Opinions differed, often significantly, whether the 2007 troop surge would propel the United States to victory in the battle of Iraq. Some felt increased troop levels were necessary to clear and secure Iraqi neighborhoods. Others felt an expansion of military action would only create a greater terrorist breeding ground.
Proponents said the surge would demonstrate the sincerity of the United States and win the “hearts and minds” of Iraqi citizens. Opponents said more troops would only “harden Iraqi hearts.”
Would an additional 20,000+ troops help stabilize Iraq and thereby accelerate the U.S. military drawdown? Or would the surge only make matters worse? As is often the case, time would provide the answers, and today the effects of the surge are clearer.
But a point of clarification before proceeding.
This discussion will not regress to 2002 and debate whether military action in Iraq was necessary. We’ve had this discussion before. Congress voted based on the cumulative intelligence available at the time. With the decision made, only two options remain: Success or failure.
Our military commanders do not accept defeat, and in their opinion, the 2007 troop surge was necessary to achieve success. According to our military leaders the surge would assist in bringing stability to Iraq and move us closer to the date when our troops could come home.
But the call for a troop surge was met with resistance here in the U.S.
Two senators were exceptionally critical of the surge, going so far as to call it a failure. These senators just happen to be our current president and vice president.
Barack Obama was steadfast in his opposition to military action in Iraq. He opposed the surge and then declared it as failing. At the time, no evidence would change his mind. Though I disagree with Obama’s perspective, I credit him for remaining consistent. In his brief tenure as a senator, I couldn’t find an issue in which he remained more unwavering and adamant in his opposition.
Then there is Joe Biden.
One of the reasons Barack Obama chose Biden as his running mate was because of Biden’s supposed national security experience. Based on Biden’s positions on Iraq, perhaps he should have been appointed to head one of our intelligence agencies.
Biden is a master at creating confusion. His ability to shift positions with a straight face would certainly keep our enemies in a state of bewilderment. Friend or foe, I doubt there are many who can decipher what’s going on inside the head of Joe Biden.
Biden originally voted for military action in Iraq, but as public opinion soured, he suffered a bout of PPA (Previous Position Amnesia) and flipped to opposing it. It’s unconscionable for an elected official to abandon the troops he voted to send into battle. But for Biden, doing so appeared natural.
Biden also found fault with the troop surge saying, “I totally oppose this surging of additional American troops into Baghdad.” Then, a year later, Biden joined others like Barack Obama in declaring the surge a failure even as General Petraeus provided evidence it was succeeding.
And now, in 2010, Biden again has changed his rhetoric.
Biden takes credit for the "Iraqi Success" on Larry King Live
In a February interview with CNN’s Larry King, Vice President Biden had this to say, “About Iraq, I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration.”
“This could be one of the great achievements of this administration” probably defines Biden better than any statement he’s ever made.
Biden first voted to send troops into Iraq. Then, while troops were fighting our enemies, Biden switched his position based on the political climate. Biden argued against the troop surge and against the advice of our military commanders. He said the surge failed while evidence said it was succeeding.
Now Biden seeks to take credit for the actions of others that he condemned and argued against.
But it comes as no surprise that Biden would try to take credit for the work of others. After all, it was Biden who took key parts from the life of British Labor Party leader, Neil Kinnock, and claimed them as his own.
“This could be one of the great achievements of this administration” Biden certainly reveals his priorities. Shouldn’t success be a victory for our country? But not according to Biden – it’s an achievement of “this administration.”
There is a reason why Biden will try and credit the Obama administration with any success in Iraq, past or present.
A majority of Americans are against the Obama Administration’s attempt at a government takeover of health care. The American people oppose the costly Cap and Trade. Americans worry when they read that the Obama administration’s proposals to cut greenhouse gas emissions could result in $7 a gallon gas. Americans don’t like the idea of giving rights to terrorists or holding their trials at Ground Zero. The constant rebukes have left the Obama administration desperate for success – even if it means taking it from someone else.
And what better person to rewrite history and take credit for the work of others than the noted plagiarist, Vice President Joe Biden? It’s a perfect fit for him.
The Iraqi people are currently holding elections as a sign of their rejection of tyranny. Terrorists are aggressively trying to suppress the will of the Iraqi people, but they vote anyway, the young and old alike, even at the risk of death. Conditions remain tenuous, but the election is a key step in determining whether democracy will prevail in Iraq.
Will Vice President Biden also credit his administration for creating the conditions that resulted in Iraq’s historical election? It wouldn’t surprise me if he did.
It comes easy for a man without a conscience
God Bless our troops in harm’s way.
Poz
© 2010, Fortunate Son Blogs. All rights reserved.
