Senator Obama is getting ever closer to admitting the "Surge" worked. Of course, his most recent step towards this admission came while he was addressing the Veterans Of Foreign Wars
Sen. Barack Obama, edging away from a long-held position, tacitly acknowledged the success of the Iraq troop-surge strategy during an appearance Tuesday before the country's largest organization of combat veterans.
"Let's be clear, our troops have completed every mission they've been given," Mr. Obama said at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Orlando, Fla., where the likely Democratic presidential nominee courted military voters who are expected to play a pivotal role in several swing states. "They have created the space for political reconciliation."
It was the closest Mr. Obama - who has long opposed the surge - has come to agreeing with President Bush or likely Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain on the Iraq strategy.
It gets increasingly more difficult to deny the results. Especially when Foreign Policy Magazine's newly published survey results showed that most Foreign Policy Experts were also forced to agree "The Surge" has worked.
What a difference a year makes. When the index’s experts were asked a year ago about the so-called surge of U.S. troops into Iraq, 53 percent believed it was doing little good. Today, 60 percent of the experts see the surge as a reason for progress. Seventy-nine percent say the surge helped to lift Iraq’s economy. Nearly 9 in 10 say the surge benefited Iraq’s security. And about half say that the surge assisted Iraqi political reconciliation.
A year ago, 22% of these experts thought that Iraq was likely to become an al Qaida stronghold while 35% thought that would be Pakistan. Today, 0% of these experts think Iraq will be in the al Qaida column while 51% think Pakistan.
But I have to put quotes around the word "experts". Why? Simply this.
Only fifty one percent of them think Pakistan is the al Qaida stronghold? What the hell is wrong with the other 49% of "experts"? Are you nuts or just blind?
What's worse, only 35% of these experts thought this last year yet it has been apparent for years that Western Pakistan was the nexus of al Qaida activity. The only question about Iraq was: Would they be able to move and assume the reigns of a nation-state.
Even though only 51% of "experts" think that Pakistan is not al Qaida Central,
70 percent recommend that the majority of U.S. forces be withdrawn and redeployed to Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf in the next 18 months.
Now why would you recommend such a redeployment if Pakistan is not the new home of al Qaida? Wouldn't one want to redeploy to wherever al Qaida has taken root, wherever that might be.
Perhaps, the problem is, many of these Foreign Policy "experts" do not believe in the global reach of Islamicism. In fact, it is clear that many of them do not. Counter-terrorist expert Jeffrey Imm wrote
On July 13, 2008, the Washington Post published a column by former CIA member Glenn Carle who stated "[w]e do not face a global jihadist 'movement' but a series of disparate ethnic and religious conflicts involving Muslim populations, each of which remains fundamentally regional in nature and almost all of which long predate the existence of al-Qaeda." This denial of anything "global" about Jihad and Islamic supremacism is the mantra of the mainstream media, intelligence agencies, government leaders, and too many in the counterterrorism community.
The idea that the Islamic supremacist ideology that is at the root of the women murdered by the Taliban in Pakistan on August 20, 2008 (crushing one of their faces) -- is the same Islamic supremacist ideology that drove MILF Jihadists to dismember innocent Philippine citizens on August 18, 2008 -- does not make sense to a policy world that view threats by regions, not by ideologies.
It is also clear, that many of these "experts" also view threats by region and not by ideology.
These "experts"
when asked what the most important U.S. policy objective during the next five years should be, only 8 percent of the experts listed a stable, secure Iraq.
Yet these "experts" think that the most significant outcome of the war in Iraq is
... not the end of Saddam’s dictatorship, a rise in militant Islam, or even a war-torn Iraq. Rather, almost half of the experts say that the most important outcome is the emergence of Iran as the most powerful country in the Middle East. Worse, three quarters of the experts believe that the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions is rising.
If that's the case, then a stable, secure Iraq should be the number 1 priority. I mean if these guys are saying that it was better to have Saddam around to counter Iraq, than it should be even better to have a stable, secure and friendly Iraq to counter Iran. What am I missing?
But being an expert doesn't mean you know what to do. While many of these experts recognize Western Pakistan is a security problem for America
Asked if the United States should take military action in Pakistan if there is a chance to capture or kill high-ranking members of al Qaeda, assuming Islamabad has not given the ok, 65 percent of the experts say they are unsure which course of action is correct. In a country so volatile, there appear to be more dangers than easy answers.
Ultimately, this is why we have single Commander-in-Chief.
And this is why we need someone in the job who has the judgment to see beyond the experts.
Because if you look at the data presented by Foreign Affairs magazine, there are "experts" who believe that the Surge was not working a year ago and is not working today.
A position echoed by Senator Obama up until very, very recently.
