(He also --- on several occasions, including during the debate, if I recall --- went on to observe that using the metric of 'succeeding' depended entirely upon what goal you were measuring it against.)
And that most all would say that, as a short-term tactic for reducing the level of sectarian violence, the 'surge' (in association with several other effective tactics also employed at the same time, such as paying tens of millions cash to the Sunni Tribal Chiefs to create and support the Sunni "Awakening Councils", giving monthly stipends to thousands of their young unemployed Sunni men, encouraging Maliki to attack the Sadrists, etc.) succeeded very well at reducing levels of sectarian violence.
But that the 'surge' was always intended from it's very inception to be only a short-term tactic (the U.S. Military having already told the WH that those higher force levels could only be sustained for but a limited period of time... unless deployments were extended again, or more rotations required to the battle zones --- all of which were placing great stress on our military), and that the PURPOSE of 'the surge' was to create the breathing room for Iraqi politicians to make the political compromises that would be required (pass new oil law, settle Kurdish questions, conduct new elections - this time with the Sunnis participating, etc.) to achieve a STRATEGIC victory....
And that these absolutely necessary strategic developments were still quite lacking.
(In other words... not to get too worked-up about an 'inning here or there' when the final results of the game itself was still in doubt... and the clock still ticking some 6+ years in, at 10 to 12 Billion dollars a month....)
And... like I said:
No one really expects politicians to run around stressing over and over again their less PRESCIENT statements! :-)
(Like McCain with his pre-war or pre-occupation predictions that the 'American victory would be cheap and easy', and that 'oil revenues from Iraq would pay for it' and that 'there was not a history of Sunnis and Shia fighting each other', or that 'Saddam was likely behind the 9-11 attacks'... or Sarah repeating that line from *her debate* either that 'our troop levels are now down to lower then they were pre-surge'.)
Naturally enough --- with both candidates trying to shape public perceptions and win an election --- NEITHER ONE is going to pull out all of their less sterling efforts at prognostication and parade them around in public much.
Just ain't normal for pols to act like that. |
