Senator Obama: Mission Illogical?
By Joel Arends
July 14, 2008
What's the deal, Senator Obama? For 915 days now, you have avoided Iraq like the plague and have refused to meet one-on-one with General Petraeus. You've continued to ignore the truth about Iraq - violence is down, the Iraqi military is taking control, political progress is accelerating - in favor of spreading false gloom and doom. With all the good news coming from Iraq, where's this so-called "change we can believe in?" It's becoming clear that facts on the ground, the strategy adopted by our top-level commanders, and the desire of our troops to complete their mission all undermine the whole purpose of your candidacy.
When the president announced his plans for the surge in his 2007 State of the Union address, you scoffed: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." (web site) A year ago this week, only one month into the surge, you made this bold and completely erroneous statement: "Here's what we know. The surge has not worked." (web site) Last November on "Meet the Press," you said, (web site) "not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there," and stated: "I would end this war, and I would have the troops out within 16 months." On March 19, 2008, in Fayetteville, North Carolina, you stated that upon becoming President you would "immediately begin to remove our troops." (web site) Today, everyone knows the surge has worked -- even John Murtha and Hillary Clinton have admitted it. You consistently claim to have the judgment to lead our great nation, Senator Obama; now it's time to use that judgment and acknowledge reality.
Your senior political advisers are desperately trying to rewrite history when it comes to your position on the surge. How can your communications director, Robert Gibbs, and senior strategist, David Axelrod, look the American people in the eyes and say you've never disputed that the surge would work? You say you will "respond directly and forcefully with the truth." We're all waiting for the truth, Senator. We've been waiting for quite a while.
The 25,000 members of Vets for Freedom offer this message of hope and change for you, Senator Obama: Not only are things changing for the better in Iraq, but the surge has succeeded, and for the first time in decades, the Iraqi people have hope. Yet, the only thing you want to change is the current winning strategy, by insisting on a rigid and illogical timetable for retreat.
In an interview with Martha Raddatz of ABC News, Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond, commanding general of the 4th Infantry Division, gave his unvarnished opinion regarding timetables for withdrawal from the battlefield. When asked how he would feel about an order to start drawing down two combat brigades a month, Hammond said: "We still have a ways to go. Number one, we're working on security and it's very encouraging, that's true, but what we're really trying to achieve here is sustainable security on Iraqi terms. So, I think my first response to that would be let's look at the conditions. (web site)
"Instead of any time-based approach to any decision for withdrawal, it's got to be conditions-based, with the starting point being an intelligence analysis of what might be here today, and what might lie ahead in the future. I still think we still have work that remains to be done before I can really answer that question."
Asked if he considered it dangerous to pull out if the withdrawal is not based on "conditions," Hammond said, "It's very dangerous. I'll speak for the coalition forces, men and women of character and moral courage; we have a mission, and it's not until the mission is done that I can look my leader in the eye and say, 'Sir, Ma'am, mission accomplished,' and I think it is dangerous to leave anything a little early."
It's obvious, Senator, why you don't want to take the time to meet with the commanders on the ground -- they won't tell you what you want to hear to validate your campaign. But it's not just the generals telling us that the current strategy is succeeding; our young company commanders on the ground are saying the same thing. On the streets of Baghdad, where a suicide bomber had struck just days before, Capt. Josh West said he wants to finish the mission, (web site) and any further drawdown has to be based on conditions on the ground: "If we pull out of here too early, it's going to establish a vacuum of power that violent criminal groups will be able to fill once we leave."
Capt. Jeremy Ussery, a West Point graduate on his third deployment, pointed to his heavy body armor as we walked in the 120-degree heat, saying, "The same people keep coming back because we want to see Iraq succeed, that's what we want. I don't want my kids, that hopefully will join the military, my notional children, to have to come back to Iraq 30 years from now and wear this." Ussery added, "You can't put a timetable on it -- it's events-based."
Where do you stand, Senator Obama? Will you continue to defend a military strategy offered up by left-wing fringe groups such as MoveOn.org? Or will you listen to the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, and their commanders on the ground, who repeatedly speak of great success?
In a recent Army Times interview, you stated that you need to gain the trust of our troops. How do you expect to accomplish this when you continually ignore what they are saying? In the heart and mind of this former soldier and Iraq veteran, as well as in the hearts and minds of thousands of my brethren, Senator Obama, you've got a long way to go.
---
Joel Arends served with the 1st Cavalry Division in Iraq and is currently the Executive Director of Vets for Freedom.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.