in 2010 is indeed a very long way from Iraq in 2006, when
violence and sectarian conflict threatened complete chaos. But
then-candidate Obama did not support the course that brought us here as
his press secretary now claims. On January 10, 2007, when President
Bush announced the surge, Senator Obama insisted that the surge would actually increase sectarian violence:
“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to
solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the
reverse.” Barack Obama was clearly in opposition to the surge strategy.
Had we followed the course advocated by then-candidates Obama and
Biden, the Iraq war would be remembered now as a crushing defeat for the
United States and our allies. Al Qaeda in Iraq and Iranian supported
extremists would have claimed victory over America – with grave
implications for us throughout the region and the world. Iraq would have
descended into full-scale civil war. Iraq’s neighbor would have likely
been drawn into the conflict. Parts of Iraq would have been made a safe
haven for terrorists to train and plan for attacks far beyond Iraqi
borders.
Fortunately for all of us, these events did not occur. They did not
occur because America changed strategy in Iraq. President Bush decided
to increase our forces in Iraq and pursue a counterinsurgency strategy –
a course long advocated by Republicans in Washington. This “surge”
policy in 2007 was opposed by many – most notably and adamantly by
Senators Obama and Biden. In October 2006, as the violence was spiraling
out of control, Senator Obama actually advocated reducing our
troop presence: “It is clear at this point that we cannot, through
putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect
that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do
something significant to break the pattern that we’ve been in right
now.”
In response to President Bush’s State of the Union address on January
23, 2007, Senator Obama said: “I don’t think the president’s strategy
is going to work…My suggestion to the president has been that the only
way we’re going to change the dynamic in Iraq and start seeing political
commendation is actually if we create a system of phased redeployment.
And, frankly, the president, I think, has not been willing to consider
that option, not because it’s not militarily sound but because he
continues to cling to the belief that somehow military solutions are
going to lead to victory in Iraq.”
Senator Joe Biden, just before the surge was formally
announced, actually declared: “If he surges another 20, 30 [thousand],
or whatever number he’s going to, into Baghdad, it’ll be a tragic
mistake.”
In May 2007, Senator Obama voted against funding our troops in Iraq.
Reporters have insinuated that I haven’t been telling the truth on this
fact, but consider the fact: he did not support additional troop
funding. Had his position prevailed, our troops would have been forced
to leave Iraq precipitously and chaos would have ensued. Goodness, even
Senator Biden voted for the funding and had to admit this about Senator
Obama and others who opposed it: “My colleagues voted against the
funding to make a political point. There’s no political point worth my
son’s life. There’s no political point worth anyone’s life.” As the
mother of a soldier who spent his year in Iraq recently, I have to agree
with Biden on that point.
As it became clear in the summer of 2007 that the surge strategy was
working, Senator Obama was still stubbornly in denial about the success
our American troops were having, saying: “My assessment is that the
surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks
from now.” What amazing blindness he showed with that assessment.
And even in November 2007, when everyone could see the success of the
surge in reducing violence and increasing political space in Iraq,
Senator Obama said: “Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even
after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course
that didn’t withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and
initiated a surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have
we not seen improvements, but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a
situation there.”
As Americans tune in to watch President Obama, it is important to
remember the facts. He opposed the surge. He predicted it would fail. He
said it would make things worse even after it dramatically improved the
situation. He voted to cut off funds for our brave soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and Marines fighting in Iraq. For months he refused to accept
that the surge he fought was actually a spectacular success. As
President Obama usually likes to look backwards and declare the state of
everything to be “George Bush’s fault,” my hope is that tonight he
stays consistent and looks backwards, and in this case acknowledges that
credit should be given where credit is due.
Along with the points that Bill Kristol made yesterday,
I too have some suggestions for the president. President Obama, please
show grace, humility and some honesty before the American people
tonight. Please don’t declare “Mission Accomplished” and then saunter
away from the podium with an assumption that your opposition to the Iraq
strategy was key to our troops’ success. Please end the political
posturing. Admit you were wrong about the surge. Recognize what our
brave armed forces have achieved. Admit that the strategy long advocated
by Republicans, proposed by President Bush, led by Generals Petraeus
and Odierno, and executed by thousands of America’s finest – our brave
men and women in uniform – brought violence under control and made
responsible withdrawals possible. The more honest you are about the
past, the more likely it is you will gain the support of the American
people for your Iraq policy in the future. We need to be able to trust
the White House war strategy, as our children’s future depends on it.
Being honest with us tonight is a good starting point in building trust.
- Sarah Palin