THE MISSING ARGUMENT: What the Obama Campaign Isn't Saying About the Surge But Should Be

There's a rapidly congealing conventional wisdom in the media about the "surge" which can be summarized as follows: 1) the surge is largely responsible for the improved situation on the ground in Iraq, and 2) the success of the surge--which McCain supported and Obama did not--has created a situation where Obama, with the support of the Iraqi government, can responsibly call for a 16 month timetable for withdrawal. Or as those carrying slightly more water for McCain put it, because of McCain's good judgment about the surge, we're now getting close to a point where we can claim victory and go home.

The reason this argument has so quickly become the conventional wisdom in Washington is, in large part, because Obama and his surrogates have done a miserable job of pushing back on it. And that is to some extent understandable. The situation in Iraq, though not great, has improved to a greater degree than anyone thought possible just last year. And while much of that improvement is attributable to factors other than the surge itself (such as the Sunni Awakening, the standing down of the Sadr militia, and the "success" of ethnic cleansing efforts in Baghdad), these are very difficult arguments to make in a soundbite format, especially without seeming to unfairly diminish the accomplishments of our troops--something Obama and his surrogates most certainly want to avoid doing.

It's not surprising, therefore, that when confronted about the apparent success of the surge, the typical response by Obama folks--including the candidate himself--is to praise the troops for their good work and then change the subject to who had better judgment about going to war in the first place.

But every time I see Obama or one of his surrogates respond this way, I feel like throwing my remote control through my television because there's a potent argument that is not being made.

The American Prospect just published an important article in which ten Iraq experts weighed in on the success of the surge. These experts said a number of things, but the one thing they all seemed to agree on is this: a major catalyst (perhaps THE major catalyst) for the improvement of the situation in Iraq was the credible threat of the withdrawal of U.S. troops occasioned by the lead up to and the results of the 2006 mid-term election. It was the threat of withdrawal that motivated the Sunnis in Anbar to reassess their strategy and ultimately switch allegiances. And it was the threat of withdrawal that motivated the Maliki government to take a number of the constructive steps it has taken. Defense Secretary Gates has made this very point on several occasions. And here's how the National Intelligence Estimate last year described the situation in Anbar province:

“[F]earing a Coalition withdrawal, some tribal elements and Sunni groups probably will continue to seek accommodation with the Coalition to strengthen themselves for a post- Coalition security environment”

And that's exactly what happened. In other words, had it not been for the pressure put on the Bush administration by Democrats like Obama, much of the improvement we've seen in Iraq would likely not have happened. Or to put it yet another way, had everyone followed John McCain's lead and endorsed an indefinite occupation, there is little chance that the situation would have improved. The relevant actors, particularly the Sunni leaders in Anbar, would simply not have been sufficiently motivated.

This is the point that Obama and his surrogates should be making in every interview, not only because it's correct, but because it is simple to understand and it underscores what Obama has being saying all along, i.e., that without the credible threat of withdrawal, the Iraqis will not be sufficiently motivated to do what needs to be done to stabilize the country. This is a direct, non-defensive response to questions about the success of the surge that highlights the real policy differences between Obama and McCain. And this response also has the benefit of not calling into question the accomplishments of the troops on the ground. The point is that the threat of withdrawal created the conditions under which the troops could succeed.

So let's review. When asked whether McCain showed better judgment than Obama in supporting the surge, here's the way all Obama surrogates should respond:

Not at all. While it's certainly true that the situation in Iraq has improved and that our troops have performed brilliantly there, there's a crucial element to the equation that John McCain and his supporters are deliberately ignoring. The turning point in Iraq was not the decision to implement a "surge," but rather the 2006 midterm election in which the American people made it clear that they rejected the Bush/McCain policy of indefinite occupation. It was the credible threat of the withdrawal of U.S. forces that motivated the Sunni leaders in Anbar province to turn on al Qaeda and cooperate with our troops. And that's exactly why Senator Obama has long been in favor of setting a timetable for withdrawal. It's the only way to sufficiently motivate the Iraqis to take the steps necessary to achieve political reconciliation. Had it not been for the leadership of Senator Obama and others in Congress in pushing for the establishment of a timetable for withdrawal, the conditions in Iraq would not have been ripe for the kind of success we've seen lately. And conversely, had we all listened to John McCain--who until very recently was talking about staying in Iraq for 100 years--it's unlikely that we'd have seen any of the success that we have over the last year. But don't take my word for it, Defense Secretary Gates has noted on several occasions that the debate in Congress, specifically the loud calls for timetables, have had a positive impact on the situation in Iraq. And that was the conclusion of the Iraq NIE as well. Senator Obama's judgment--both about whether to invade Iraq in the first place and about how to proceed after the invasion--has consistently proved to be superior to Senator McCain's.

Was that so hard?