Katie Couric Questions Obama’s Duplicity On Iraq Surge
An interesting exchange from an interview between CBS’ Katie Couric and Barack Obama which will appear tonight:
Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?
Obama: Katie, as … you’ve asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There’s no doubt.
Couric: But yet you’re saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn’t support it … so I’m just trying to understand this.
Obama: Because … it’s pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that’s money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision-- to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.
Couric: And I really don’t mean to belabor this, Senator, because I’m really, I’m trying … to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq …
Obama: Yes.
Couric … would exist today without the surge?
Obama: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there’s no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that-- not just today, not just yesterday, but I’ve said that-- previously. What that doesn’t change is that we’ve got to have a different strategic approach if we’re going to make America as safe as possible.
Here’s what’s interesting about Obama’s claim that we could have diverted the resources we used in Iraq to Afghanistan: Obama’s alternative to the surge in Iraq was to exert diplomatic pressure by setting a date for withdrawal. Obama thought that by setting a date for retreating from Iraq in stone the Iraqi government would be pressured into getting their act together.
If Obama thought that would work in Iraq, why is he proposing another surge for Afghanistan instead of a withdrawal date that would pressure the Afghani government into getting their act together?
Could it be because Obama’s foreign policy is based on political expediency instead of a desire for sound foreign policy?
RebTex
Mike Liberty Peterson
robert108
Rob
Proof
Sparkie Arbuckle
Gary Ogletree
Pilgrim
Wing Chun Geologist
JazzyKat
2Hotel9
