But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?
I thoroughly checked my DOD dictionary (danger: 780 pages of PDF), but could find nothing about "microcosmically" analyzing military campaigns. I am at a total loss to even understand the question. Still, I should at least give credit for the surprising line of questioning that Couric made to actually get an answer. An incoherent answer, to be sure, but an answer that well reflects his hard core base.
Of course, being thrown off by that word might excuse the response, I suppose, that denied any success for our surge in Iraq:
Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there's no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that-- not just today, not just yesterday, but I've said that-- previously. What that doesn't change is that we've got to have a different strategic approach if we're going to make America as safe as possible.
So microcosmically, the issue of the surge is hypothetical. Except that without the money, troops, and strategy applied to Iraq for the surge strategy, Iraq could be much better today.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, few on the Left understand anything about the military. They may be good and decent people. They may have well-grounded and thought out positions on a variety of domestic and foreign policy areas (though I may disagree with those positions). But when it comes to military matters, most on the Left simply have opinions based on virtually no knowledge at all on the subject matter.
Wait, I think I understand "microcosmically" now: tiny brain off in its own universe. That explains the press aristocracy, anyway! Now can we research the certitude of our Left on war?
