Senator McCain: Surge is Necessary in Order to Achieve Victory
Senator John McCain wrote a guest post for Power Line. He writes:
Debate in recent days has focused on the possibility of “surging� U.S. combat forces in Iraq. Security is the precondition for political progress and economic development, and we need more troops on the ground. But to make a real difference, any surge must be substantial and sustained.
During my recent trip to Iraq, commanders spoke of adding as many as five additional brigades in Baghdad, and one or two additional brigades in Anbar Province. This, I believe, is the minimum we should consider. It would be far better to have too many reinforcements in Iraq than to suffer, once again, the tragic results of insufficient force levels.The mission of these troops would be to implement the thus-far-elusive “hold� element of the military’s “clear, hold, build� strategy: to maintain security in cleared areas, to protect the population, and to impose the government’s authority. Our troops would work in cooperation with Iraqi forces, and stay in place until the completion of their mission.
The worst of all worlds would be a small, short surge of U.S. forces. We have tried small surges in the past, and they have been ineffective because our commanders lacked the forces necessary to hold territory after it was cleared. A short surge would have all the drawbacks associated with greater deployments without giving our troops the time they need to be effective.
He goes on to write that he believes that success can still be achieved and that failure in Iraq would be a disaster for – obviously – Iraq itself and for the U.S. (in the war against terrorism). Again, you can read his entire guest post at Power Line.
Indeed, failure in Iraq would be disastrous. That is why – up to this day – I do not understand why especially Rumsfeld refused to do what the military told him to do: send more troops when it could actually still accomplish something. Failure in Iraq would indeed be disastrous, that is why I do not understand why it has been messed up as much as it has. Failure in Iraq would indeed be disastrous, that is why I don’t understand why the post-war plan was as bad as it was. Failure in Iraq would indeed be disastrous, which is why I don’t understand why… the list goes on and on.
Can ‘victory’ still be achieved? I think not. It seems to me that the chaos is too wide spread as it is, however I also believe that all of us should have an open mind on this: if the Bush administration or people like Senator John McCain come up with a clear plan, with good calculations and if the plan has the support of the U.S. military, it seems to me, that it is a plan worth considering supporting. As it is however, reports seem to imply that the military does not believe that a ‘surge’ will do the trick. Besides that, there is much more to today’s chaos than a mere lack of troops. It’s far from the only cause of today’s problems. The main problem is a political and / or social one: can the opposing sides be brought together to do what’s in the best interest of Iraq / the Iraqi people? Isn’t the hatred, the prejudice, unovercomable right now?
There was an opportunity to bring all sides together, immediately after Saddam was removed from power. After that, however, years of violence followed and continue to follow. The opportunity, so it seems, has been waisted.
At least, that’s my view now.
To Senator McCain et alia I’d say, prove me wrong.
Meanwhile, Joe wrote a long, good post about Iraq earlier today. Truly a great read.
47 Responses to “Senator McCain: Surge is Necessary in Order to Achieve Victory”
Quoting McCain from that Power Line post:
If the so-called surge works, McCain will be able to say he was right. If it fails, he’ll say it was too small or too short or both, meaning he’ll be able to say he was right.
Will our forces be allowed to enter Sadr City? Will the Mahdi army be confronted directly? Will US forces be able to curtail the “security forces� who abuse Sunni citizens in the Ministry of Transportation [among other ministries]. Will the Iraqi army show up this time, a full six battalions not two? If we find Iranian agents will they be detained or sent back to Iran. When Shiite Iraqis connected to Sadr are arrested will they be detained or freed? How do we define “victory�? A reduction in violence, the end of the militias, Sunni return to their homes, what is the desired end result? How long will it take to achieve victory and if goals are not being gained then what? The Democrats need to get down to specifics with the administration and have a real plan, not just some nebulous “surge� without any idea as to just what we are attempting to accomplish.
Obviously bad planning and bad execution have had a lot to do with the failure in Iraq, but I think time must be spent thinking about bad assumptions. As people living in a relatively homogeneous western democracy there are things we simply take for granted as being true everywhere, that may not be so.
1. The Iraqi people wish to be one country, united I have yet to see anyone give me proof that Iraquis oppose splitting their country, or at least are fine with living as they are.
2. Almost all Iraquis want to live in peace with eachother, only a small number of radicals truly hate amongst themselves. Everything I’ve seen shows that Shiite-Sunni hatreds are real and pervasive. I don’t doubt that most Iraquis want to live in peace, but I’m not sure it’s clear that they get that living in peace rather implies not butchering the other side.
3. Most people wish for a western moderate democracy modelled after the United States This I think is the worst of all, because it is an assumption that is also condecending. We have to stop being surprised when radicals enjoy popular support, and when our western ideals and practices are rejected. Not everyone is like us, and what’s more important, not everyone WANT’S to be like us.
I personally believe we’ve lost in Iraq, and that no “surge” is going to work because in fact the flowery “hearts and minds” is in fact very important, and we’ve lost that beyond recovery. If the Iraquis don’t want to cooperate, because they hate us too much (and even without Islamic ideology I can understand that), or hate each other too much, then there isn’t much we can do.
McCain is crazy! (i’m keeping my fingers crossed, hoping that Chuck Hagel can defeat this man).
…Good point about the Mahdi Army. The Iraqi government claims that it will go after all militia groups, but I doubt very seriously that this means the Mahdi Army. Al Sadr’s militia will never give up its weapons… The weapons= their source of power and influence. They also want to be able to protect their own neighborhoods, etc from Sunni attackers, something that the Iraqi Army and the U.S. have apparently been unable to do.
The Prime Minister & Al Sadr may cut some kind of deal where the Mahdi Army puts their weapons down and lays low for a while, but they are not going to turn over their weapons. And if the Iraqi Army and/or the U.S. tries to go in to force them to give up their weapons, it will be a bloodbath on both sides. The Iraqi government would also face collapse, because Al Sadr and other Shiite groups hold considerable sway in the Prime Ministers government and in Parliament. So we are looking at two ways that this could end badly.
And while all of this is going on…. the Sunni Triangle will continue to rage on with violence.
“Can ‘victory’ still be achieved? I think not.”
Me either, so what is the logic again for saying, “Well, we can’t win, so let’s send more troops”? I’m still trying to get it.
“It seems to me that the chaos is too wide spread as it is, however I also believe that all of us should have an open mind on this: if the Bush administration or people like Senator John McCain come up with a clear plan, with good calculations and if the plan has the support of the U.S. military, it seems to me, that it is a plan worth considering supporting.”
The logic is that we should keep an open mind? After you admit that you think it isn’t possible to achieve victory? In other words, having come to a reasonable conclusion, based on the information you have about the situation, you have decided that you should let someone with a different opinion have the benefit of the doubt. Now that isn’t entirely unreasonable in many circumstances. Absent the history that we have, one could assume that the people you named have specialized knowledge that makes their positions at least tenable. But these are people who have been wrong at every single step in this process. WMDs? Nope. Greeted with candy and flowers? Nope. We stand down as they stand up? Nope. I could give you a dozen more examples at least without referring to any notes. Yellow cake uranium? Iraqi oil will pay for the whole thing?
Get it?
So while, in normal circumstances with normal people, I could possibly be pursuaded to “keep an open mind”, which amounts to nothing more int his case than substituting their judgment for my own, the history of their judgment is such that this open mind of which you speak is not the position of a moderate and reasonable person, unless “moderate” means someone who cannot come to a conclusion but must grant all sides the same credibility regardless of their history. Then you throw in the arguments for escalating the conflict themselves and the whole escalation proposal becomes less than a house of cards. Cards, at least, have some substance. This is just more slight of hand intended to delay the inevitable, and the cost to the American people is enormous and the value to the Iraqi people seems, at this point, to be non-existent.
Michael, if you’re going to keep an open mind then that’s fine, but if that means you ignore reality, then maybe it isn’t so fine after all.
You know, on the political spectrum I was, for most fo my life, more of a Rockefeller Republican than anything else. Now I am a rock-ribbed-Democrat-lefty-liberal-dirty-damned-hippie (well, those who call themselves Republicans these days would think so, anyway). I believe in hippie values, like the Constitution, the rule of law, fiscal responsibility, good judgment in deploying the military, and so on. All the stuff that the current crew in the White House and their enablers in the previous Congresses fought so hard against.
Lynx is exactly right. The administration and supporters of the war are trying to convince Americans that Iraqis want a united, democractic Iraq. They don’t. Their loyalties do not lie with the country of Iraq but rather with their religious sect, tribe or ethnicity. The various sectarian groups want power and they will fight to get it.
The president’s plan is based on training an Iraqi army, but Shiite soldiers are willing to fight only Sunnis and Sunni soldiers are willing to fight only Shiites. Kurdish soldiers are interested only in protecting Kurdistan and they want no part of Arab Iraq.
Split the place up into three armed, autonomous regions capable of defending themselves, divy up the oil revenue on a per capita basis and then get the hell out and hope for the best.
DBK, you write:
and also:
Not at all. I wrote in that regard:
I put the word ‘considering’ in their on purpose and italicized it on purpose as well. In other words, if all those components were present (which they are not), even then I would only consider supporting it.
So, the situation would be quite different, firstly and secondly, even if the situation were quite different all I ‘promise’ to do is considering to support it.
Anyway, some other commenters also pointed out some good reservations, see grognard’s comment for instance. I share his concerns.
Guest post at POWER LINE? Wow. Red State would make sense, since it’s set up for that, but this ties him to every ludicrous thing Hinderaker has ever said.
carpeicthus you are right.
What the hell was he thinking?
The American people have given the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt for most of the last 4 years on this. Will we have to keep an open mind in another 6 months when the next “New Way Forward” is put together, or is this really his last chance to get it right? And if this really is the last chance, what do we do if he fails?
I simply can’t believe that so many people think that George Bush has the absolute authority to continue to screw up indefinitely for the next 2 years, and that there’s nothing the rest of us can do but watch the disaster unfold. Cross our fingers that this time he’s bound to get it right.
It’s said that the U.S. system was designed so that it could be governed by devils and still function. Certainly, it can be governed by morons and still function.
I like the “one last try” plan.
Bush gets his 20,000 troops and billion dollars for a jobs program.
If in six months Iraq is in the same or worse shape as today, Bush, Cheney, McCain and Lieberman all resign and promise not to speak in public again for the rest of their lives.
Writing for Power Line? John McCain has well and truly jumped the shark.
Well said DBK ! But ok, MvdG, I’ll consider it. There. All done. No sale.
Do you think these guys are delusional enough to think they can actually “win” in Iraq with 20,000 more soldiers in Baghdad? This is a cynical gamble, like they’re losing at poker and hitting the ATM for one last stack of chips. If they can just win one more hand, they can declare victory (again), do a photo op and say that Maliki is now the democratically elected leader of a secure country (well, a secure green zone). Hooray! We won! Meanwhile the US has drafted an oil grab that underscores what this was all about in the first place.
So? 30 years? Is that the plan, for the US armed forces to protect the interests of big oil for the next three decades? Oh, just a reminder (again, but you know me): Before we abandoned the fight against Al Qaeda for Bush’s grand adventue, Iraq was pumping oil, 100% of the profits were its own, the populace was employed, educated, literate, mostly peaceful, women had rights, fundamentalists were ruthlessly suppressed, terrorism didn’t exist, the electricity, water and sewers worked and Iraqis were 59 times less likely to die a violent death. Way to go, Bushies.
GreenDreams: thanks for that link and quote about that law. I must admit that this (that it’s awaiting approval that shortly) is new for me. I will look into it more when I have more time (I’m studying for exams – hence the reason that Shaun took over the Literary quote of the day, today).
Also: I’m opposing what’s known about the plan right now as well, my only point is that IF IF IF IF IF the plan is detailed, yet comprehensible, if the calculations / experts show / believe that it will work, if there is more to it than just a ‘surge’, IF IF IF IF IF all that, I might consider supporting the plan.
Unless Bush comes up with such a good plan, I have to oppose the surge. And… obviously, I do not expect him to come up with a plan as I have described before. It will most likely be more wishful thinking, more denying of the reality, etc.
I can’t help getting nauseated every time I hear or see the ubiquitous use of the word, “victory”. In my mind, and probably in others it has now taken on the meaning of pointlessly dragging out defeat, so that one no longer has to become accountable for its consequences. Throwing more money and manpower at a problem solves nothing, unless the complexities of the problem are addressed.
Greendreams,
Yes, Iraq was pumping oil but only a fraction of what they actually have in reserves. A huge investment IS needed to get them up to the capacity that they need, and I don’t know where you would expect that money to come from other than the corporations who have the technology to do it. I have no idea if the contracts are fair or if they go too far in recouping the investment costs during the “early years”, but your dismissal out of hand of this practice is biased. Say, for example, that the foreign oil companies investments make it possible to recover ten times the amount of crude compared to the existing technology. If Iraq only gets 25% of the royalties for that, they still come out way ahead. Again, it depends on how those figures match up to reality, but that doesn’t mean that the deals are necessarily unfair to Iraq.
BTW, I still don’t see quicktags, but for those using Firefox, the Performancing extension makes it pretty easy to do italics, bold, underline,
strikethroughand blockquotes.Does this work or not?
If McCrazy was a true Moderate why post at Assrocket and not TMV. This Democrat will give Hagel a thought, Hillary and McCrazy are DITW.
Un.be.lie.va.ble. How do you all do that strikethrough stuff? I tried to write strikethrough between brackets, but it doesn’t work like that. Darn.
Okay, I will try again:
does this work or not?
The surge plan to be offered tonight will be sold as a varient of the Kagan/Keane plan. However their plan called for 30,000 troops staying 18 months.
Since that’s not possible, we get 20k troops and, I guarantee you, no word of how long they will stay.
I give up!
of course not.
Yes, I truly give up. I tried to do del between brackets, ain’t working either.
Rudi- I agree with you about Hagel. This Democrat also hopes his frankness and outspokenness will sound a chord with the American people. But McCain and Clinton have the superior organization, a higher profile and greater fundraising abilities. That is probably the choice we will end up with in ’08. Is it any wonder that our policies seem so irrational to the majority of Americans???
italics, bold,
strikethroughand blockquotes.But I don’t have firefox, I use IE
CStanley, Iraq wasn’t pumping at capacity because they were not allowed to by the sanctions. They did not need our help to get up to capacity, just our permission. The money to increase production would have come, of course, from the oil. Saudi Arabia and Iran have nationalized oil industries, as did Iraq, so no free market BS here. And those countries that do have “production-sharing agreements” (or PSAs) give up 10% of revenue, not 75%. The oil companies say they’ll drop back to taking 20% after the drilling costs are covered, but that’s still twice what they usually get.
Michael, here are the codes. I’ve replaced with } in order to display this. I hope it works. Still way easier to use performancing.
{i}italics{/i}, {b}bold{/b}, {strike}strikethrough {/strike}and blockquotes.
{blockquote}Write in WYSIWYG, then switch to code view and paste.
{/blockquote}
lasttry.Woohoo! Thanks GD!
Okay. My apologies for not being…um…well…considerate enough of your use of the word “considering“.
I take it that, if I dismiss what the president offers as some sort of “The Bold New Plan” out of hand (it’s actually “stay the course”, but with more soldiers), then I am not, I suppose, moderate enough or something. Fine. I can handle that because when I consider the history of these people, their successes, their integrity, their incredibly paranoid secrecy (what ARE they hiding?), and all that I can glean from numerous sources, they don’t deserve my consideration.
But okay, let’s go with the considering business anyway. Upon re-reading, I take it you are really just saying “give ‘em a listen and see if it makes sense”. I infer that you think Bush might offer an argument that hasn’t already been hashed out in about eight million places regarding the feasibility and effect of escalation since it first became prominent in public debate weeks ago. Okay, cool. I’ll do that. I’m looking forward to some astonishing idea that hasn’t already been talked to death regarding this latest idiotic waste of American time, money, and lives.
Consider me considering. Consider my mind open. But I won’t be considering this in a vacuum. I will be considering the history of deception and paranoia in the White House. And I will be considering all the analysis I have read regarding this escalation as well (try to look surprised when Bush proposes sending more troops, people…come on, work with me). Once I have considered all of that, can I dismiss it as more of the same then?
it’s easytype like this:
This will give you:
text you want to strike throughGreendreams,
The nationalized Iraqi oil industry performed poorly even before the sanctions, and even if you want to argue that the sanctions were the cause of decline, so be it. The fact still remains that the industry wasn’t able to keep up to the standards of new technology, and that they didn’t have access to replacement parts, and that they were using poor techniques that may have permanently damaged the fields. Here’s a pretty thorough look at the situation. Clearly foreign investment and know how IS needed. Why else would the Iraqis have already entered into arrangements with the big oil companies (BP and others have been training Iraqi employees for free, obviously with motives to form alliances as the contracts begin to be awarded.)
So, I see nothing wrong in the idea of foreign oil companies moving in. Having said that though, the deals should be fair. Assuming your numbers are accurate, I’d agree with you that the contracts should drop back to the standard rate of 10%. I’d even say that the oil companies should be more benevolent and cut back on their early recoup of investment (though I imagine they are setting this based on the high risk involved and the need to attract investors.)
How about we set some parameters before the speech?
There is no consensus on exactly how many troops are needed to stabilize Baghdad. Greg Djerjian came up with 50,000; McCain called for 20,0000-30,000.
So, first: What is your minimal acceptable number of additional troops, and whose strategic analysis are you relying on for that number?
We should also set a time limit beforehand. I hope everyone here is mentally and morally competent enough to recognize that an open-ended commitment is neither possible nor desirable; and that saying the troops will stay “until the job is done” is precisely that: an open-ended commitment.
So how long – specifically and exactly – would supporters of escalation say the additional troops should be in Iraq? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years?
I really would like to avoid Freidmanism here. It would be pretty interesting if people had to talk in specifics before Bush’s speech, rather than wait until afterwards so they can retroactively tailor whatever their recommendations were in order to match what Bush said.
You word it a bit different that I did and would, but… exactly.
And:
You should, so do I.
Exactly. I also heard 9 000 I believe and indeed – for how long? Or will it be a mission without a clear end? Will the plan have clear goals (which doesn’t mean that goals cannot be changed when necessary) or will it be ‘we’ll try this and see where it ends’?
Michael, are you also suggesting a wager game/drinking pool game for waht bush says? I was thinking more along the lines of the pro-war commenters here saying – ahead of time – the specifics of an escalation that they would support.
Thanks for the link, CStanley. The article underscores the damage we did with sanctions, which made it illegal for UN countries to help them modernize their oil industry. Nonetheless, Halliburton was there the whole time, and shares the blame for any such failures. Besides, what’s the hurry to pump out the last remaining oil reserves? Much of the audience here is young enough to suffer from our mad rush to get that sequestered carbon into the atmosphere ASAP so we don’t have to face (gasp) conservation or alternatives.
Back to the “surge” (shhhhh, don’t say escalation), here’s some graphic commentary on “keeping an open mind” and “the plan“.
GD,
I’m not a fan of sanctions either (which is actually why I supported the Iraq War: I don’t find the concept of the invasion to overthrow Saddam to be any more morally troubling than the idea of withholding resources from the Iraqi people while Saddam and corrupt UN officials-and the nations that participated in the oil for food scandal- profitted.) But you missed the other point I was making: Saddam’s mismanagement of the oilfields started prior to the sanctions. Maybe we made a bad situation worse, but I don’t see why you refuse to put blame any blame on Saddam himself.
She was ugly before I beat her for giving me lip.
CS- MSNBC broke the news that Bush will be sending 17,500 more troops to Baghdad, and 4,000 more to Anbar province. Most of their analysts don’t think its enough, or that they will be there long enough to quell the violence. Other surges- such as the one last summer, actually increased it.
I wrote: But okay, let’s go with the considering business anyway. Upon re-reading, I take it you are really just saying “give ‘em a listen and see if it makes sense�. I infer that you think Bush might offer an argument that hasn’t already been hashed out in about eight million places regarding the feasibility and effect of escalation since it first became prominent in public debate weeks ago.
Michael answered: You word it a bit different that I did and would, but… exactly.
I could save you a lot of time if you let me write this stuff for you.
lol, not really DBK since I chose my words very purposefully. If I intended to word it like you did, I would have worded it like that
“however I also believe that all of us should have an open mind on this: if the Bush administration or people like Senator John McCain come up with a clear plan, with good calculations and if the plan has the support of the U.S. military, it seems to me, that it is a plan worth considering supporting.”
Knowledeable people considered it. Only Bush II., St. John, Holy Joe and a small bunch of insane crusades stomp for it. The majority of experts, especially in the military, is against it. And it shouldn’t be forgotten that this plan will inevitably lead to the death of several hundred US troops, if not more. Why should any reasonable person support this???