Why was Obama "wrong" about the surge?  Why did he oppose it?  With the benefit of hindsight, wouldn't he have done it differently?  

These are the questions Obama is being asked over and over again and frankly, it is a little awkward.  CW is starting to coalesce around the idea that he doesn't have terribly good answers.

The truth is he does, he just isn't saying it.

The reasons he opposed the surge is the same reasons he opposed the war to begin with.  

Afghanistan, Al Quada and Osama Bin Laden.  

Everything we do in Iraq hurts our efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan tracking down the real culprits for 9/11.  In fall of 2006 when the surge was proposed, three years after the original invasion of Iraq, Osama Bin Laden still wasn't in Iraq.  He never was.  

Obama has been singularly focused on dismantling the network that actually attacked us, wherever they may be.  

The war in Iraq was a distraction from the real fight 2003 when it began, in 2006 when Bush/McCain proposed their surge and it's still a distraction now.

And what's happened since then?  The situation in Iraq has improved, sure, but Afghanistan has only gotten worse.  The instability has spilled over into Pakistan, which is in a much more precarious situation than it was when the surge began.  History has born him out once again.  

By going ahead with the Bush/McCain "Surge" we have kept our eye off the ball and continued to allow Al Quada their safe havens.

I know, I know, talking point diaries are annoying, but the truth is, this IS a better answer than Obama himself has yet given.

Am I wrong?

Originally posted to dts on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:32 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.