Perhaps what wasn't expected, given his initial opposition to the Iraq War (his signature contrasting position against his Democratic rivals)and as a leading Senate voice demanding a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq and arguing against the anti-insurgent surge, was his attestation to the validity of their mission: "From getting rid of Saddam, to reducing violence, to stabilizing the country, to facilitating elections -- you have given Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own as a democratic country. That is an extraordinary achievement." [I'm sure that the anti-war groups, which have been in a state of denial over the efficacy of American initiatives in Iraq, are perplexed and feel betrayed by the President's words.]
Perhaps just as notable was Obama's earlier comment at a joint Turkish press conference. In reference to a Turkish student's question probing for practical differences in Iraq policy from George W. Bush, Obama said, "Just because I was opposed at the outset it doesn’t mean that I don’t have now responsibilities to make sure that we do things in a responsible fashion."
Technically speaking, Obama wasn't contradicting himself from his perspective; for a long time, the Democrats have sought to distinguish between their disagreements over policy from the performance of the troops, which is at least a step above protestors spitting at returning troops during the Vietnam era. However, challenging the validity of the mission of the troops takes away from the significance and valor of their efforts and sacrifices.
But isn't it time that Obama concedes what everyone now knows--that the national leaders (in particular, President Bush and John McCain), who paid a high price in advocating the Petraeus strategy after public sentiment turned against the war, made the right call? And perhaps the irresponsible ones preferred an alternate scenario which would almost certainly have resulted in an Iraq civil war, if not a regional war?
