FLASHBACK: McCain Said Sending Of More Troops "Not Going To Happen"
A commenter below has a very good catch: He notes that John McCain's current call for more troops to be sent to Iraq is more than a little disingenous, because it turns out that nearly a year ago, McCain told Tim Russert on Meet the Press that the sending of more troops is "not going to happen." McCain suggested it wasn't going to happen due to the strain placed on the military by the current troop levels there. More after the jump.
Here's McCain on Meet the Press on December 4, 2005:
MR. RUSSERT: Should we send more American troops and do we have the troops to send?SEN. McCAIN: I've wanted to send troops. I still think we should have more troops there. But it's not going to happen. And that's just reality. It's not going to happen. But we really needed to expand the size of the Marine Corps and the Army so we didn't have this terrific strain on our Guard and Reserve, particularly our Guard units.
As noted yesterday on Election Central, here's an Op-ed piece by McCain which was just published in the Manchester Union Leader, in the all-important Presidential primary state of New Hampshire:
We must be honest about the war in Iraq. Without additional combat forces we will not win. We must clear and hold insurgent strongholds, provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies, arrest sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias, train the Iraqi army, and embed American personnel in weak and often corrupt Iraqi police units. We need to do all these things if we are to succeed. And we will need more troops to do them.
Note that the "not going to happen" component of McCain's line has mysteriously vanished now that the midterm election is over and McCain's gotten serious about using his call for more troops to differentiate himself from his GOP rivals and from President Bush in preparation for the GOP primary.
Why is McCain aggressively calling for something he himself thinks is "not going to happen"? If McCain thinks "we will not win" the war if more troops aren't sent, and he also thinks the sending of more troops is "not going to happen," then isn't it time for him to proclaim the war lost?
You're asking McCain to be honest. Like getting more troops, that also is "not going to happen." But, don't worry. Anyone who saw St. John in MTP last week realizes that this is a confused and dissembling old man who has lost the ability to keep his lies straight and whose political star has burnt out. His chances of winning the nomination, let alone the Presidency, are close to nil, and as that thought sinks in his relevance and importance will sink accordingly.
For that, at least, I am grateful.
November 25, 2006 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another Republican flip-flopper, actually a flop-flipper. And what's with Dick Cheney as a diplomat? Perhaps the Saudis said: 'send somebody who knows what is going on'.
global citizen
November 25, 2006 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally I think it's also not doable on account of the fact that increasing our footprint in Iraq will most likely create a dispoportionate amount of additional intensity in emnity and resentment.
All these actions seem to have force multipliers as we forget the reality that perception counts for more than reality. The democratic victories, as an example, regardless what they end up doing to the war effort in an actual physical sense of troop numbers, monies allocated to the war effort, or any other factor, the results gave the image of the prophesied (by bin Laden) "paper tiger" Regardless what the over all sentiment was or was not in making those decisions, and regardless what ends up being put in place by this newly tilted legislature the fact of the matter is that those in Iraq in the insurgency see it as a victory for them. Likewise an augmentation (assuming such is possible in light of the McCain's, and other's, earlier statements) would give the perception that America was becoming even more intrusive.
It's a kind of damned if you do damned if you dont. I think this means we have to figure out how to do with what we've got at present and make any drawbacks at any point and time come only at times, and only in numbers, that indicate we are doing everything in a position of strength rather than retreat. Even in warfare most of the significant factors depend on image over reality.
November 25, 2006 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, McCain seems to be trying to define this in clear binary terms that would most benefit his potential candicacy. If the country begins to accept his on/off forumla-- if the nation doesn't have the stomach to send more troops (not that we have them to send, in any case), then he can campaign on the message that "we've made mistakes, even though we tried to do the right thing [sic], but it's no longer morally supportable to keep the troops there. The strategy was flawed and the execution stank, but we acted out of pure motives but failed. Bring 'em home," thus splitting the baby.
In the unlikely event the nation rallies around the Iraq war effort, for whatever reason, he's in a position to say "I've been telling you for three years we needed more troops. How do you want to pick them? Draft? OK by me. But we have to have more troops or we need to get out."
He's basically positioned to go either way, finally forces the dipshit public face facts and make some hard choices, and lets GW and the Junta take all the blame.
I'm one who had some admiration for McCain in 2000, by the way, but have been turned off by his courting of the Wingnut faction of the GOP lately, and his public support of Bush since 2000. I know the realpolitik reasons he did it, but it has seriously diminished his otherwise good reputation for integrity with this Dem-leaning independent.
November 25, 2006 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully, Cheney will find someone who knows what's going on, because it's sure not him. Can his doctor change his meds?
Tom
November 25, 2006 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other words the call for more troops is just a domestic political gambit to get Democrats to take the blame for "losing" the war if they refuse to fund an increase in troop levels. That may be a big if.
Is there anybody with any credibility saying there is still a military solution? Is there any point to talk about winning and losing when the range of possible choices are all bad? "Winning and losing" has nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with '08 domestic politics.
November 25, 2006 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Headline:
"Iraq's Violence Spins Beyond Anyone's Control
Analysis: It has been clear for some time that the U.S. is not in control of events in Iraq. But the latest sectarian bloodshed suggests that even help from Iran and Syria may not be enough to stop the slide into chaos
By TONY KARON"
Rolling Stone? Vanity Fair? The New Yorker? The Nation?
Nope. Time Magazine. - When Time Magazine states the situation is beyond ANYONE's control, Democrats better not pretend they have a solution to this mess.
November 25, 2006 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even in warfare most of the significant factors depend on image over reality.*
*unless you are one of the dead, wounded, or displaced
November 25, 2006 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is following a script that has worked for the Republicans since the days of Truman (when it was the only thing that saved them from oblivion). What will be interesting to watch is, will it work this time? Given the importance of the ME for oil reserves, I suspect it has more milage than a recent Harpers article thinks it has:
As the United States staggers past the third anniversary of its misadventure in Iraq, the dagger is already poised, the myth is already being perpetuated. To understand just how this strategy is likely to unfold—and why this time it may well fail—we must return to the birth of a legend.
Read the excellent Harpers article for more.
November 25, 2006 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link. Highly recommended.
November 25, 2006 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly, I don't see any difference in message here. It sounds like he first said, "I think we should add more troops." and second said, "Without additional combat forces we will not win." These, to me, are the same sentence.
Now, if you are commenting on the fact that the first message was self-serving, implying that Mr. McCain had the answer that the other guys didn't that's probably true, but you won't find many professional politicians that don't play that position whenever they can. I also wonder what the implications of the word "win" are in this context. With the damages we have incurred and dealt out, there is no "win" in the picture for anyone.
As far as my opinion of McCain, he is just another LieberBush in that he seems willing to do, say or pretend to be anyone or anything in order to secure power. So... not my guy.
November 26, 2006 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yes...Absolutely fantastic article. Thank you!
November 26, 2006 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
He knows who hates who in the Bush Administration. That probably counts for the best assessment of what's going on these days.
The Saudis may well know what's actually going on in Iraq and the Middle East better than anyone in the Bush Administration or the Pentagon.
November 27, 2006 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Strong and Wrong. That's McCain's clear position in a nutshell.
Good catch here with his lie about wanting to increase troops. It's important to point out not just that McCain is wrong on Iraq, BUT THAT HE KNOWS HE IS WRONG. Thus, McCain is perpetrating a huge fraud on the American people in the name of personal political advancement. He knows more troops won't do a damn thing now, but he's still calling for them, despite agreeing that it's not a serious option a year ago.
His whole routine is fairly transparent at this point. To call for more troops NOW is either delusional or else serving another purpose (i.e. positioning oneself as the most hawkish Republican on Iraq, same strategy as to blindly ally oneself with Bush on Iraq).
I hope the MSM catches on someday soon, although I think the number of GOP primary voters still hawkish on Iraq in 2008 may be pretty far diminished and put McCain on the wrong side of the debate by then anyway.
His version of strong and wrong will eventually, if it hasn't already, disintegrate into strong and obviously stupid.
November 27, 2006 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The hypocrisy is that he's calling for more troops, but he knows that we don't have any more troops to send.
"But it's not going to happen. And that's just reality. It's not going to happen. But we really needed to expand the size of the Marine Corps and the Army so we didn't have this terrific strain on our Guard and Reserve, particularly our Guard units."
Another likely catch out there is that I believe McCain has said that we needed more troops in the past, implying that more troops now wouldn't do any good.
November 27, 2006 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink