Think Again Senator

Illinios Senator and presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama visited Iraq for the first time since 2006 last week and while we welcome the fact that he went there to evaluate the new conditions on the ground, we are concerned at his conclusions and his refusal to rethink his position on the success of the 'surge',

Questioned by ABC's Terry Moran, who asked: "If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?," Senator Obama said, "No. Keep in mind, these kind of hypotheticals are very difficult.

"You know hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one I just disagreed with."

You would have thought that given the opportunity to correct himself, with the benefit of hindsight, the Senator would have jumped at the chance.

Especially since a common Democratic criticism of President Bush is that he seems incapable of admitting his mistakes (though that is a particularly partisan view).

The problem with Senator Obama's revelation is that he would, had he been President, have drawn down U.S. forces in Iraq - like he promises to do if he wins the upcoming election in November - even though the consequences of doing so would have been disastrous.

Had the surge not happened, the so-called 'Anbar Awakening' - was unlikely to have happened, Iraq's security forces would have been unable to have prevented a 'surge' by insurgents, both domestic and foreign and Iraq itself would have almost certainly plunged into chaos.

The effect of this would have been felt around the world as U.S. allies saw how much trust they could put in this nation and the enemy would have been heartened into further, and wider spread attacks on the West.

As it is, the surge has accomplished almost every goal that it set out to.

The much-vaunted political benchmarks demanded by the Democratic Congress last year are quickly being fulfilled in the new political climate in Baghdad, with good progress reported on 15 of the 18.

Iraqi security forces continue to grow in maturity and effectiveness; the recent defeats of insurgents and militias in Basra and Mosul are both testiments to the increasing trust the government has in them.

Violence is down to historic lows and planning proceeds apace for the upcoming provincial elections, while Al Queda faces almost certain destruction.

Now the U.S. and its allies must build further on that progress. This will primarily be a task for the next President, and the candidates' plans for the future are important indicators, but so is past behaviour and their ability to change their opinions based on a change in circumstances.

Unfortunately, Senator Obama is, at the present time, seems to be burying his head in the sand with his continued calls for a fixed timetable of withdrawal, with no account taken of the situation on the ground in Iraq when he takes office.

Closing his news story, ABC's Moran concluded: "And so, when pressed, Barack Obama says that he still would have opposed the surge but said he didn't anticipate what people here call the Iraqi surge uprising against Al Qaeda and Shi'ite extremists. "He said he didn't anticipate that, but he is insisting that he is focusing forward on what needs to be done -- setting that timetable for withdrawal."

With respect, we disagree Senator. A fixed timetable for withdrawal leaves the enemy able to simply wait us out.

A fixed timetable for withdrawal leaves us with the possibility of having to fight the last few years of insurgency all over again, if we withdraw prematurely and allow the enemy to reconstitute.

This would be disasterous for America, Iraq and the entire Middle East.

Think again Senator Obama, before it's too late to change your mind!