There is no sense here that one may have other reasons, short of cowardice, for wanting out of Iraq. But this is like being back on the block. Your man tells you that he got jumped by some cats from across the tracks, so you and him go to war. The beef lasts for months, and then you find out he never got jumped to begin with. But when you pull out, he calls you a chump."They were running for the exit signs," Graham said, and Democrats weren't the only ones unhappy with McCain's vociferous calls for troop increases.
"Some of our Republican friends were jumping ship," McCain said. "I can't tell you the number of guys who said, 'We've got to get out.'" Earlier he had told me, "I think another problem is that some of the leading thinkers in America said the war was lost, it was over--Tom Friedman of The New York Times, Joe Klein of Time, a long list of people who are widely respected said the war was lost."
Graham recalled the numerous bipartisan attempts, including one led by the Republican defense stalwart John Warner, to bring the war to a quick close: "There were nine different plans, and we beat the shit out of them. I love John Warner, but we just beat the shit out of him."
"If we'd done what Obama wanted to do, we'd have been out by March 2008, and the surge could never have happened," McCain said.
I asked McCain if he thought Obama was a "defeatist."
"When he says 'End the war, whatever it takes to end it,' there's no doubt that--especially in the primary when he was appealing to the left of his party that felt betrayed by Hillary Clinton--that ending it was the first priority, just ending it. And that meant, whatever the consequences were. I'm not saying that he wanted defeat."
But, I asked him, didn't you say publicly that you believed Obama would rather lose the war than lose the election?
"I don't think he said we have to lose," McCain said, "but he did say in unequivocal terms, to standing ovations, 'I'll bring them home, we'll end it, we'll end it, I'll bring them home.'" (What McCain had actually said of Obama, just before this conversation, was: "It seems to me that Senator Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.")
It doesn't matter that McCain is a 72-year old man. This is jungle law--and the jungle does not change. So there is very much an "I ain't no punk" vibe going on in the piece. In other words, McCain and his crew see us pulling out as a breaking of the American will. This, of course, ignores everything up to the actual fight. It says nothing about the complete and total absence of WMD. It says nothing about Guantanamo, about Abu Ghraib. It says nothing about selling Saddam and 9/11, about "greeted as liberators." In the McCain view of war, specifically this war, it doesn't matter if the government conned the country into going to war--the ultimate fault for a loss will lie with the weakness of the people. I want to be fair--McCain has been a long-time critic of the old Rumsfeld/Bush method of conducting war, but he has no critique of the war itself.
We are not that different, are we? Here is an inversion of the liberal argument that "Americans are stupid." From the McCain world-view, should we lose, it means "Americans are weak." Like the "Americans are stupid" argument, it deflects blame from the authors of policy to the people who don't believe them. What incredible cowardice and dishonesty, shifting blame to the people, in order to duck the hard work of interrogating yourself. McCain wants Obama to concede that the surge worked, and Obama--on pure principle--probably should. But McCain can't concede that knowing all we know now, we never would have went to war. Worse still, had we been more honest back in 2003, we never would have went to war. McCain wants the people to be strong and suffer the losses. But McCain, who wants to lead the people, can't even suffer himself and his own assumptions. In effect, he wants us to do what he can not, for the people to be stronger than the man who would lead them.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
From the streets of Baltimore, insight into the man who would be President and why he's not fit for the job.
Thank you, from the bottom of my heart.
I've long thought Obama faced the same battle, and found the opposite outcome; brushed it off his shoulders and moved on.
A couple years ago (!) I was discussing the Iraq war with the construction guy redoing my kitchen. Nice, reasonable man---blue collar, caucasian about 45 yo.
He agreed that the Iraq war was a disaster, but still was a solid Bush supporter--he described it this way:
"It's sort of like if you go out with your buddies and one of them gets drunk and stupid and ends up in a brawl. Even though you know it is his fault, you join the fight to support him, because you got to stand by your buddy."
I think there is a lot of this mentality going on in the Republican party right now.
Jesus Ta-Nehisi. You killed it here. This is an incredibly insightful reading on the core of Goldberg's piece, and gets at who the man the John McCain is today.
Only bad thing is now I'm going to have to read the Goldberg piece all the way to completion for context.
I am so sick of this idea, which TNC repeats, that Obama must concede that The Surge Worked. Maybe Obama should do so on the grounds that explaining the counterargument requires more patience from the audience than they'll give. But other than the crude politics of it, the case is poor. While violence has gone down coincident with the Surge, that doesn't prove causality. The "AnbarAwakening" preceded The Surge; and the violent ethnic cleansing, and walled partition, of Baghdad were rapidly approaching completion just as The Surge started. Furthermore, the idea of The Surge wasn't just about violence: a bolus of troops was supposed to achieve a semblance of order while political stability and reconciliation were achieved, and Iraqi troops capable of maintaining that order were organized, so that after The Surge American troop levels could drop to pre-Surge levels, if not much lower. Instead, our troop levels are still almost at the height of The Surge (currrently ~150,000), political progress has been slight, and the Iraqi troops seem about as incapable as ever. I don't think an informed person must concede the Surge's success by any means.
I enjoyed Goldberg's piece when the mag came in the mail. I'd recommend it to anyone who is for or against McCain. Goldberg provides his analysis without getting in the way. Coate's piece on Cosby achieved something similar.
Although I'm a McCain supporter, I think this post is fair. It really depends on whether or not you supported the ouster of Hussein or not, and for what reasons. I've felt the move to be a necessity ever since Iraq's occupation of Kuwait was ended -- it was a serious mistake not to demand total capitulation at the time. Instead, after the war, regime change came to Washington, and the Clinton administration paid only haphazard attention to enforcing the ceasefire conditions that Hussein consistently broke.
Nonetheless, when it comes to military conflict, the first aim should be to avoid it. If that proves unfeasible, a war's objectives should be clearly defined, achievable within a short timeframe (public support is tenuous and fickle), and pursued aggressively.
The long-term consequences of going to war and losing are too severe and ultimately counter-productive. If that's the risk and a war can be avoided, then it should be avoided, even if the prevailing conditions are difficult to accept.
The 16000 strong surge in 2005 was not enough to bring the troops home either. There is no reason to think that the last surge would produce a different result. I really wish there would be more of a review of history around the "surge" and it's actual effects.
It's as if the mayor of LA declared vicotry because he gave up neighborhoods to rival gangs and put them on the payroll. They have in the mean time consolidated their turf and run everyone who was not with them off.
Unfortunately, in this case the unelected chieftains who have kept their guns are happy to wait for the foreign police to leave so that they can finally settle out who will control the world's second most accessible oil reserves.
Dude, you're so spot on with this shit that I wonder if you're a real person or some cyborg sent back in time to save us.
The strongest argument for staying in Iraq is made on pragmatic grounds (is this best for the country?), not ideological grounds (is this the right thing to do?). A powerful argument can be made that a move that destabilizes Iraq and creates a giant power vacuum next to Iran isn't the best course of action for the US. A pragmatic approach minimizes the messiness associated with a war that was started on a false premise - the Achilles heel of any Iraq war supporter.
By making the war about honor and victory, McCain allows the argument to remain ideological, even though his strongest points are pragmatic.
The real question to ask is has Mccain's surge really worked? For him, there is no end in sight to the war, and our country almost went bankrupt last week. His top economic advisor is a joke. See some nice quotes here... http://mccainpalinworld.com/
His veep is a joke. How many times does Mccain have to make mistakes for us to understand he has become just another rendition of Bush.
Virtually everything I've seen McCain do and say has served his goal of presenting himself as Dutiful and Honorable. He doesn't care much about policy, or outcomes, or consistency. All he wants is to stand up and say, "My friends, the easy thing to do would be X. But Duty and Honor demand Y."
It's really easy to give that speech when X="not fighting a war" and Y="fighting a war." But he's used that rap where X="cutting taxes on rich people" and Y="maintaining tax rates to pay for the war." And then, a couple of years later, he gives the speech again, and X="raising taxes on rich people to previous levels" and Y="keeping taxes low on rich people."
Maybe it's because he signed/recorded the torture-induced "confession" in North Vietnam. Maybe it's because of his dad and grandfather. Who knows? But it seems to me that to McCain, politics is not about helping people, or making the society better in any way. It's just a big stage on which he can act Dutiful and Honorable. It's pretty pathetic, frankly.
Warren Terra, you took the words right out of my mouth. I'd add only that an assessment of the surge depends a lot on what the definition of "worked" is; if it's "brought about the reduction in violence," then I'd say there's very little evidence that it worked. If it's "held the line while the Iraqis brought about a reduction in violence, often through violent and eventually destabilizing means," then it probably worked pretty well. And BTW, Biden's 3-way split plan is looking more and more prophetic.
Any pragmatic argument-- hell, any argument for the US staying in Iraq ignores one basic fact:
Any government in Iraq that is supported by and propped up by a foreign army (an invading army of occupation, by definition) will not-- cannot demonstrate legitimacy to the population.
The mere fact of American guns behind any such government means that said government does not have the support and protection of the populace.
There is only one man* in Iraq who has the political, historical and theological legitimacy necessary to create a stable Iraq-- but we have chosen to make him an enemy.
John McCain is stuck in his POW status and in the Iraq surge....aside from slandering and attacking Senator Obama, McCain does not have much else to talk about. Americans MUST pay attention to McCain's mental capacity....at 72 he is trying to lead newer generations with whom he is totally out of touch and he is way behind the times. On top of these things, he is erratic, has extremely poor judgement and keeps making stupid decisions, such as his choice of that smiling robot who really has nothing to say except what John McCain and his campaign pump into her. Pilan spent all her time "smiling" and "winking" during the debate; even when the discussion called for "seriousness". Her behavior and her answers were inappropriate downright shameful. Yeah, ya you betcha. I find it extremely insulting that she refers to middle-class America as "Joe (and Josie) Six Pack". Alaska does have a HUGE problem with alcholism so perhaps that is what Sarah is referring to. What she does not realize is: Hawaii and the lower 48 are FAR MORE ADVANCED THAN ALASKA.
McCain is still fighting the Vietnam War. Life is simple for McCain. All McCain knows is unlimited support for big oil and the military industrial complex. McCain/Palin Republican first, country second.
There is no honor in staying in Iraq. We invaded on false pretenses, and nothing will erase that fact.
Iraq has been destroyed, and there's nothing our presence there will do to fix what has been broken. The Iraqis now have make something for themselves, on their own terms.
McCain is still the immature, flat-hatting pilot he was 40 years ago. He is totally unable to see Iraq from a strategic perspective; his attitude is that of the young trigger-puller who wants to "get some" because his buddy was just lost in a fight. He will run our military and this country into the ground in his quest for a "victory" that is militarily unattainable and politically impractical.
His foreign policy experience is a myth perpetuated by ignorant hero-worshippers and partisans. I have yet to find anything in his record that speaks to this. How does visiting countries and having conversations with leaders equate to foreign policy experience? Hell, scores of entertainers can claim this - Bono, Angelina Jolie, and others do the same thing - are they also foreign policy experts? McCain may have talked with all these people, but has never, to my knowledge, been in a position to put these conversations to use in crafting any type of legislation that dictates our diplomatic conduct. If I'm wrong at this, someone please correct me.
And, for all this experience, he could do no better than promote falsehoods about Iraq, claim that Afghanistan is relatively unimportant, sing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran" and attempt to put the United States on the side of an aggressor nation ("we are all Georgians")?
A new campaign slogan - "John McCain: Don't Believe the Hype"
You are a great blogger. This column is sums it all up on Iraq. Thank you.
You are a great blogger. This column sums it all up on Iraq. Thank you.
In other words, McCain and his crew see us pulling out as a breaking of the American will. This, of course, ignores everything up to the actual fight.
It also ignores McCain's obvious attempt to pursue a larger strategy in the Middle East; Iran vis a vis Iraq, perhaps?
For many, many (valid) reasons, Americans fear a broader war in the Middle East. At the same time, McCain talks casually about establishing a permanent presence in Iraq, jokes about bombing Iran. There's no sense of pause, prudence or healthy skepticism there. No "blinking". Well, we've been there, done it that way. Didn't turn out too well.
Deleted.
I'll have to honestly say to you that I care about as much about the Iraqi people as the Iraqis care about Americans. Not much.
If it comes down to a choice between spending 10 billion dollars a month on protecting and rebuilding Iraq or spending 10 billion dollars in America to figure out a way to get ourselves out of this economic mess...I say spend it at home.
The Republicans mantra is "country first"
But "which country" is the question.
Let's get out of Iraq and put "America first."
Iraqis have enough money, oil and manpower to take care of themselves.
It's Not "Country first"...It's "America first"
James Hickman,
How exactly will this happen?
Are the congress and senate going to vote to remove democracy?
Please let me know - a razor sharp mind like yours might convince me to vote McCain.
PS - were you the equally deranged James who claimed Obama would make the Supreme Court liberal for the next 40 years? I'm still waiting to find out how that will actually happen.
McCain is still fighting the Vietnam War.
Whether the US occupation of Iraq is ‘good’ or ‘right’, there is also a more fundamental question – is it possible?
McCain’s ilk maintains that we didn’t lose in Vietnam, we surrendered, and that the key to US success is simply to ‘stay the course’.
But self-absorbed Americans seem disinclined to stir themselves from shopping, video games, fantasy leagues, celebrity worship, eating/dieting, cosmetic surgery, etc, to provide an adequate amount of boots-on-the-ground warriors to perfect the occupation of Iraq and its environs; even the neocons grasp the cost-benefit issues with using our mega-weapons (nukes); and our smart munitions have been substantially offset by the low-tech guided missiles otherwise known as shaheeds or suicide bombers.
Maybe we should try diplomacy, and mutually-beneficial economic relations.
Thank you for directing us to that fantastic, edifying article on the McCain worldview. One of the parts I thought was most telling was when Goldberg described McCain's view of Obama as "a man he plainly does not respect", and I think his repeated assurances in Mississippi that Obama was naive or just didn't get it weren't focus-grouped dead lines, but forceful assertions that Obama didn't understand the consequences of the world we live in. Frankly, McCain would have been the perfect President for the 1980s, a Reagan without the charisma, and I think McCain lost this particular election once he never got past his aversion of personally relating how his POW experience shaped the world.
Fred Thompson, Giuliani and all of his surrogates never failed to point out that he underwent incredible horrors in Hanoi, but they never riffed upon it in a way that wasn't purely superficial - a [i]he was beaten up, isn't he great?[/i] fairytale with grayscale photo presentations instead of a serious assessment of what Vietnam truly did to him and how it shapes the way he thinks. He's the wrong guy for the wrong moment, and it just isn't the 20th century any longer.
Very well said.
McCain suffered greatly but he missed a lot of the war because he was a POW. He never experienced what grunts on the ground did. And McCain doesn't seem to have a clue that his bombs KILLED people, that war KILLS innocent people,destroys their lives,their homes, their everything. That more bombing kills more people. He seems a man without empathy, without compassion. He sees everything as a checker game. His dismissal of health care concerns as mere politics is a clear symptom of this.
Lindsey Graham and John McCain LIED
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTI2L3zIbuI
Palin talks about Obama - does she even realize she might be the only VP candidate to ever be indicted? Based on what I have seen - she doesn't have a clue....
Kind of pitiful commentary. McCain is being held to quite a standard. The congress agreed that there was reason to strongly suspect that there were WMD, and they approved of the Iraq war. In hind site some argue that the war was not in America or Iraq's interest. It will be the history books that decide that because we are too close and do not have the breadth of vision.
I am glad that you are not making the decisions that need to keep America safe because like Clinton did during his term your failure to act may embolden the terrorists and risk an escalation of violence against America and American interest. War is a terrible business but it has been necessary for all of human existence because there are those who believe that they can take what they want and don't care who they kill. Sometimes brave men and women must stand between those people and America least our way of life perish. All the blather about innocent lives being lost ignores the facts of history. Stupidity will not save you, nor will singing Kumbya or mea culpa when the next crazed dictator, extremest or Hitler thinks that you are in his way or you offend his viosion. Obama is a fool, a child who is so caught up in his Chicago machine that he doesn't realize that there are more dangers out there and that America must be strong not apologetic. Otherwise the Lady of Liberty will not welcome any more tired and weary yearning to be free and we will all be under burkas.
Mr. Galt, it's apparent that you don't see the fallacy of your own argument.
Those who fail to understand history are (really) doomed to repeat it.
McCain is being held to quite a standard. The congress agreed that there was reason to strongly suspect that there were WMD, and they approved of the Iraq war.
Oh good lord, the glibterians are striking back. This one even named himself after a character from a book that is simultaneously the worst piece of fiction and philosophy ever dreamed up.
I realize our friend J. Galt was probably furiously masturbating to dreams of objectivism in his mom's basement back in 2003, but he might take the time to notice that Obama, along with a lot of us decent citizens of this fine country, opposed the war in 2003 and were absolutely correct in predicting the outcome of this foolish neo-con fantasy of transforming the Arab world. The basic standard I hold my representatives to is: don't be a sucker for false wars. McCain failed on that front and Obama passed. Although he's probably a troll, I would love to know if J. Galt thinks this is an unreasonable standards and have him propose a new one.
We might also note that Mr. Galt seems to think that our country is so weak, our morals and beliefs and institutions so frail, that a bunch of Medieval nutjobs could force us to surrender despite the fact that they have no military to speak of and no ideological following in our country. This fever dream of killing innocent Muslims in order to save ourselves from burqas isn't patriotic, it's stale cowardice. Get a spine.
"This, of course, ignores everything up to the actual fight... In the McCain view of war, specifically this war, it doesn't matter if the government conned the country into going to war--the ultimate fault for a loss will lie with the weakness of the people."
Well Coates, as a great Field Marshall once said:
"It's what war is you know? Once you in it, you in it. If it's a lie, then we fight on that lie but we got to fight."
To me, the bigger problem than his inability to critique the origina of the war is McCain's failure to assess the situation strategically going forward. He seems content to continue winning battlefield engagements as we have done throughout the surge. But what next? And what of larger strategic considerations, including everything ranging from Iran to China to our domestic budget? McCain's obsession with Iraq, the surge and Petraeus indicates to me that he has not been able to step back from Iraq and see the larger global chess board (and this is probably why he was slower to see the need for more troops in Afghanistan than Obama was). He can't see how pulling out of Iraq will actually strengthen America's strategic position in the world by allowing us to rehabilitate our military, project strength elsewhere, invest at home (which helps us strategically), prepare for other potential conflicts, reclaim moral high ground, etc.
McCain knows we need the oil, and isn't beating around the bush with politically expedient wording.
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
Yeah this kinda reminds me of what Slim Charles told Barksdale in the Wire. "It don't matter who did what to who at this point. And now there ain't no going back. Once you in it you in it. If its a lie, then we fight on that lie. But we gotta fight."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzuHpzSURPo&NR=1