Why then can't Obama bring himself to acknowledge the surge worked better than he and other skeptics, including this page, thought it would? What does that stubbornness say about the kind of president he'd be?The paper goes on to say that Obama should admit the truth just as McCain should admit that the war was a blunder to begin with -- that is just false conventional wisdom that is so devoid of facts that it becomes a throw away line. But it's there -- back handed slap for McCain even as they criticize Obama.
In recent comments, the Democratic presidential candidate has grudgingly conceded that the troops helped lessen the violence, but he has insisted that the surge was a dubious policy because it allowed the situation in Afghanistan to deteriorate and failed to produce political breakthroughs in Iraq. Even knowing the outcome, he told CBS News Tuesday, he still wouldn't have supported the idea.
That's hard to fathom. Even if you believe that the invasion of Iraq was a grievous error and it was the U.S. should still make every effort to leave behind a stable situation. Obama seems stuck in the first part of that thought process, repeatedly proclaiming that he was right to oppose the war and disparaging worthwhile efforts to fix the mess it created. Hence, his dismissal of the surge as "a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder."
The great irony, of course, is that the success of the surge has made Obama's plan to withdraw combat troops in 16 months far more plausible than when he proposed it. Another irony is that while Obama downplays the effectiveness of the surge in Iraq, he is urging a similar tactic now in Afghanistan.
The USA Today has no way to know how many terror attacks were avoided here at home because the terrorist took Osama's advice and flocked to Iraq where they met the most effective fighting force man has known. They were shredded and now, as of today, they are losing ground worldwide.
USA Today via Ace Of Spades