"The Surge" in the upcoming debates

[FVZA_Colonel]

This is something that has been in my mind for a while, and I thought might make an interesting topic of discussion here. What exactly do you think would be the best way for Obama to handle questions of "The Surge" during the debates (as I can guarantee they are coming)?

One thing I do think would be harmful would be conceding to McCain at any point.

[ClassWarrior]

1. For one, O should avoid calling the escalation "The Surge."

NGU.

[bluestateguy]

2. "I opposed the war from the very beginning"

For Obama to support the surge would rightly be depicted as a "flip flop", and that is apparently a major sin in American politics today.

McCain should be made to take responsibility for the entire period of the Iraq War, not just the parts that he liked starting in January, 2007.

[PearliePoo2]

3. Oh yeah...you know it's coming.

It will be SURGE SURGE SURGE..every time McGeezer gets a chance. It's like a sexual thing with him.
(oops..that visual makes me want to :puke: ) Sorry!
Obama has to be ready for it and hit it out of the park!

[sabra]

4. here's how I would reply

1) Admit that violence has gone down in the country
but emphasize these items:
- The country is still a very dangerous place
- 1 US soldier is still dying every day
- only a small percentage of millions displaced Iraqis have come back
- Iraqi gov't is still not pushing for national reconciliation
- al Sadr and the Sunni "Awakening" were/are always a factor (quite volatile)

2) Look where we are now:
- Bush admin is embracing Obama's call for a timetable
- We can shift our resources to better protect our real national interests

3) I apposed this quagmire from day one

[FVZA_Colonel]

15. That could actually work.

Thanks.

[Brotherjohn]

5. "Of course due in great part to the hard work of our troops..."

" ... violence is down in Iraq. And I'm glad that Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain have finally seen fit to back my idea of a timetable, an idea to which they were both strenuously opposed to until 3 months before the election."

"But the surge, and the hard work of our troops, is only part of the equation. The Iraqis have asked us to leave. They are a sovereign nation. " (At which point he can also relate polls and analysis of Iraqi's and our intelligence stating that our troops' presence is the main cause of violence there now.)

"Yet the Bush/McCain have tried to extend our presence in Iraq as long as possible, attempting to extend the timeline and building permanent military bases in Iraq. And by Sen. McCain's own words, he wouldn't mind if we needed to stay for 100 years. But the time is long past for us to leave Iraq, and if you elect John McCain, that goal may or may not ever come to fruition."

Something like that. I know it would be nice to directly address the fact that the surge was an obviously political move to make it possible to say they "did something" that "worked" and allowed them to suddenly talk about withdrawal right before the election. But I don't know how to do that without making it look like you're bashing the troops.

Maybe cite requests by the Iraqi govt. BEFORE the surge that we leave, and ask why didn't we begin this then (since we always said we were there "at their request"). Paint Bush's use of the surge as playing our troops for political pawns? Show that there is STILL violence there, maybe even more (just not against the now more well-armed and staffed troops), and demonstrate that perhaps part of it is due to our continued presence.

It's take boldness, and risk. I don't know enough of the facts to figure out how. I just know from what I have read that that is exaclty what Bush has done.

[Qutzupalotl]

9. Well put. Thanks! n/t

[FVZA_Colonel]

16. That is great.

Thank you.

[MarjorieG]

6. The surge starts the war from 2007 and McCain only debating an isolated tactic.

Avoids his push for the Iraq War and other claims even before Bush, really late 90s.

The surge was presented/debated to bring about political reconciliation by military cover. It happened at a time when other influences, the Sunni Awakening (or money given them) brought some reduction of violence. Others were against, like Hagel.

It was a decision about spending the money and spending the 900 plus lives in a way that should have been used in Afghanistan-the central war on terror (hate that) conceded to by all.

Obama has been proven right on Iraq, Afghanistan priority, not putting eggs in Musharaff (sp?) basket, talking with Iran, idea of taking out terrorists in Pakistan (which Bush finally), addressing Russia earlier, all issues and results the administration, military and Pentagon are signing onto/have signed onto. Big thing the Timetable.

I wish someone would publicly question why Georgia chose to strike first just now.

[spanone]

7. easy, the surge was for political reconcilliation. there is none.

[Qutzupalotl]

8. The bribery is working.

No, he shouldn't use those words. But he should mention that we're paying militias not to fight us.

And the fact that violence is down doesn't justify an illegal invasion. The Iraqis didn't ask for our help. And it took resources away from the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

[PearliePoo2]

10. Bribery is right.

To the tune of $300 a month to each of the 100,000 militia members. What happens when the money stops?
Then, McBomb, you will see how effective your fuckin "SURGE" is.
Not to mention the ethnic cleansing, isolation and vast exodus of millions of the Iraqi population.
Man...I've got to go outside and mow the lawn. I hate this guy and it's eating me up.

[Brotherjohn]

11. Move quickly to the bigger picture: Unwise war fought unwisely. Paint Bush/McCain as trigger-happy.

Make the case that we can't trust this bunch who are too quick to go to war when it's not always the best option (and indeed is the last). Make the case that when war IS necessary, this bunch has shown to be lacking in good judgment about where and how to conduct it.

Question their JUDGEMENT.

[goodgd_yall]

12. Here were the objectives of the "Surge"

1.Defeat al-Qaida and its supporters and ensure that no terrorist safe haven exists in Iraq.
2.Support Iraqi efforts to quell sectarian violence in Baghdad and regain control over the capital.
3.Ensure the territorial integrity of Iraq and counter/limit destructive Iranian and Syrian activity in Iraq.
4.Help safeguard democracy in Iraq by encouraging strong democratic institutions impartially serving all Iraqis and preventing the return of the forces of tyranny.
5.Foster the conditions for Iraqi national reconciliation but with the Iraqi Government clearly in the lead.
6.Continue to strengthen Iraqi Security Forces and accelerate the transition of security responsibility to the Iraqi Government.
7.Encourage an expanding Iraqi economy including by helping Iraq maintain and expand its export of oil to support Iraqi development.
8.Promote support for Iraq from its neighbors, the region, and the international community.

What of these have not been accomplished? The three that stand out are 4, 5, and 7.

[hexola]

13. The Surge was a publicity stunt to mask the horrible failings of Donald Rumsfeld

Once Rummy was removed - they KNEW things would start going better...

They couldn't let Rumsfeld's incompetence be blamed for the failure of the war - so they came up with "The Surge"

[Bad Thoughts]

14. Everyone must read "Price of the Surge" by Steve Simon

in Foreign Affairs, May/June 2008. It explains how the original mission changed--indeed, it could not be fulfilled--but that the resources of the Surge were used toward other, positive activities.

Saying the "Surge" worked is like saying a hammer built a house ... the increase in troops had nothing to do with the original policy.

[moondust]

17. Some options.

1. Quote Petraeus.

Newsweek reported that while Petraeus recognized that al-Qaeda in Iraq has been significantly diminished, he refusesd to say the terror group had been “defeated.” Moreover, Petraeus acknowledged that the recent successes in Iraq may have been possible without the surge:

Petraeus is careful not to credit all the progress to the surge of U.S. troops in 2007. The sea change came last year from a series of movements now known as the Awakening. <…> So would the Sunni Awakening have succeeded without the surge? Possibly, he concedes.

http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/2008/08/petraeus-disagrees-with-mccain-says.html

2. Reference the importance of the al Sadr stand-down.

3. There are 4-5 million Iraqi refugees internally displaced or living in neighboring countries. That obviously means far fewer potential targets of ethnic cleansing remaining in Iraq.

4. It doesn't take 30,000 additional troops to create a maze of high walls in Baghdad, a "hard partition" to separate enclaves and prevent more civil war. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25414317/