Suitably Flip

Romney: Surge

Generally, entering the Presidential fray through the Governor door is preferred to the Senate entrance, as candidates not only get to showcase their executive skills, they get to avoid ugly things like tough decisions or, even worse, multiple decisions, emblazoned in one's voting history and just waiting to come back to bite their casters when the results go sour or when inconsistencies emerge.

(Witness Barack Obama, who's made considerable hay of his lack of Senate experience, as he's able to cast his Iraq War "vote" more than three years late, opting for the lay-up popular (albeit, still incorrect) choice.)

So is Mitt Romney daft for jumping out in front of the surge-or-purge question?  Shouldn't he get to simply fold his arms and watch legislators tear each other apart, folding his arms and shaking his head at their petty partisanship, and enjoying all the political perks of being an unscathable gubernatorial candidate?

Maybe.  But he's not.  I like it.

Boston, MA – Governor Mitt Romney, in direct consideration of the proposed increase in troop deployments in Iraq, issued the following statement today putting an emphasis on the need for clear and measurable strategic objectives.

"I agree with the President: Our strategy in Iraq must change. Our military mission, for the first time, must include securing the civilian population from violence and terror. It is impossible to defeat the insurgency without first providing security for the Iraqi people. Civilian security is the precondition for any political and economic reconstruction.

"In consultation with Generals, military experts and troops who have served on the ground in Iraq, I believe securing Iraqi civilians requires additional troops. I support adding five brigades in Baghdad and two regiments in Al-Anbar province. Success will require rapid deployment.

"This effort should be combined with clear objectives and milestones for U.S. and Iraqi leaders.

"The road ahead will be difficult but success is still possible in Iraq. I believe it is in America's national security interest to achieve it."

The size of the surge Romney outlines is roughly on par with the 20,000 number being bandied about in advance of tonight's Presidential address.

---

Update:  Robert Bluey at Human Events is of a different mind, noting that in his interview with Romney two weeks ago, the Governor wouldn't answer his question about the merits of a troop surge.  (Emphasis mine.)

I’m not going to weigh in. I’m still a governor. I’m not running for national office at this stage. I’m not going to weigh in on specific tactics about whether we should go from 140,000 to 170,000. That’s something I expect the President to decide over the next couple of weeks and announce that to the nation. I want to hear what he has to say.

In Romney's defense, I'd note that in the span of those two weeks, he has ceased to be a Governor and has overtly begun his run for national office.  Planting his flag in this debate ahead of the President's speech (not that the substance of it is much in doubt, but more importantly, ahead of gauging the public reaction to his speech) in my book earns Romney full credit as siding with military victory.  McCain and his Senatorial ilk (particularly those on relevant Armed Services or Appropriations committees) have a more explicit duty than a retired Governor to opine.  A relatively safe (though weak and sheepish) play would've called for continued rhetorical punting of the sort Romney offered in Bluey's interview.

I do expect we'll some true wait-and-seers on this issue.  I expect it'll come from Senate Democrats in the Presidential hunt, who opt several months from now, once the effects of the surge are made manifest, to refine and polish the particulars of their statements made in January.

Comments

Romney: Surge

Generally, entering the Presidential fray through the Governor door is preferred to the Senate entrance, as candidates not only get to showcase their executive skills, they get to avoid ugly things like tough decisions or, even worse, multiple decisions, emblazoned in one's voting history and just waiting to come back to bite their casters when the results go sour or when inconsistencies emerge.

(Witness Barack Obama, who's made considerable hay of his lack of Senate experience, as he's able to cast his Iraq War "vote" more than three years late, opting for the lay-up popular (albeit, still incorrect) choice.)

So is Mitt Romney daft for jumping out in front of the surge-or-purge question?  Shouldn't he get to simply fold his arms and watch legislators tear each other apart, folding his arms and shaking his head at their petty partisanship, and enjoying all the political perks of being an unscathable gubernatorial candidate?

Maybe.  But he's not.  I like it.

Boston, MA – Governor Mitt Romney, in direct consideration of the proposed increase in troop deployments in Iraq, issued the following statement today putting an emphasis on the need for clear and measurable strategic objectives.

"I agree with the President: Our strategy in Iraq must change. Our military mission, for the first time, must include securing the civilian population from violence and terror. It is impossible to defeat the insurgency without first providing security for the Iraqi people. Civilian security is the precondition for any political and economic reconstruction.

"In consultation with Generals, military experts and troops who have served on the ground in Iraq, I believe securing Iraqi civilians requires additional troops. I support adding five brigades in Baghdad and two regiments in Al-Anbar province. Success will require rapid deployment.

"This effort should be combined with clear objectives and milestones for U.S. and Iraqi leaders.

"The road ahead will be difficult but success is still possible in Iraq. I believe it is in America's national security interest to achieve it."

The size of the surge Romney outlines is roughly on par with the 20,000 number being bandied about in advance of tonight's Presidential address.

---

Update:  Robert Bluey at Human Events is of a different mind, noting that in his interview with Romney two weeks ago, the Governor wouldn't answer his question about the merits of a troop surge.  (Emphasis mine.)

I’m not going to weigh in. I’m still a governor. I’m not running for national office at this stage. I’m not going to weigh in on specific tactics about whether we should go from 140,000 to 170,000. That’s something I expect the President to decide over the next couple of weeks and announce that to the nation. I want to hear what he has to say.

In Romney's defense, I'd note that in the span of those two weeks, he has ceased to be a Governor and has overtly begun his run for national office.  Planting his flag in this debate ahead of the President's speech (not that the substance of it is much in doubt, but more importantly, ahead of gauging the public reaction to his speech) in my book earns Romney full credit as siding with military victory.  McCain and his Senatorial ilk (particularly those on relevant Armed Services or Appropriations committees) have a more explicit duty than a retired Governor to opine.  A relatively safe (though weak and sheepish) play would've called for continued rhetorical punting of the sort Romney offered in Bluey's interview.

I do expect we'll some true wait-and-seers on this issue.  I expect it'll come from Senate Democrats in the Presidential hunt, who opt several months from now, once the effects of the surge are made manifest, to refine and polish the particulars of their statements made in January.