Help In These Times raise $10,000 in three weeks! Donate now to support original and incisive journalism!

Big Media Hectors Obama on ‘Surge’

By Robert Parry

For six years, with few exceptions, the Washington press corps has been cheerleading for the Iraq War – and the pattern is continuing in Campaign 2008 with the endless demands that Barack Obama apologize for not supporting the troop “surge.” On Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” NBC’s Tom Brokaw became the latest Big Media star to hector Obama about his opposition to… return to article

  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Zoom OutZoom In Reader Comments (2)

    Page 1 of 1 pages

    Obama was probably right on the likely ineffectiveness of “The Surge.”  By the time Bush got around to canning Rumsfeld and sending an additional 21,000 troops to restore order the 20+million Iraqis were in total disarray.

    CENTCOM had three scenarios planned over a ten year period regarding Iraq.
    1. No US troops — bombing only
    2. Special Ops working with Iraqi dissidents
    3. 500,000 troops for a full invasion and taking of territory

    Rumsfeld/Cheney chose to do it with 125,000 troops and a quick withdrawal (in a matter of weeks)

    CEOs are accustomed to having things their way — Iraqis didn’t like it their way.

    Anyone with a passing knowledge of the area’s history would know of the deep seated hatred between the factions.

    It should have been realized that without any civil authority in place (Bremer disbanded the Iraqi army (with their weapons and fired any Baath Party members) anarchy would begin. Picture any city in the US with thousands suddenly unemployed, armed and trained fighters on the streets. How many police would it take to kep the peace?

    The obvious policy to take ground, hold it and control it came far too late. Rioting, looting and lawlessness had become the norm.

    The British faced a similar situation when the colonists decided they were being denied their freedoms in 1776. Not enough troops, too far away from their home base and an eight year war was the result. The atrocities of war were common then as well.

    Bush as a criminal? Perhaps, but last I heard he had no trial. Bad judgement on whose advice he accepted seems evident. No one ever said he was very bright.

    The media as cheerleaders? Context is not a bad idea for all of this affair. But why should we expect those involved in the heat of the 9/11 aftermath to admit to their gullibility?

    Obama is certainly right in this statement: 
    Obama responded, “As I said before, our troops made an enormous contribution, but to try to single out one factor in a very messy situation is just not accurate, and it doesn’t, it doesn’t take into account the larger strategic issues that have been at stake throughout this process.

    “Look, we’ve got a finite amount of resources. We’ve got a finite number of troops. Our military is stretched extraordinarily because of trying to fight two wars at the same time. And so my job as the next Commander in Chief is going to be to make a decision what is the right war to fight, and, and how do we fight it?

    The how to (and not to ) is well covered by Senator James Webb in his recent book, “A Time to Fight.” The Iraq invasion even tops Viet Nam in the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place.

    United States Posted by whattheheck on Jul 31, 2008 at 12:42 PM

    Interesting Obama article in the New Yorker with the controversial cover of Michelle and Barack.

    This guy is just another typical politician with a great sense of how to seize the moment — who to use and when.

    United States Posted by whattheheck on Aug 4, 2008 at 1:43 PM
    Page 1 of 1 pages

  • register a new account »Posting Security

    To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.
     

    Retreive lost password »

Popular Discussions