Monday, 07.21.08
McCain's Iraq Dilemma
Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images
Why Iraq has no army
December 2005
After Iraq
January 2008
Jeffrey Goldbergreports from the new Middle East and offers a glimpse of its possible future
When John McCain, out of money and plunging in the polls, staked his Presidential campaign on his support for the surge of American forces in Iraq, he no doubt did so out of a sincere belief that the policy would dramatically improve conditions on the ground. But he probably never dreamed that only a year later, conditions would have improved so dramatically that Barack Obama's "out in 16 months" plan, drawn up as a way to extricate the U.S. as rapidly as possible from a costly fiasco, would look instead like a potentially appropriate response to American success - or that the feeling-his-oats Iraqi Prime Minister would be more or less endorsing it. Where Iraq is concerned, McCain is suddenly in the odd position of playing Winston Churchill in 1945, or George H.W. Bush in 1992 - a leader whose successes in crafting wartime policy don't translate into electoral victory - without having ever been elected President in the first place.
You can see McCain wrestling with this dilemma in his comments on Iraq: He's trying to claim that he, Bush and the Iraqi government are all on the same page about troop withdrawals and Obama's way out in left field, even as Maliki has moved toward Obama's position, the Bush Administration has moved toward Maliki's, and Obama has inched toward McCain's. There's still real daylight between two candidates, but the distinction between their respective Iraq policies is increasingly unclear to most voters, and increasingly finessable by the Obama camp. It's hard to see how McCain persuades the public that success or failure in Iraq is at stake in the difference between Obama's "refinable" timetable for getting America out of Iraq and the Bush-Maliki agreement on a "general time horizon" for withdrawal.
So what can McCain do? Recently, I argued that where Iraq is concerned, he should be running more on what the recent past - the success of the surge, and Obama's opposition to it - tells voters about which candidate they can trust on foreign affairs, and less on the specifics of what Obama's current position on timetables and withdrawal portends for the very immediate future. I think the events of the last week have made that advice look even better than it did. But they've also clarified, yet again, how badly McCain needs a domestic narrative - yes, even if it means looking to Hillary Clinton for inspiration.
McCain's predicamentJoe Klein argues that Maliki's statements relegate the success of the surge to a "tactical truth" unlikely to help McCain. |
Iraqi sovereigntyAbe Greenwald faults Maliki for giving "advance broadcast" of a time frame but believes the US should respect Maliki's wishes. |
Overstated successPatrick Cockburn takes a look at the current situation in Iraq and worries that "the rebirth of the Iraqi state machine is a mirage." |
Maliki's timetable gambitAlex Koppelman argues that "relentless surge-o-mania" has put "Bush, McCain, and the conservative commentariate" in a double bind. |
(20)
Ross - I like your incisive analysis on McCain's predicament. However - I think McCain's inability to capitalize on the situation lies elsewhere. McCain's support of the surge can be seen - at best - as a tactical gamble that paid off. It's a combination of rare competence in the military leadership - combined with sheer exhaustion among the different battling factions and the general populace of Iraq, that can be attributed to this relative success in the surge. On top of that, it is difficult to say if the current tactics combined with a much smaller surge could not have delivered similar results.
In short, McCain's busy nitpicking at the rules - while Obama's offering to change the game. To make any substantial difference in his appeal - McCain needs to be able to offer a broader, and at the same time, clearer strategy that can energize an electorate which is simply tired of the old game. So long as he doesn't do that - whatever little capital he picks up is going to end up in Obama's coffers.
McCain is washed up. He's behind the curve on foreign policy as even the Bush administration tries to adopt Obama's positions as their own and Maliki has all but endorsed Barack.
McCain is good for at least a gaffe a day, (Iraq-Pakistan border is today's gem), sometimes more. He has to attack Obama hard and his ad shop has so little to work with he's blaming Obama for $4 gas claiming he's stopping us from drilling in US waters all by himself. No one person has that power except the president and Bush didn't even bother rescinding his dad's executive order until a few days ago.
Regardless drilling off Key West or in any of our other coastal waters would yield a $.03 gallon drop at the pump someday and not someday soon. It's why the Chinese, Brazilians, Norwegians, Spanish and Canadians don't bother as much as the Cubans would like them to. It's not worth it.
What say we not panic and use up our last proven reserves reminding the world just how little we have and instead get out of Iraq and let them put their 115 bbls on the market to drive down prices? They'll pump it as fast as they can to rebuild their country and they're awfully sick of US commanders referring to their country as our battle space.
How many times are we going to see Bush and McCain follow Obama's lead on foreign policy before everyone realizes that Obama and his team are the foreign policy experts?
First, Obama tells everyone the Iraq war would be a foreign policy disaster and it lives up to being the worse foreign policy decision in American history.
Second, Obama says the US should attack Al Qaeda in Pakistan based on actionable intelligence and Bush and McCain call him naive. A few months later the Bush administration starts attacking Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan on actionable intelligence. In fact, that is the last time the military has successfully struck down an Al Qaeda leader that actually played a part in the attacks on 9/11.
Third, McCain said Afghanistan did not need more troops back in February. Now McCain flip flops and says the military needs to send 3 more brigades in Afghanistan in a desperate attempt to one up Obama by one brigade, even though McCain does not know where the military is going to get those extra troops.
Fourth, Bush and McCain called Obama an appeaser for wanting to have direct talks with Iran and the Bush administration is sent envoys to have direct talks with Iran.
Fifth, Obama wants a timetable to get out of Iraq and now the Iraqi leaders are saying it is good time to set timetables to get out of Iraq. Even though McCain said in 2005 that we need to withdraw from Iraq when they ask us to leave, McCain is now flip flopping and saying we need to stay in Iraq indefinitely.
The fact is that the "surge" was a misnomer for an escalation raising the total number of troops in Iraq indefinitely.
Before "surge" 132,000 troops in Iraq. At peak of "surge" 160,000 troops in Iraq. After "surge" 150,000 troops in Iraq.
"If Maliki is ready for us to leave, it means the surge worked."
This simple-minded syllogism is just flat wrong! We just bribed the Sunni militias that were killing U.S. soldiers to kill Al Queada instead, by arming them with U.S. weapons!
That's like saying that if we have a problem with Al Capone and organized crime, the solution is to bribe Al Capone to kill other crime lords.
Then when he accepts, kills his rivals and strengthened his power over entire cities, launch a triumphalist propaganda campaign about how "our Treasury Department agents have beaten the threat of organized crime!"
I'd like to suggest that bribing Al Capone to clean up the "crime problem" isn't really a long-term solution. Those same militia groups are out there and they are stronger than before.
Maliki doesn't really want us to leave at all. Maliki is living in a fortress protected from his own people by our troops. If we all left he wouldn't last 3 weeks. The Bush administration chose him because they thought he would make a good puppet. They forgot that he is at least nominally a leader of Parliament and has to respond to politics in Iraq.
The Iraqi PEOPLE and all the political parties, especially Maliki's power base WANT AMERICAN TROOPS GONE YESTERDAY! Iraq is a disaster and at least a million Iraqis have died. The improved security situation has papered over a complete lack of POLITICAL RECONCILIATION.
Literally nothing has happened since the "surge" began to bring the Iraqis together. They are all biding their time and scheming for the future.
Maliki is responding to overwhelming pressure to secure a "timetable for withdrawal." He simply cannot survive politically if he gives in to Bush and McCain's permanent occupation.
So, Obama comes along with a plan for 16 months. But Maliki knows that at the end of 16 months, there will still be hundreds of thousands of Americans in Iraq. That, even without U.S. combat troops there will be thousands of security guards, military advisers, U.S. Air-support, economic advisers, treasury and agriculture officials, thousands of private contractors, engineers, equipment, it's endless.
In 2008, America is faced with a choice of John McCain who is channeling the wisdom of Lyndon Johnson ("escalate to victory"), and Obama who is channeling Richard Nixon ("I have a plan to end the war in the next 4 years.")
Obama's plan is "Iraqization." McCain's is simple-minded propaganda "the surge has worked!"
Yeah? To what end? Do all the "surge has worked" idiots really belive the Iraqis have accepted a permanent U.S. military occupation and domination of their country by a foreign power?
Do these idiots think the Iraqis won't fight us FOREVER if we try and create a client state in the Middle East?
Truth is, the Iraqi's wanted us out for the last couple of years. They're basic argument was that by our consistent presence there, the Al-qaida insurgency is being drawn there because of it.
The Bush administration has held the "where's the love after all we've done for you" mentallity over Maliki and him being the "hand-picked puppet by Bush himself pretty much did what he was told.
Most want out of the Iraq war, not just Obama. Timetables have been mentinoned so many times over the years, but as long as Bush is in office, (after all, this is his war) we'll be there until the next president takes office. Whether it is Obama or McCain, those people will be shouting for joy and more than likely voicing their true opposition and giving the next president the credit for doing what Bush had the power to do all along.
Ross is wrong. His idea would only open another McCain vulnerability. If McCain makes the election about PAST decisions concerning Iraq, he runs right into his own irresponsible support for the original invasion in 2003. "McCAIN: THE EXPERIENCE TO GET US INTO AND OUT OF POINTLESS QUAGMIRES."
McCain is right.
Pardon me for inserting my comments about Senator Obama's Presidential election chances. Today or yesterday, depending on what clock you are on, Barrick Obama blew it. He is history. Barrack Obama released information that he is unfit to be President of the United States. He stuttered and stammered his way to defeat and discredited the United States. He said the "surge" in Iraq did not work and he would not have supported it. His only goal for saying this is to gain election. But he ignores the accomplisments of the U.S. military.
Listen to the record of Obama.
The difference is this. McCain has consistently been for letting conditions on the ground determine when and how we leave. And Obama has consistently been for retreat... no matter what the conditions (In fact, he reiterated that position again on his "world tour".) Put simply, McCain wants to win, and Obama doesn't care if we lose.
McCain needs to make sure Obama does not hijack these as his ideas. How he does that I don't know. Now he says even president Bush is following his lead, how crazy, Obama is just a year year Senator. Obama went overseas to say the same thing democrats say at home. McCain shouldn't run against the news. The only thing he should do is say, Most of us think going to Iraq was wrong, but the surge has worked. Iraq is free, and we are rid of another tyrant.
Most of the people think the war was wrong, but they trust McCain more than Obama on the war. Also most just don't want to abandon Iraq, they want to see it through.
I don't think the American people will choose Obama in November, they just don't trust him.
McCain wants to win the war like we did in Vietnam. Obama wants to win the peace by removing combat troops.
Vietnam worked through its postwar problems without our intervention quite well. Let's let Iraq have the same opportunity without the humiliation of being thrown out like we were in Vietnam.
You don't "win" immoral and illegal wars.
It still unbelieveable to me that left can not accept the positive events in Iraq. I guess extreme loathing of our sitting president over shadows all.
McCain arguing that he was on the right side of the issue with the surge in Iraq is like a person saying they made the right decision about getting the TV out of the house, after lighting the house on fire. Remember, McCain supported the start of the war, demonstrating his lack of vision, and lack of judgement in the first place.
How irrelevant is Iraq?-What would be the impact of Gen Petraeus agreeing to be McCain's veep?
Hypothetically, assume that Maliki's 'agreement' with a timetable is all very true. The debate over that specifc detail of fp ends, and that story fades from public.
The following story will either be about the success or failure of the surge, and the reason for it. This is where Obama is stuck...
either the surge was successful or a failure. Obama is either opposing a billiant success, even after witnessing it, or he is refusing to acknowledge it.
He is having a horrible week: the Rassmussen poll which has more Americans believing the press is rooting for him, than are willing to vote for him.
Andrea Mitchell calling his pressers 'fakes'.
Katie Couric repeatedly asking him why he would oppose the surge, knowing what he knows now...
When the media was in a vacuum, they could continue the love fest. A pollster points out how bad it is, and the press is suddenly starting to turn on him. Americans are becoming hypersensitized to the fact that he is receiving special tx-(3 anchors aweigh)and the effects have yet to reach a saturation point.
"McCain arguing that he was on the right side of the issue with the surge in Iraq is like a person saying they made the right decision about getting the TV out of the house, after lighting the house on fire."
kinda like Obama believing his sixteen month plan was feasable, without acknowledging that it was the surge that made his withdrawal plans possible?
From an average American's perspective, I'm far more likely to believe that McCain is correct and Obama incorrect if Iraq's president agrees with Obama. When did the media or the American people begin to believe that Iraq's president understood what was going on or knew how to solve Iraq's problems. That being said, I think we should pull out so we can prove the idiots wrong and leave them to enjoy the bloody aftermath. That would actually solve two problems: 1) it would stop draining our national treasure and 2) it would rid the earth of a legacy problem. If Iraq falls apart, let the rest of the world solve the problem!
You really have to give Obama credit. He is so much better than Bill Clinton ever was. He reaps the reward of McCains successful surge strategy, says the surge was not a factor and takes credit for an Iraq exit plan already in motion. God help US.
How is it so easily lost that the reason a rapid force decline is even on the table is solely because the Military surge that Obama opposed and McCain supported quelled violence and all but crushed AQ in Iraq? If Obama comes clean and admits this I might consider voting for him.
*Hillary "came back" against Obama because a number of states that were likely to vote for her came late in the primary calendar. *Violence declined in Iraq for a number of reasons, among them the surge, which John McCain backed.
These truths are hard for Hillary and McCain backers to accept because they conflict with each candidates prefered dramatic narrative. (See Tom's comment above)
The real dilemma for McCain is that of a very bad judgment and short-sightedness in that he supported and urged a war against the US strategic interest in the Middle-East, helping to dethrone and disarm the Sunnis, the natural opponents of Iran only to enthrone and arm the pro-Iranian Shiites in Iraq. It is a very bad judgment and unforgivable blunder on the part of Sen. McCain and the Bush administration to think that the Iraqi Shiites would abandon/turn against their fellow Shiites in Iran in support of the US. The US support for the Taliban in Afghanistan against the Soviets should have provided the needed lesson to make a right judgment. That tragic support led to the 9/11 unfortunately. The US forces entered Iraq to engage openly in a sectarian war taking the sides of the pro Iranian Shiites out of short-sighted goal of completely and permanently removing Saddam Hussein and his Sunni supporters from power. So, strategically, the US took the the no-win position that would strengthen Iran if it wins which would in reality be a STRATEGIC loss to the US. IT WAS A NO-WIN POSITION FOR THE US FROM THE ONSET.
By Abba Ricky
From the onset before the invasion of Iraq, Sen. Obama's judgment in opposing the Iraq war had been, and is still, based on long term strategic interest of the US and its broad term interest in the Middle-East. The Bush administration, Sen. McCain and other supporters of the war and the surge have always tried to focus on just a small narrow part of the whole big issue at stake in Iraq to proclaim success, completely ignoring the long term strategic interest and its broad term interest in the region. This different and opposing approaches to the same issue has often led to different judgment in many cases. Thus, as we can see, the Bush administration and Sen. McCain have proclaimed victory, success, and mission accomplished in many cases based on narrow judgment in consideration of a very small part of the big equation. At the same time, Sen. Obama taking a long term and broad term overall view of the situation often sees the danger and the problems that people like McCain and Bush cannot see with their short term and narrow minded view.
Failure or success of the US military in Iraq would mean quite different things to different people depending on their different views and their different understanding of what should be the objective of the US in Iraq. The failure of the Bush administration and McCain has all along been the lack of full consideration of the long term and the broad term interests of the US in Iraq and the Middle-East as a whole with particular attention on Iran. The invasion was based on a short term and narrow objective of REMOVING SADDAM HUSSEIN COMPLETELY AND PERMANENTLY FROM POWER. There was little or no consideration for the long term consequences of the achievement of that narrow objective and how it is achieved. That bad judgment has now proved to be the GREATEST STRATEGIC TRAGEDY ever committed by the US.
Truly, and indeed, for Sen. McCain and the Bush administration, as well as all those with that short-term and narrow objective in Iraq, the Bush administration has succeeded in that short term and narrow objective. However, that achievement itself and the process/method adopted to achieve it has since turned out to be the greatest setback for the US strategic interest in the region. That is why, for Sen. Obama and those others who are considering the Iraq issue form the perspective of the broad key interest of the US in the region and its long term strategic interest with special concern about the Iranian threat, that "success" is a failure.
In order to succeed in completely and permanently removing Saddam Hussein from power, Bush used the US forces to remove the Sunnis, who are naturally opposed to Shiite dominated Iran, from power, and also disbanded the Sunni-dominated Iraqi military that fought a bloody war for almost a decade against Iran, the arch enemy of the US in the region. The pro-Iranian Shiites, many of whose key leaders had come from exile in Iran where they had fled from Saddam's regime, and had been well catered for and helped by the Iranian leadership, are now set in power. The basic fact about the surge was that it was not going to change or reverse the strategic tragic blunder caused by the invasion and the war to disarm and deliberately weaken the minority the Sunnis, and to arm, strengthen and empower the pro-Iranian Shiites. Question: Did McCain and the Bush administration truly and fully consider the consequences of completely and permanently stripping the anti-Iranian Sunnis of all power and committing all the power into pro-Iranian Shiites hands? Apparently not. And if the answer is yes, how did they plan to convert the Iraqi Shiites who have enjoyed long historical ties with their Iranian counterparts to now turn against Iran in support of the US? What such model is there to sight for an example?
The invasion and the war has weakened the US and strengthened Iran. Thus, it had not made the US safer or more secure. The surge had not changed that situation. The surge had consolidated a pro-Iranian Iraqi regime and has made Iran stronger at the expense of the US. That is the long term consequence and broad term result all that has been achieved so far by the US forces in Iraq. That will continue to be the trend until a change of direction is brought about by first ending the war and by ending US support for a regime that is now more and more openly showing its pro-Iranian identity just as is being seen in the Maliki's withdrawal card issued by Iran, and which the Bush administration is now being forced to accept. In other words, THOUGH McCain MAY WANT TO KEEP THE US TROOPS IN IRAQ FOR 100 YEARS, THE IRANIANS ARE SAYING "NO WAY". Even if Sen. McCain is ready to fight to have his way in Iraq, the current pro-Iranian side is the wrong side to fight with. All that has been accomplished by the surge in terms of real American is much ado about nothing.
The Maliki's Withdrawal Card
The most important missing point in this article is the role Iran is playing in issuing that 'Maliki's Withdrawal Card'. Why is it coming only after Maliki's recent meeting with the Iranian leader? The obvious fact that would be very hard for the Bush administration and McCain to admit is that the Iraqi government appears to have an obligation to get approval from the Iranian leader before it could enter into any serious security agreement with the US, and that may not be vice-versa. So the 'Maliki's Withdrawal Card' is obviously issued by the Iranian religious leader in a form of indirect rule by Iran over Iraq. Obviously, the Maliki government and the Iraqi Shiites and their leaders may feel more secure and more comfortable with the Iranian Shiite forces coming in to replace the US forces to help the current government maintain stability.
If it turns out, as it is becoming more and more obvious, that the Maliki government that the US helped install and is making maximum sacrifices to keep in power is actually a pro-Iranian one, how would the Bush administration and Sen. McCain face the outrage of the American people if they they should realize such a grave blunder? Yet it seems that that is the bitter truth that America may have to face and deal with. The suggestion in the WSJ article "The New Reality in Iraq" that the Shiite population of Iraq and it leaders would really and truly take sides with the US against Iran is simply too hard to believe for someone who has even a moderate understanding of religious sentiments in politics. The view, according to the article is that "Success in Iraq also makes it possible to establish a strategic partnership with a legitimate, democratic majority-Shia state that is aligned with the U.S. against Iran". The idea is simply far from reality and laughable. The reality on the ground is that the Shiite population in Iraq would rather listen to their religious leader than to the government. Maliki must listen to the Shiite leader in Iraq. The problem is made more complicated because that Iraqi religious leader is perhaps subject to the Iranian religious leader.
Imagine the fact that the assurance given by Maliki to the Iranian leaders that the Iraqi government would never allow the US to use Iraqi territory to launch any attack against Iran was not enough to persuade them to let him sign the security agreement with the US. Rather, they are insisting on issuing a quit order for the US forces with time-table. The earlier the US face the bitter truth and start dealing with it accordingly the better. In Iraq the US has waged war against itself, against its own vital strategic interest, and a "win" in such a situation may prove to be a real great loss. In this case what some may call a loss may be the only visible real victory left for now.
Who, which country, which government, or which organization or group has benefited the most as a result of the US invasion of Iraq? The answer: Iran and the al Qaida. Is the US-installed Shiite government in Iraq today more, or less, pro-Iranian or anti-Iranian than the Sunni government that the US overthrew by the US invasion. Has the Iranian Shiite leadership greater or less influence on the US-installed Shiite government of today's Iraq than it had on the Sunni-led one of Saddam which the US overthrew? In countering the Iranian threat, influence, and power in the Middle-East today, can the US reliably count any more on the US-trained Shiite component of the Iraqi military of today than on the members of the defunct Saddam-trained Baathist military? Is the US engagement in Iraq today enhancing or hindering it in confronting and handling the current Iranian nuclear threat? If it is conclusively proved today that Iran is on the verge of making nuclear bomb and there is an immediate need for military strikes on targets in Iran to remove that threat, would the current massive presence of the US forces in Iraq make that decision easier to make, or would it complicate it and make more difficult than if there was no such US presence to consider? Does senator McCain think that the US has overall benefited more than Iran with the current situation in Iraq? What are the chances that the US stands to benefit more than Iran with the present trends and tendencies, and what are the main obstacles to such benefits, and how could they be overcome?
There are no easy choices left for the US in Iraq. The invasion has handed Iran a great victory much bigger than it could ever hope or pray for. A great military a victory without firing a single shot, and without losing a man. It is all achieved at the cost of precious American and Iraqi lives. Iran would surely claim victory over the US when it eventually withdraws its forces from Iraq. Iran is already claiming its big price by dictating what policies the Iraqi government must pursue in relation to the US. HOWEVER, IF IRAN IS ALLOWED TO ACQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS AS IT IS SPEEDILY ASPIRING TO DO, THE IRAQ PRICE WOULD BE FAR TOO SMALL TO COMPARE WITH THE GREAT THREAT IT WOULD POSE TO THE WORLD AS A NUCLEAR ARMED STATE. That is why a strategy of minimising the shame of withdrawal may be by far more than justified by the very urgent need to stop and prevent Iran from acquiring the nuclear weapon. That is a judgment that Sen. McCain must now come to terms with, and thereby admit all his wrong judgment so far on Iraq. Time is running out to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The longer it is delayed, the greater the danger.
It seems the Bush administration is now waking up to the reality of fact that the Iraq mission is a big mistake. The McCain camp must be waking up too. The ultimatum has been given by Iran, the one calling the shots in Iraq now. No one should expect an open admission of that bad judgment of the invasion. No one should be more interested in a stable Shiite-led Iraq than Iran. It should be enough to just change direction without admitting it, lest McCain becomes a flip flopper.
A Very Complex Situation
In all, what we have seen in Iraq is a very complex equation with many variables. The al Qaida as pro-Sunni and anti-Shiite and anti-American came to Iraq to fight for the Sunnis against the US forces and the Shiites that US came in to install into power. The Iraqi Sunnis would not like to be tainted with the terrorist image of al Qaida, so the latter has no ground support to sustain its mission in Iraq. However, Iran also have the same objective of driving the US forces out of Iraq after having installed the Shiite into power. Iran could support the al Qaida in Iraq on the basis that their interest there was just to drive out the US forces out of Islamic land. The Sadr/Madhi Army, the Shiite militant could also enjoy similar support from Iran against the US forces. The surge succeeded mainly working with the Sunni forces of Saddam Hussein against the al Qaida in Iraq. Re-arming the Sunnis cannot be pleasant to the Shiites, except for the Sadrist militants, the nationalist Madhi Army. Unfortunately for the US, the surge helped drive that Shiite militant into Iranian hands, thus strengthening the Iranian grip on Iraq. Now, all that is left faintly on the US side, or all that is left in Iraq that is not on the Iranian side against the US is the US dis-armed Sunnis. Iran might have been able to stop the militants with a guarantee that the Maliki government will issue withdrawal card for the US forces in Iraq. If the US forces are not withdrawn accordingly, a much bigger threat to the US forces may be under way in Iraq. Yes Iraq may truly be more stable after the surge but not to the US benefit but to Iran's benefit. Is that a win for the US? Is that a real success for the US with regard to the surge?
I agee with observation but not the interpretation. I don't think this works against McCain's favor, I think it works for him - or would if McCain could just get out of his own way and get his narrative straight.
McCain is really blowing it here. Maliki has handing him a golden opportunity to undercut Obama's support. The majority of Americans want us out of Iraq. There are plenty of conservatives, libertarians, and independents among those who want us out, who are not enamored of a single party Democratic government, but will vote for Obama purely on the issue of Iraq.
If Maliki is ready for us to leave, it means the surge worked. As you point out, McCain can legitimately claim that he was right and Obama was wrong on the surge. It is a perfect time to declare victory, and start to draw down. He can say the surge paved the path for us to get out - all the time leaving the same wiggle room that Obama uses - that the pace will be dictated by conditions on the ground. This is a perfect opening for McCain - I can't believe his campaign is missing it.
Our military leadership wants to draw down in Iraq, they need to rebuild. The majority of Americans want out, we cannot afford to maintain this level of military presence in Iraq. The Iraqi's want us out by the end of 2010, they want their country back.
Maliki is reinforcing that there is no real practical difference between McCain and Obama on what our military posture will look like in Iraq by the end of 2010 regardless of who is president. With that realization Obama loses his only real advantage in November, and we can potentially avoid the disaster of single party Democratic government with expanded and potentially filibuster proof Democratic majorities.
Net..net. I get my cake and eat it too. I can vote to limit the concentration of single party power in Washington, and get also get a quicker or at least equivalent draw down in Iraq by supporting McCain. It's all good.
McCain should embrace the Maliki statements. It is what we said we wanted - "When they stand up, we stand down."
Well, they are standing up.
It's ok to stand down.
Posted by mw | July 21, 2008 7:01 PM