Only Nixon could go to China.

He’s not quite that dumb. But giving the surge some credit would require admitting his judgment was wrong, and that would hurt his pride. Wouldn’t happen in a campaign, but he might flip-flop and say the surge was good now that he’s in a position to try to take credit for future Iraq successes, even if he’s really just reaping the benefits of what those before him did, whom he attacked at the time.

Of course, my first stop upon seeing this news was the good ol’ DU.

The predictable outrage was predictable, but entertaining nonetheless.

Pejman,

I doubt that Obama is still fighting the 2008 election. If you still want to I’m sure that is fine with him but it won’t help the GOP get back any seats. Even if he believes in his heart of hearts that the surge was right – it does not matter for a second. Move On!

…was not an early supporter of the surge strategy. He is and was a responsible and effective bureaucrat, but he is not a visionary.

BO’s moderate appointments pretty much all fall into that category – on the economic team, too. All in all, we see good people to manage a crisis and a general relaxation of pressure, perhaps to give a last try at making carrots and sticks work with Iran and other scofflaws… and otherwise to pour buckets of certain suspicious substances down your neck while telling you it’s rain.

Obama seems to be trying to give the people what they think they want – an excuse to think as little about foreign policy as possible. If the world cooperates it might work out very well – and there are opportunities to expand on or re-cast or re-boot Bush initiatives that could do real good without necessarily creating big headlines. So we on the right can perhaps take comfort that BO’s aiming more for minimal drama than for satisfying the insane, but that shouldn’t be confused with a strong foreign and defense policy.

So if Obama does something stupid, we’ll jump all over his case about it. If he does the right thing, we’ll rub it in his face, gloat and still jump all over his case about it.

I didn’t vote for him, but like it or not, he’s going to be our President soon and more than anything I want this country to succeed.

Also, during the debates Obama did admit the surge was successful when he said “The troop surge in Iraq has been more successful than anyone could have imagined.” A tad bit of a lame admission since many people DID imagine its success, but it was still an admission.

If we really want to drive the dkos crowd nuts, support Obama when he does the right thing on an issue.

Gates as SecDef can be seen as a fig leaf. Gates as SecDef + senior staffers = “That was just pillow talk, baby” to the enthusiasts out there who have been dreaming of war-crimes trials.

The idiots.

(Disclaimer: I voted Obama)

Just consider for a moment that Obama is not some leftie peacenik; and further try to imagine that he actually IS concerned with our national security.

The way I understand his position on our on-going wars is this:

1) He believes that the situation in Afghanistan is more vital to our national security than is the situation in Iraq.

2) From the outset, it was his view that the war in Iraq was misguided. And, for the first several years, it was his view that the war in Iraq was being mishandled.

3) As for “the surge”, he has since said that it was far more successful than he could have imagined it being. However, that does not change the fact that (in his view) Afghanistan is the more vital conflict. So, post-surge, the war in Iraq has gone from being “Wrong place, wrong strategy” to being simply, “the wrong place”.

So, the way I see it, keeping Gates on IS an acknowledgment of Gates’/Petraeus’ success in executing the surge, but does not, in any way, change Obama’s view that efforts should be shifted away from Iraq and towards Afghanistan. In a sense, he is saying, “You men did a great job…too bad your Commander In Chief had you in the wrong country.”

I don’t have the credentials to make an assessment as to whether or not he is right on Iraq vs. Afghanistan, but I do respect the fact that as our Commander in Chief To-Be he will have the unenviable task of sending our troops into war. I am pleased to see that he is committed to sending them to the place that he’s sees as the greatest threat to our national security AND that he is committed to keeping the right men around to execute on that plan.

My son’s in Iraq. I’m going to forget the politics on this and say “Good hire Mr. President – elect.” Now, please listen to the man you just hired.

Gizzard says, “The way I understand his position on our on-going wars is this:

1) He believes that the situation in Afghanistan is more vital to our national security than is the situation in Iraq.”

It seems he only said the situation is Afghansitan was more vital after it was clear that the surge was working. It was political cover; he had to find another “reason” to explain his opposition to the Iraq war.

Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ve tried to find an Obama statement on Afghanistan vs. Iraq prior to the campaign and can’t.