3 Surprises Awaiting Obama in Iraq

Townhall.com ^ | June 3, 2008 | Chuck Norris

[Kaslin]

Sen. John McCain played advanced political chess back and forth this past week with Sen. Barack Obama over the war in Iraq. Because the Democratic presidential hopeful has been to Iraq only once (more than two years ago), McCain said Obama has a "profound misunderstanding" about the progress made in Iraq.

The fact is John McCain is absolutely right. Barack doesn't have a clue what really is going on in Iraq. And Obama will eat some humble military pie if he goes there. The way I see it, he's going to face at least three major surprises:

-- Surprise No. 1: The surge really did work.

I have been to Iraq twice to visit the troops since Obama's single visit. During my two trips (2006 and 2007) to Iraq, I visited 28 bases and shook hands with nearly 40,000 troops. I cannot express the profound pride I feel for our troops. I will remember those experiences for the rest of my life.

One thing that was absolutely apparent in my second visit to Iraq was how well the surge was working. Despite the fact that not one major media outlet at the time reported the positive impact of the surge, I had seen it with my own eyes and could compare the progress between my two visits in more than two dozen locations across the country (many of which were hotbeds of gunfire the year before).

Fewer U.S. troops died in Iraq last month than during almost any other month since the war began five years ago.

A few weeks ago, I had an opportunity to visit Iraq for a third time. I was invited again by Robert Magnus, a four-star general, whose retirement this July completes a truly stellar career in military service from Vietnam to the Iraq war. Unfortunately, I was under publishing deadlines to complete my upcoming (fall release) book, "Black Belt Patriotism," so I could not join him.

-- Surprise No. 2: War is not reflected accurately in the news.

So where does Obama get his facts about the war? How is it that he can conclude so confidently that the Iraq war is futile and a result of failed strategy and policies? If he hasn't been to Iraq since the surge even started, how can he truly know anything about the battlefields?

The truth is that Obama gets his knowledge about the war from the same places most of us do: major media, White House press reports, so-called military experts (who are often no longer on the battlefields), our favorite news blogs and Web sites, etc. But are we truly getting all the facts about the war from those sources? Most of them?

Imagine what our military officers and few political leaders who really understand the ins and outs of the war think when those "on the outside" pontificate about their knowledge of the war. Have you ever had someone try to tell you what it's like to be in your shoes and be dead wrong? Do we expect that our military leaders are honestly going to tell media representatives all the truths about the war so that CNN can splash them around the globe for all the terrorists to hear? If our military leaders actually found WMDs or knew where Osama bin Laden is hidden, are we really so slow to figure out why they could not and would not tell the public? If it's true that we can't judge a book by its cover, do we think we can judge a war by its news coverage? Does Obama?

-- Surprise No. 3: All of our service members are absolutely amazing heroes.

Considering how Obama has spoken negatively about the war, for which our troops and their families sacrifice daily, one might think he would experience a cold military reception in Iraq. But those poised souls are much bigger than that. If Obama goes to Iraq, they will offer him the honor and respect he never could give them. The troops deserve admiration from the possible commander in chief. But how can he march them forward when he rejects their cause, has not sat down with their officers and generals, and wants to negotiate with Muslim terrorists?

Whatever the reasons we went in, we're there now. We can fight the constitutional correctness until the cows come home, but our troops are there. And they are fighting for the freedom and democracy of more than 12 million Iraqis, who bravely went to the polls a few years ago to establish a new constitution and government. I am grateful for our troops' service, humbled by their courage, and amazed by their sacrifice. And I believe even Obama will be surprised by their fortitude if he just opens his eyes.

[ASA Vet]

Hey Chuck, speaking of doofus’s how's Huckster doing?

[Miss Didi]

RUSH: Obama. We were talking about Iraq and the surge, and "it doesn't work," and my brilliant prognostication of a year ago in which I asked: What happens if this all turns around? Do you realize how they've pigeonholed themselves? And after all, folks, we're talking about the United States Military which does not lose (unless the Democrats are in charge) and the Democrats tried to secure defeat but they couldn't, because on this George W. Bush hung tough. Last Friday on PMSNBC (otherwise known as DNCTV) Morning Joe, Obama campaign strategerist David Axelrod was asked by Mike Barnicle, "Do you know whether Senator Obama thinks there's been progress made in Iraq?"

AXELROD: I -- think w-w-what he's -- what he's said is that there's been, uh... I mean he never disputed the fact that if you throw a -- a surge of American soldiers in an area that you can, uh, make a difference.

RUSH: Really? "He never disputed the fact" never? "that if you throw a surge of American soldiers in an area that you can make a difference?" Let's go back to January 14th of 2007, about a year and a half ago, Senator Barack Obama is the guest and says this about more troops in Iraq.

OBAMA: We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality, uh, we can send 15,000 more troop; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. Uh, I don't know any, uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to, uh, privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

RUSH: He's an idiot. He is a lying idiot! He says he can't find a general who will tell him it worked? Have you ever heard of David Petraeus, who is a general? It is working. A year and a half ago, he is dead wrong. He doesn't know what he's talking about. When he's put on the spot like this, and he doesn't have an answer prewritten that he has mermaid, he is wandering aimlessly in search of a thought. Axelrod said, "Well, of course going to throw soldiers at something, it's going to work." No! Just the opposite. Obama, in his own words: the surge is impossible. We will hold onto this bite, and we will continue to play it at the appropriate strategic times to clearly illustrate: this man knows not at all from what he is saying.

[Kaslin]

I have no idea why you are bringing Huckabee up? Is it because you read the Author’s name but not the editorial? Otherwise you would have noticed that it is about Obama

[Barnyard]

Great post!!

[ASA Vet]

Sorry you have no idea.
B. Hussein appears to have the same affliction.

[tm61]

waiting on the dims to tell the truth and give credit to the US military? hmmmm.

since the demonrats can credit the iranians for the success of the surge, I wont hold my breath waiting for obama to realize, and publicaly speak on the turnaround in Iraq.

his speechwriters will spin it, and if (God save us) he gets in the Whitehouse, he’ll find a way to lose it and the media will pile on as usual, and tell us it was a lost cause.

[Miss Didi]

Thanks...Rush was on fire yesterday.

[gov_bean_ counter]

Better title...

Three Things That Won't Matter to Obama

[Ronin]

If Obama goes to Iraq and learns the truth, he’s liable to run home and climb into his attic for six months.

[CharacterCounts]

Obama will not be surprised - even a little. He already is well aware of everything stated in he article.

He will never admit it of course, because to do so will cost him his base.

Obama is perfectly willing to sacrifice our troop for his political gain.

[libertylover]

I hope the soldiers find little ways to show Obama and the press they don’t want him as their Commander In Chief.

Joke: Chelsea Clinton went to Iraq and asked some of the troops what scared them. They said, “The three things that scare us most are: Osama, yo Mama, and Obama.”

[gov_bean_ counter]

The soldiers have no choice but to be respectful to Sen. Obama. The problem is he is such a whiner I think he will report anything he perceives as “disrespect” to the soldier's CO.

[holden]

Likely even more profound changes may have to occur to the Democrat party to fully absorb the difference between reality and their skewed attempt to push their false history and malevolent wishes about outcomes with Iraq and the GWOT, inasmuch as they could be made to reflect negatively onto the Republicans.

With Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq no longer being state sponsors of terror, that Iran and Syria are rightfully next to "go" can't help but cast Pelosi and Hoyer's (and Kerry's) naive traitorous forays into the opposition's "foreign policy" in the worst possible light.

Instead of letting those chickens come home to roost, count on the Democrats continuing to lie and spin, if now only to attempt to mitigate the damage. Their miscalculations will probably only make their fall all the more cataclysmic.

Obama, if he's their nominee, is sure to take a big part of the hit.

Since it would seem the Dhimmicrats are now firmly resolved to keep any other queen bees out of the top slots (as would the voters), the Redenbacher heirs can sleep comfortably.

The Republican presummptive nominee also has some reality hits to absorb, however, and the vacuums left by Dhimmi-demise will only hasten McLame's having to eat crow concerning Conservative issues, to wit, CFR, illegal immigration, global warming, etc., and that basically, conservativism has the country's best answers for our futures.

Weighing all the factors involved, there seems to be an unbelievably high probability for either or both major parties not to have the current presumptive nominees actually be their respective standard bearer on November 4.

Unfortunately, the resolutions for Iran and Syria are less likely to be hastened by the actions of those respective state terrorists as they pray for a Democrat victory. That President Bush be the catalyst to resolve their situations would be our current best option, though that is also currently unlikely.

Go ahead, Ahmajihadinutjob, make our year!

As the Dhimmis head as lemmings for their cliff, it would seem some person or group is cashing their chips from a very big game to finance Obama's election. In some sense, we should all be appalled at the likely criminality of that. Will our CFR-crippled legal system ever be able to make any such criminals pay for their attempted coup d'etat?

OTOH, perhaps we can appreciate that all that money is apparently going to stunning waste into an abyss. It is unfortunate that the amounts required merely to finance a presidential election wouldn't be enough to take down a Rockefeller or Kennedy family fortune. God must truly be in charge when one considers by comparison how little has had to be spent on the Republican side to maintain a winning trajectory. Even as unlovable a candidate as Juan is able to keep up with it, it appears.

It is to marvel!

HF

[aruanan]

Even if Obama goes to Iraq, he’ll return saying that he had been taken only to a very select few spots that had been pacified and cleaned up for his impending trip and that things are, in reality, worse than ever.

[holden]

an answer prewritten that he has mermaid

Mermaid? I think the automated recognizer should have rendered that "memorized."

HF

[WellyP]

I want to wee a photo of Obambi face when the first firecrcker goes off!

[SMARTY]

“...if he just opens his eyes”.

His eyes are open, but his blinders are on.

[Dilbert56]

One general who went on to become President was U.S. Grant. His nickname was "Unconditional Surrender" Grant. Now we have another Presidential candidate who insists on "unconditional surrender", ours. He wants us to surrender, unconditionally.

No matter the progress, the conditions on the ground or the outlook, Obama wants to surrender. If Obama wins we'll know what kind of trajectory our country is on.

[Miss Didi]

Sometimes the transcripts have errors...I hadn’t noticed. ;)