Democrats' war against the facts

Rich Lowry:

AT some point, Democrats decided that facts didn't matter anymore in Iraq. And they nominated just the man to reflect the party's new anti-factual consensus on the war, a Barack Obama who has fixedly ignored changing conditions on the ground.

It's gotten harder as the success of the surge has become undeniable, but - despite some wobbles - Obama is sticking to his plan for a 16-month timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. He musters dishonesty, evasion and straw-grasping to try to create a patina of respectability around a scandalously unserious position.

Obama spokesmen now say everyone knew that President Bush's troop surge would create more security. This is blatantly false: Obama said in early 2007 that nothing in the surge plan would "make a significant dent in the sectarian violence," and the new strategy would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly." He referred to the surge derisively as "baby-sit[ting] a civil war."

Now that the civil war has all but ended, he wants to claim retroactive clairvoyance. In a New York Times op-ed, he credits our troops' heroism and new tactics with bringing down the violence. Yet our troops have always been heroic; what made the difference was the surge strategy that he lacked the military judgment - or political courage - to support.

Obama states that "the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true," citing the strain on the military, the deterioration in Afghanistan and the fiscal drain. All are important, but pale compared with the achievement in Iraq - beating back al Qaeda and Iranian-backed militias and restoring a semblance of order to a country on the verge of a collapse from which only our enemies could've benefited.

Politically, Obama has to notionally support defeating al Qaeda in Iraq, so even after he's executed his 16-month withdrawal, he says there'll be a "residual force" of American troops to take on "remnants of al Qaeda." How can he be so sure there'll only be "remnants"? If there are, it'll be because the surge he opposed has pushed al Qaeda to the brink. The more precipitously we withdraw our troops, the more likely it is to mount a comeback.

...

Obama loves to say that we have to withdraw from Iraq "responsibly." There's nothing responsible about his plan. US commanders on the ground say it may not even be logistically possible. Does Obama even care? He says that when he's elected he'd give the military a new mission - to end the war. Conditions in Iraq, let alone winning, are marginalia.

There are two possible interpretations: Either Obama is dangerously sincere or he's a cynical operator playing duplicitous politics with matters of war and peace. Watch this space.

The residual force that Obama is going to leave in Iraq will have little to no combat muscle. He is going to leave support troops and a few special forces troops while taking out the combat units. This should tie the hands of those left in just doing force protection. It is the same mistake that Les Aspin made in Somalia which led to the Blackhawk down incident and those guys had more combat force than Obama plans on leaving in Iraq.

In short his Iraq policy makes no sense. He is eager to throw away a victory he never wanted and is willing to put the troops remaining in great jeopardy to accomplish his objective.