The phrase "Senator Obama you were wrong about the surge" looms in the balance of the 2008 election. It is basically the one "gotcha phrase" that the McCain camp has at its disposal that the Obama camp has not effectively neutralized.
Ultimately, the acusation will be delivered again and again throughout the campaign. Most importantly, it will be dramatically delivered during the first Presidential debate. How Obama responds will weigh heavily on the outcome of the debate. In the mean time, the Obama camp must work hard not to vacillate and sputter on thier response.
The key to containing the "Senator Obama you were wrong about the surge" accusation is that the McCain camp has focused exclusively on the numbers apsect of the "surge" and has completely ignored the "strategy change" part of the "surge".
Last year I tried to explain the "strategy change" part of the surge here:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
Gen. Petraeus stated today that he confirms that he indeed supports continuing the "strategy change" in the direction of focusing on "Securing the civilian population, (along with the training of the Iraqi troops)" from the prior strategy which was apparently focused on "counter-terrorism (and the training the Iraqi troops)". Furthermore, when asked when we could leave Iraq, Gen. Petraeus replied that we can leave when we have "stablized" Iraq sufficently, and he further elaborated that when he said "stabilized" he meant stabilazation in the sense where communities and neighborhoods in Iraq are secured. Here for the first time, we are given a real goal besides "to win", or beat the bad guys.
The strategy for the first 5 years of the war was something like "get the bad guys and win"
George Bush called for a "stay of the course". The "course" was essentially to go after the bad guys, and to "take the war to them before they took it home to us (and train and supply Iraq police forces)". Yet we came to find out that the Bush policy was actually creating more and more bad guys with his efforts. In fact, the policies of George Bush's administration created so much chaos that an Al Qaeda cell was able to establish a foothold that was not there before the U.S. initiated war in Iraq.
Today Gen. Petraeus in fact repeatedly referred to Al Qaeda's capacity to stimulate sectarian violence. All of this was a result of the Bush administration's focus on "hunting down the bad guys" at the expense of the Iraqi civilians (i.e treating the Iraqi Civilians as statistics for some theory of "collateral damage").
But during his testimony, on Sept. 11 2007 General Patraeus amazingly stated that there would be a strategy change towards "Securing the civilian population)". I have been advocating the exact plan since 2004. But I resonded:
The problem is that an extra 30,000 troops isn't going to stablize Iraq. That was the problem in 2004, and it remains the problem now. The only way we can increase the troop level to achieve the said goals is to have a real coalition, but the "you're either with the terrorist or with us" or the shotgun diplomacy of the Bush administration will never work. In fact it has alienated the U.S. from the rest of the world. That was the problem in 2004 and it continues to be the problem now.
But I was apparently wrong. I simply underestimated how powerful the change in comportment towards securing the population would be. Moreover even if you argue that the insurgents are just waiting out the surge, the Iraqi people have been initiating a move towards normality. Even a short time of stability could plant the seeds for long term peace.
Of course the last peice of the puzzle of peace will be for the U.S. to assure to the Iraqi people that they are not occupiers. And that will mean that the U.S. will have to leave for good very soon.
So yes I was wrong about the potential success of the "surge", because I believed that the 30,000 troops were not enough to secure civilians. But I had been advocating for the exact same "strategy change" since 2004.
But the McCain camp doesn't seem to understand why the "surge" was as successful as it was. He only talks about the numbers of the "surge" and continues to speak in the same ambiguous terms as George Bush did like "winning Iraq" or not letting the "bad guys win". He does not speak of the fundamental "strategy change" from "going after the bad guys" to "securing the civilian population.
Ultimately, then the key for Obama is to state explicitly what he got wrong about the "surge" and why and then explain how he will build on the success and take it into the future and secure peace in his next term.
Meanwhile Obama should turn McCain's trump card against by focusing on McCain's inability to understand that the "surge" was not the "stay the course" strategy he makes it out to be.
But it is essential for Obama to tell voters why he thinks the "surge" was successful and how a troop pull-out will be the last battle for peace in Iraq.