If The Surge Hadn't Happened, It Would Never Have Worked

I seem to recall someone being vilified in the press for alleged inability to admit a mistake. What would you call this, then, from a different someone's interview on Nightline last night? Asked whether he was wrong about the surge,
Obama would not attribute the decreased violence entirely to the troop surge, which he opposed, instead saying that it was the result of "political factors inside Iraq that came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, my assessment would be correct. . . .
And this today:

And, finally, with respect to the surge, you know, we don't know what would have happened if I -- if the plan that I put forward in January 2007 to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation, to begin a phased withdrawal, what would have happened had we pursued that strategy.

I am pleased that as a consequence of great effort by our troops, but also as a consequence of a shift in allegiances among the Sunni tribal leaders as well as the decision of the Sadr militias to stand down, that we've seen a quelling of the violence.

Not that there was any relationship between these things! As Gramma once pointed out, any progress in Iraq has come via the goodwill and beneficence of the Iranians, which only chanced to coincide with the surge.

Update: Our buddy Ahmed Abu Risha met with Mr. Obama:

In Anbar, Mr Obama met militiamen of the US-backed Awakening Councils movement - a tribal alliance whose members turned against al-Qaeda last year. Ahmed Abu Risha, head of the Awakening Councils, said tribal chiefs had told Mr Obama at their meeting in Ramadi that any withdrawal of US forces from Anbar should be carried out cautiously.

Update 2: Obama's We Laugh Because There's No Use In Crying Moment Of The Day.

Speaking of small details, I tried to pass this over, but hours later this still bothers me from the good Senator's remarks today.

First and foremost, we were extremely impressed by the extraordinary dedication and devotion and skill of our men and women in uniform. What they are doing is very tough work, but our troops are performing brilliantly under difficult circumstances, and they are doing so with extraordinarily high morale.

You know, everywhere we went people are very proud of the work that they do. And I think it's important for those of us back home to remember that this volunteer fighting force is -- is incredibly proud of their work and are doing it with great dedication.

The same, by the way, holds true for the diplomats and the civilians who we met. In many ways, their work is just as difficult and just as important. And all of us back home have reason to be proud, and we support their heroic service.

Perhaps I am too thin-skinned --you will tell me if I am-- but is it not possible to say unequivocally that we're proud of our troops? Not that they're proud of themselves, while we're proud of our diplomats? Is that so hard? As Mr. W. likes to say, this guy mimics the words, but he gets the music all wrong. Here he is in the theater of a stunning victory and he manages to sing a dirge (even if there is some reluctant acceptance of the facts on the ground and concomitant back-pedaling)?