McCain In New Hampshire Paper: Without More Troops, We Won't Win
From an Op-ed piece by John McCain in the Manchester Union Leader:
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.
It's worth noting just how tightly McCain is tying himself to this extremely risky political gamble. More after the jump.
The other day McCain said it would be "immoral" to ask soldiers to return to Iraq if the U.S. doesn't add more troops. Now he's telling voters in the all-important state of New Hampshire that "we will not win" if we don't follow his prescription.
So where does this leave McCain if President Bush doesn't send more troops? Does McCain continue to support the troops' fighting and dying in Iraq for a war that he himself says "we will not win"? How will McCain react if soldiers are asked to return to Iraq without an increase in troops, given that he himself says it's "immoral" to ask them to do so? Will he oppose the continued U.S. presence there?
If Bush says no dice on more troops, what's McCain's next move?
McCain has repeatedly shown that his next move will be to bend waaaaay over, then announce that he supports the President in this battle against the forces of evul. Reality is not relevant to the Republicans.
Hoppy in Sacramento
November 24, 2006 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where's McCain going to get all this massive new infusion of troops that he says we need? I have yet to hear any suggestion from him (or from the other advocates of increased troops) on any way to acquire more than 20-50,000 more troops -- which is clearly not evenly remotely adequate to restore the peace in Iraq, and never was.
We're simply seeing the pathetic final "who-are-you-gonna-believe-me-or-your-own-eyes" stage of totally ridiculous attempted alibis by the people who supported this disaster. All policy disasters committed by any political party reach this opera-bouffe stage at some point.
November 24, 2006 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is taking a lot of gambles lately -- flipflopping (yet again) on abortion, trying to tie himself more closely with the religious right, this thing with being just about the only politician of any stature calling for an increase in troops -- he's behaving more like a longshot candidate than a frontrunner. I wonder what he and John Weaver are thinking. I've long had a suspicion that the Senator Straight Talk thing would only carry him so far, and that the media would eventually find some self respect and stop kissing his ass; maybe his braintrust came to the same conclusion. He's going to have to earn that ass kissing from now on, and it looks like he's going to do it by taking risks.
November 24, 2006 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
My theory is that the Republicans are hoping the Democrats in Congress will "force a withdrawal" from Iraq. Then, McCain will be free to claim to have fought for a "winning strategy" in his appeals to the moron wing of the Republican Party, while complaining about how Bush was weak and let the Defeatocrats dictate strategy.
In evaluating anything a Republican says, you have to imagine it said in the alternative universe in which most Republicans live -- the alternative universe where we won the Iraq War and this is just an extended Phase II, where we win if we just stay long enough, and talk tough enough and swagger around mindlessly.
November 24, 2006 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is simultaneously both correct and way off the mark. We could win, if by "win" you mean a stable and functioning democracy in which minorities as well as the majority have political, legal and economic representation, by increasing our troop strength to at least the 500,000-man level that Gen. Shinseki thought necessary, and by leaving them there for, oh say, the next 25 to 50 years; and by having them led by the more thoughful order (yes they do exist) of military professionals at all levels. McCain is so incredibly off the mark that it begs all reason, when he suggests that a mere 20,000 additional troops will suffice. Putting an end to the death squads in Bagdad alone will likely require an additional 100,000 troops minimum.
So, is McCain merely positioning himself so he can blame both sides when the stuff hits the fan? You betcha. Being from Arizona, I've watched this guy his whole career; he is one of the most adroit politicians in Washington. He comes off, in the MSM, as a slightly right-of-center pragmatist when his voting record is only slightly to the left of Rick Santorum (in other words, roughly parallel to Genghis Khan). He came out of the Keating Five scandal (remember?) with nary a smirch while felony convictions were falling like rain. McCain is smart, savvy, and ambitious. His "a few more troops" mantra needs to be attacked, and sharply, now and for the next two years.
November 24, 2006 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain probably thinks he's put himself in a win-win position. If Bush says no to more troops, McCain can say, "I told you so" when we are finally forced to make a strategic withdrawal (or whatever we'll call it).
If Bush puts in the 20,000 additional troops CENTCOM commander General Abizaid says are the maximum possible and there is the same outcome, McCain can say, "Too little, too late. I told you so" when the inevitable pullout occurs.
I may be wrong, but I don't think Senator McCain has ever been successfully accused of being a genius, so I'm sure right now he's in his comfort zone by claiming he has a strategy to "win". If he had thought this through he might have realized that he may have painted himself into a corner.
The worst case scenario for him is if a quick pullout, or simply doing nothing, finally results in a tamping down of conflict, sorting out of the Iraqi pecking order, and a viable central government. Essentially, he's betting on failure all the way around.
His next best case scenario is if Bush deploys the additional 20,000 troops and we have our first post-"Mission Accomplished" victory. But then, success has a thousand fathers.
November 25, 2006 4:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. John McCain is openly disingenous when it comes to increasing US troop numbers in Iraq. Former Sec. of Labor Robert Reich quoted McCain as saying it was important for morale to call for more troops. But McCain himself knows that is not reality. Here's John McCain on Meet the Press, 12/4/05 - just about 1 year ago.
Why is McCain saying it's more troops is not 'reality' in Dec. '05 but saying it's essential to victory in Nov. '06? McCain wants to have it every which way on Iraq. Here's another gem on Iraq from the 12/4/05 MtP interview with McCain.
The ol' Double Straight Talk Express ain't what it used to be.
Note: Get ready to hear 'Common Sense Conservatism' as much in 2008 as we heard 'Compassionate Conservatism' in 2000. Like someone said, 'Why level downward to our dullest perception always, and praise that as common sense? The commonest sense is the sense of men asleep, which they express by snoring.' Sleep well Senator McCain.
November 25, 2006 4:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't want him to be the next President you better make sure the 20 million unmarried women who don't vote will do so, because right now McCain-Giuliani or McCain -Lieberman will beat Hilary, and whoever she picks as VP, in New York.
November 25, 2006 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
nice catch, joejoejoe. I just posted on it at EC.
November 25, 2006 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although one could question if 500.000 would be enough at this point.
These troops, of course, would need to be culturally and linguistically capable, in other words Arab mercenaries - or (when Hell looks like a Scandinavian winter morning) a UN mission.
/Tuomas
November 25, 2006 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
He may be positioning himself to run as the Christian martyr on his Vietnam POW record and his lonely, futile call for troops to "win" the Iraq war.
I'm not so sure that's a good plan. He's a pre-Boomer. Boomers are still divided on the both wars. I'm not so sure the aging Don Quixote is going to sell with draft age kids or their parents, particularly their mothers.
Kerry may have lost because of how played Vietnam. McCain may lose for the same reason.
November 25, 2006 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCave (oh, pardon me, McCain) has been in the Senate too long. He is now running for President and, therefore, has no integrity left. He will, for example, visit a racist southern university, cozy up to Bush, ignore his own rules and laws he has helped to create, and will attempt to appease every group he believes will support hm. This is standard for someone who has been in politics for too long. Yes, he is a war hero. No, he caves in whenever challenged. Like a streetwalker, he will say and do anything that will ingratiate him and knows that putting in more soldiers is unenforceable.
November 26, 2006 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
he better find 1,000,000 boots. with experience. and he better find them yesterday.
and even then, that investment might not prevent the loss of that domino. way too late.
however, it was a "failed" project from the get go. millions of boots could never have secured a victory for this invasion. invaders never win. you can look it up.
November 26, 2006 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Still not a single word from McCain, Rangel, Bush, Cheney, You-Know-Her or anyone else in our so-called "government" about where the tax revenues will come from to "fund" this continuing disaster as opposed to just "financing" it miraculously by passing the bill on to our kids and grandkids.
Yes, I realize the political allure of this free-lunch depredation upon our descendants: no one has ever yet heard the not-yet-born-much-less-employed shout "Stop! Thieves!"
So, I guess we'll just have to endure more "stright talk" from crooked-tongued "Bomber John" McCain and cohort while they heroically reduce the disposable, after-tax incomes of our posterity before those unfortunately indentured wage-slaves ever have a chance to choose whether or not they want us, their avaricious ancestors, to remain in Iraq impoverishing them.
November 26, 2006 3:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
glitch-related delete
November 26, 2006 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a clever move politically. If we withdraw and the consequences are terrible-- genoicide, ethnic cleansing, on a great scale than now-- McCain will be able to avoid responsibility for it. In a way, it is precisely b/c more troops are out of the question that it is an attractive stance-- he will never have to stand over the consequences of more troops but will always be able to use it as a helpful counterfactual.
November 26, 2006 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I said "at least 500,000," and suggested 25 - 50 years; neither of which would be politically acceptable. Can you imagine the froth that the LimCoulVage pundidocy would spew at the very suggestion, if it came from a Democrat?
As to "culturally and liguistically capable," I can't agree more. Let's assume that the Current Occupant (thanks Garrison), had had half a wit and had used the 9/11 attacks to generate military voluntarism, and had then culled the volunteers based on intelligence, street savvy, and language skills (note: these have some correlation) and had taken the pick of the overwhelming resultant man-power to form a unique sub-structure to the military, resembling a Special Forces A-Team-style Corps and had deployed that to Afghanistan, we'd have had Bin Laden dead, or at least in chains and al Qaida completely finished.
Of course, that would have required a level of perspecuity (something the Current Occupant has never demonstrated) that the question of an invasion of Iraq would have never been debated in the first place.
But, I digress. Yes, we're in deep kim-chi, and really don't have the political or cultural subtlty to master it. Whether a UN mission would have, is debatable. It seems that the only folks who have the kind of sublty needed are the ones who pull Ahmadinijad's strings; and they aren't playing to help us.
Getting back to McCain, having re-digressed; I believe he understands that the current situation is FUBAR. Given that, and given that he wants the Presidency, his best chance is to position himself in a manner to blame all others when the inevitable happens. He's putting himself to the right of the Democrats, and to the reality-side of the BushAdmin so he can deliver a "Pox on both your houses," and be seen to have "risen above petty partisan squabbling."
It is this position that needs to be challenged. McCain's limited escalation is far too little and far to late. He needs challenging on this point, and the MSM is unlikely to do that. The only venues for such challenge are these, and it takes a veritable tidal wave in the blogosphere for the MSM to feel a ripple. We have our work cut out for us.
November 27, 2006 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rangel isn't in favor of the Iraq War. He just wants the draft b/c he knows we'd immediately end the war then and wouldn't have gone in the first place.
Also, regardless of how much debt we go into b/c of the war, our children are not going to be indentured wage slaves.
November 27, 2006 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know. I think people may think, "This guy was still for increasing our troops in Iraq in late 2006. How credible is he on Iraq?" He wants to be Strong and Wrong, but he may just end up looking Phony and Stupid.
November 27, 2006 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. The best way to describe McCain's thinking and utterances is that he is simply 'hanoicrazed'...time and the ravages of capitivity have deteriorated his mental faculties...he simply has war on the brain...crazy..,.just plain 'hanoicrazed'.
November 29, 2006 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink