Yes and Double Yes Posted by Michael Cohen

To follow up on the points made by Ilan and David, one thing that people forget about McCain is that he supported the surge in Iraq before George Bush did.

In 2006 McCain was arguing that the US needed to increase its troop presence at a time when most Americans were coming to the conclusion that what was needed in Iraq was not a military solution, but a political solution. Rereading one of John McCain's speeches I was surprised to discover that he was advocating for troop increases in Iraq as far back as 2003. Maybe it's just me, but it does seem as though John McCain's stock answer to a thorny international challenge is to send in more troops. There is in much of his political rhetoric a predisposition to the use of force over diplomacy that seems both inappropriate and counter-productive.

But, what's worse is that when I re-read what McCain has said about the war, it seems rather . . . Bushian. Take a look, for example, at this speech McCain gave a year ago at VMI and the eerily similar conflation of Al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents that we are so used to hearing from the President:

Our defeat in Iraq would constitute a defeat in the war against terror and extremism and would make the world a much more dangerous place. The enemies we face there harbor the same depraved indifference to human life as those who killed three thousand innocent Americans on a September morning in 2001. A couple of days before I arrived in Baghdad, a suicide car bomb destroyed a large, busy marketplace. It was a bit unusual, because new U.S. and Iraqi security measures in Baghdad have reduced the number of car bomb attacks. But this time the terrorists had a new tactic: they drove their car to a security checkpoint and were waved through because there were two small children in the back seat. The terrorists then walked away from the car, leaving the children inside it, and triggered the explosion. If the terrorists are willing to do this terrible thing to Iraqi children, what are they willing to do to our children?

Some argue the war in Iraq no longer has anything to do with us; that it is a hopelessly complicated mess of tribal warfare and sectarian conflict. The situation is complex, and very difficult. Yet from one perspective it is quite simple. We are engaged in a basic struggle: a struggle between humanity and inhumanity; between builders and destroyers. If fighting these people and preventing the export of their brand of radicalism and terror is not intrinsic to the national security and most cherished values of the United States, I don't know what is.

I'm sorry, but this is the same simplistic view of the world and the threats facing America that we have seen from the Bush Administration over the past seven years. For those of you who want to get a fuller sense of the extent to which McCain views the war in Iraq as not a political challenge for Iraqis to solve, but as a larger conflict revolving around American determination and credibility in fighting Islamic terrorism I invite you to read on here.

To the people who argue that John McCain does not represent more of the same, well they just aren't paying attention to what he's been saying.

Comments

[NYer]

Michael,

I'd be interested in your view as to the "political solution" to the problem of suicide bombers blowing up innocents in mosques and marketplaces.

[Don Bacon]

Michael, welcome back to reality. I didn't know you could eliminate an entire thread on DA! That's power.

On Killer McCain:

McCain, April 2007, VMI: "For the first time in my visits to Iraq, our delegation was able to drive - not fly by helicopter-- from the airport to downtown Baghdad. . . .security in the capital is indispensable to a greater level of security throughout the country so that political and economic progress can occur."

FACT: US Embassy Warden Message: Personal Protective Equipment and Hardened Structures, March 27, 2008: This is to notify all U.S. citizens in Iraq that the U.S. Embassy has announced that, until further notice, all personnel under the authority of the Chief of Mission are required to wear body armor, helmet and protective eyewear anytime they are outside of building structures in the International Zone. In addition, Chief of Mission personnel in the International Zone have been advised to remain inside of hardened structures at all times, except for mission essential movements. The Department of State continues to strongly warn U.S. citizens against travel to Iraq, which remains very dangerous.
http://iraq.usembassy.gov/warden_message_03282008.html

McCain: "General Petraeus literally wrote the book on counter insurgency."

FACT: Large sections of this manual wre plagiarized.
http://www.counterpunch.com/price10302007.html

McCain: "no political solution has a chance to succeed ... and Iraqis remain dependent on sectarian militias to protect their children from being murdered."

FACT: That's true. In fact, PM Maliki hsa recently inducted 10,000 Shiite militia members into the Iraqi Army.

McCain: ". . .when Tehran already feels emboldened enough to develop nuclear weapons,"

FACT: The IAEA has found no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and McCain knows (or should know) it. In the latest IAEA report the Agency once again states unambiguously that it “has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran."
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/IAEA_Iran_Report_22Feb2008.pdf

McCain: ". . .whether or not al Qaeda terrorists were a present danger in Iraq before the war, there is no disputing they are there now, and their leaders recognize Iraq as the main battleground in the war on terror."

FACT: True, people professing to be al Qaeda members were not in Iraq prior to our ill-fated invasion and occupation, but should we believe al Qaeda spokesmen and follow their direction? Who's in charge here?

McCain: "I hope Democrats in Congress will heed the advice of one of their leading candidates for President, Senator Obama, and immediately pass a new bill to provide support to our troops in Iraq without substituting their partisan interests for those of our troops and our country."

FACT: Okay, point for McCain. Obama wants to end the "war" but not end the occupation.

McCain: "But I also know the toll a lost war takes on an army and a country."

FACT: McCain has it bass-akwards. The Vietnam war was "lost" because the US troops, in their wisdom, most of them drafted, refused to go on missions and took action against their superiors who ordered them to do so (fragging). The army was broken, but McCain apparently has no knowledge of that.

McCain: "And then he whispered to me not to worry, 'We can win this fight. We can win this fight.' Mark, as another person observed, looks like the 'toughest kid on the high school football team.' He is tough, and brave, and very young. But more than that, he's an inspiration to those who are only called upon to subordinate a temporary political advantage to the security of our good and great nation. Petty Officer Mark Robbins, an American hero, believes we can still win this fight. I'll take his word for it, and accept my responsibility to help the cause he sacrificed so much to defend. Thank you."

FACT: McCain feels free to take advantage of brave people like Petty Officer Mark Robbins in his personal ego trip to become president. McCain is a dangerous man.

[Don Bacon]

NYer,
I'm sure that suicide bombers would use Apache gunships and F-16 fighters to kill people if the US furnished them. Unfortunately, the US retains use of these killing machines or gives them to Zionists who have invaded Palestinian lands, so the natives have to improvise. The political solution you seek is to let the natives have their land back without foreign interference, just as you or I would desire if we were so imposed on. Only suicide bombers kill innocents, you say? The US (primarily the US air force) has killed more innocents in history, by far, then any other faction. Does Hiroshima and Nagasaki ring a bell? How about the destruction of Fallujah, and the bombing of Afghani villages? You need to inform yourself and avoid silly questions.

[Dan Kervick]

The problem is that, when it comes to Iraq, the candidates from both parties are just bullshitting their constituents. So it's hard to tell who is actually more dangerous. Troop commitments at anything close to the current level in Iraq are simply unsustainable. The military knows this; and as a military man McCain knows this as well. He's going to have to reduce the US commitment somewhat, and forbear from further engagements for some time. But he's got a large posse of crazed, ignorant wingnuts forming the base of his Republican Party, so he has to deliver a consistent diet of Dark Islamic Menace comic book plots to keep them happy.

And the Democratic candidates have to keep the very sizable base of antiwar Democrats happy. These candidates have managed to convince a lot of that base that they are somehow planning to end the US engagement in Iraq. But the candidates' plans and promises actually say nothing of the sort, and are in any case so larded with exceptions, caveats and escape hatches that it will be a miracle if it doesn't turn out that, once in office, they find that all those "buts" and "howevers" have kicked in.

Does anybody think Hillary Clinton has the slightest intention of diminishing the US footprint in the Middle East? Hillary Clinton, who spent much of 2006 and 2007 criticizing the Bush administration for being too soft on Iran; whom was driven into paroxysms of martial zeal by the Israeli-Lebanon war, and was thundering threats at Syria and Iran while sensible diplomats were trying to bring about a cease fire; whom the Village Voice dubbed "Mama Warbucks" on account of the fact that she placed second only to Carl Levin in the entire Senate in delivering defense-related earmarks for the war industry? Clinton is a wholly owned subsidiary of the concert of interests that got us into Iraq in the first place, and who are stakeholders in an aggressive US posture in that region. Only a sap would think she honestly intends to back us out in any serious way.

Obama is at least clearer in recognizing that the Iraq war was a very dumb idea to begin with. But it is one thing to warn against creating a mass of entanglements in the first place, and another to disentangle oneself from those entanglements once they have been created. He's probably going to find he has very little freedom of movement once he gets into the oval office. There are too many powerful interests involved, with too much invested economically and politically. Once the Saudis, US and European oil companies, Israelis, Pentagon brass and US defense contractors pay him a series of visits to lay down the law about just what exactly makes this empire tick, we'll be lucky to see anything beyond a modest drawdown. One hopes, though, that with his clearer and less compromised vision he will at least be able to keep us out of new Iraqs and new stupidities.

I suspect the United States is just not leaving Iraq. At least, not in my lifetime. Or at least, not unless someone else drives us out.

Are some of these candidates dangerous? Sure. But that's in good measure because the United States is an inherently dangerous country, no matter who is in charge.

[Simmons]

"...one thing that people forget about McCain is that he supported the surge in Iraq before George Bush did."

I'm no fan of McCain, but that's a compliment if anything. I argued for a 'surge' of sorts in 2005 as well. Not enough troops in the first place was one of the largest mistakes I feel Rumsfeld and Bush made.

[Don Bacon]

Why was recommending an unsuccessful surge a good thing?

The purpose of the surge was to bring security to Baghdad so that Iraqis could achieve reconciliation and accomplish the benchmarks. Fifteen months after the surge started, the US embassy in Baghdad is under siege, the divide among Iraqi sects is worse than ever (the US has even armed the "dead-enders"!) and only three of eighteen benchmarks have been achieved.

A majority of the Iraqi people want US troops out, and support attacks on them. There is no chance of victory, but a large chance of military defeat if the US stays. Thinking Americans and Iraqis agree -- we need an exit surge, not McCain's hundred years' war.

[peace]

John McCain scares me with his rhetoric about Russia which he wants to expel them from the G-8 and says that he sees the soul of the KGB in Putin's eyes. It's bad enough that McCain wants stay in Iraq forever and attack Iran. The irony is that the press and the public believes that McCain is a moderate when in reality he is very radical in the area of foreign policy.

[shawn]

In fairness to McCain (never thought I'd say that...) increased troop levels back at the start of the war in 2003 could have helped to avert the security crisis that we see today. You couldn't have considered that a "surge" because we would have started off with a higher number of troops. The war, from its very conception, was always a massive strategic blunder, but once it started, many experts were skeptical as to whether we could secure the country post-Saddam with such a small force.

[Don Bacon]

How many Chinese soldiers would it take to secure the United States in support of a pro-China president? The brutal US occupation of Iraq will (rightfully) be resisted no matter how many US troops are present. In fact, more troops would have caused more resistance. So much for the "experts" who fail to understand human nature in their worship of American Exceptionalism.

[Simmons]

M. Bacon:
A surge in 2005 would have been more effective in 2005 because the security gains would have been greater for multiple reasons. With greater security gains, the hope was that political gains could have been achieved, which, this time around, they have not.