When Democrats deny the obvious

Dan Senor:

THE punditry's focus on horse- race analysis of the '08 race has obscured a remarkable event: The debates of the last few days actually taught us something meaningful about the difference between the two parties on national security.

Saturday night, the Republican candidates spent some 20 minutes in a detailed and informed argument about the nature of the Islamist threat. They demonstrated a grasp of realities and surprising detail as well as intelligent disagreement.

...

To the 10 million Americans watching, the debate briefly showed that these candidates have been seriously thinking about what we are facing in the War on Terror. By contrast, in the night's second debate, the Democratic candidates jostled to occupy a position at odds with reality - highlighted by Sen. Barack Obama's absurd claim that it was the Democrats' winning control of Congress in November 2006 that led to the turnaround in Iraq's Sunni Anbar province:

"I welcome the genuine reductions of violence that have taken place, although I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province - Sunni tribes - who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shias. We should start negotiating now. That's how you change behavior."

To his credit, Obama's reputation for integrity and his classy political style don't suggest that he would peddle something so intellectually dishonest simply to make an opportunistic point. But that's what makes his analysis on Iraq so troubling: How can he really believe it?

Even those who dispute the role of the surge in the "Anbar Awakening" recognize that al Qaeda atrocities were the initial impetus behind the shift in tribal attitudes - not Democratic victories at the polls.

...

Yet, whatever the impetus for the Sunni turnaround, everyone who has seriously studied this issue shares the view that it took nearly a year of hard fighting by US troops to help Anbar's tribal leaders retake their province from the terrorists. Army Col. Sean Macfarland's brigade began clearing Ramadi in June 2006; his successor, Col. John Charlton, continued the fight with the benefit of the surge's added Marine forces (the equivalent of three extra Marine battalions) in 2007.

As US forces with larger numbers began to work with Sunnis in Anbar and elsewhere, the Iraqis never said, Well, since the Democrats won and you guys are on your way out, we guess we'd better talk to the Shia. Instead, they continually asked: "Are you going to stay this time and protect us?" It was only when brave fighters like Macfarland, Charlton and their fellow commanders and soldiers were able to say unequivocally, "Yes, we will stay with you," that Anbaris and other Sunnis began working with us and the Iraqi government.

For Obama to try to take credit for that turnaround (or to attribute it to Rep. Rahm Emmanuel's and Sen. Charles Schumer's success in managing the '06 congressional elections) raises questions about his distance from reality. He should clarify this soonest.

...

As I pointed out in this post, the Anbar tribes came together to fight al Qaeda and ask the US for assistance before the 2006 election. That is a fact that Obama and the Democrats cannot continue to ignore. The surge was needed to help them fight al Qaeda. Right now he is still being protected from this reality by a media that wants him to win more than they want to seek the truth. This is doing Obama no favor. because the Republicans will not give him a recess from history.