McCain’s Hundred Year War
As the new Republican front runner, John McCain had a good deal to say this week in the Wall Street Journal on the first anniversary of the Surge.
So much, in fact, that he needed his Senate colleague, Joe Lieberman, to help him do the heavy lifting in proclaiming, “The Surge Worked,” that “conditions in that country have been utterly transformed…al Qaeda has been beaten back, violence across the country has dropped dramatically. The number of car bombings, sectarian murders and suicide attacks has been slashed.”
On the same day, the US military announced, six American soldiers were killed when a house rigged with explosives blew up north of Baghdad during a new offensive targeting al Qaeda guerrillas, adding to the more than 835 who have died since last February.
The gains in Iraq, McCain reports, “are thrilling but not yet permanent. Political progress has been slow. And although al Qaeda and the other extremists in Iraq have been dealt a critical blow, they will strike back at the Iraqi people and us if we give them the chance, as our generals on the ground continue to warn us.”
If we wait until President McCain takes office next January, perhaps he will tell us then how many troops we will have to keep there for how long (perhaps less than the 100 years he recently mentioned). Maybe he will reveal his plans to speed up the “slow” political progress in a small country that keeps draining the lives of our most patriotic young people and billions of dollars that could be saving and improving lives back here.
In his Wall Street Journal victory lap, McCain concedes that “mismanagement of the Iraq war from 2003 to 2006 exposed our government’s capacity for incompetence.” Voters are going to want to know how, sharing Bush’s blindness about our interests in the Middle East, McCain is going to do better.
Certainly not by making Joe Lieberman his Secretary of State.
Cross-posted from my blog.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
7 Responses to “McCain’s Hundred Year War”
McCain outlines a compelling view of how he will do better in his essay for Foreign Affairs, here.
Sectarian violence is down by virtue of the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites segrigating themselves into enclaves. The civil war there is waiting for our removal, and is eventual regardless of how long we stay. If we've learned anything about the Middle East (for those that cracked open a history book at any time in their lives) grudges are always carried out there.
So no, the surge hasn't worked except in fantasyland.
Welcome back Pyst.
To be somewhat fair, there is also a small sign of hope on the political front.
http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2008/01/de-b…
But the idea of Iraq being the next South Korea is just plain crazy. We weren't invited in Iraq like the Korean peninsula. And Iran isn't North Korea.
Thanks, pabel for the link to McCain's article in FA.
McCain seems more of the same (Bush) to me, especially given that McCain has said all along that Bush's war is going well. Now in the article McCain says that the war was mismanaged. He supports and continues Bush's position- that we need to win, that we need to continue and he has offered some changes, but the premise and plan is essentially the same as bush. The only reason people listen to McCain is that he is not Bush. Forgetting that McCain has sided and praised Bush in the past about the fantasy progress in Iraq. If McCain couldn't face the truth about Iraq then, there is nothing to suggest that he will face the truth now (or at least level with the American people).
As far as his idea of increasing the troop size- where does he think he will find the volunteers? The military is already falling short of it's recruiting goals and are giving huge signing bonuses. Given the Republican's penchant for war (and for fighting senseless wars), no one in their right mind would join the military under a Republican president, much less join the military under McCain who has stated that he will keep troops in Iraq for 100 years in order to win.
Why must Americans continue to die for the next 100 years in a senseless war? If it's not a senseless war- if we're there to maintain the peace, then what peace is there when it costs so many American lives? We need to cut our losses and leave Iraq.
the Republican's penchat for war (and for fighting senseless wars)????
What senseless wars have republican presidents gotten us into in the past 60 years? Or better yet, what wars? Korea was a Democrat (Korea was a historically important location when it comes to Japan so while mismanaged I wont put it under senseless), Vietnam was a Democrat (and quite senseless), First Gulf War was a Republican, Kosovo and Bosnia were a Democrat (these 3- Iraq 1, Kos, and Bos are all debatable), Afghanistan and Iraq are Republican (Afghanistan was inevitable after 9/11, but one can def argue that Iraq was senseless). That puts the score at 1 unnecessary war by Dems, and 1 unnecessary war by Repubs. So really I think it doesnt matter who wins in november, we've got equal shots at unnecessary wars. As for wars in general, well both parties have shows a willingness to throw American troops around the world. The volunteers are out there, and imo the signing bonuses are finally starting to correct the fact that our servicemen and women are very underpaid.
As for McCain, he has not always been in lockstep with Bush. He certainly has emphasized it more since the 2004 election, but for a long time he was critical of Bush's war strategy. Also remember that he has a son coming out of the Naval Academy, and another son who is an enlisted marine (that's right, not an officer- a grunt). This isnt just an academic debate for him, and it's not someone else's kid… McCain knows the risks of war, and he knows that by continuing the war his sons will be putting themselves in danger.
As soon as our troops are removed, and civil war ensues or the oil and its revenue find their way into terrorists' or the Iranians' hands, the Usual Suspects who have been anti-war, negative, negative, negative will be the first and loudest to complain that we should have Done Something to forestall or prevent it. The same is true for any future Iranian misconduct.
I don't like McCain, but as with Clinton, I don't question the person's competence.