McCain still sees success in ‘surge’

Following on the heels of Barack Obama’s speech in DC on national security, John McCain appeared in Albuquerque to make a very different case.

“Over the last year, Senator Obama and I were part of a great debate about the war in Iraq. Both of us agreed the Bush administration had pursued a failed strategy there and that we had to change course. Where Senator Obama and I disagreed, fundamentally, was what course we should take. I called for a comprehensive new strategy – a surge of troops and counterinsurgency to win the war. Senator Obama disagreed. He opposed the surge, predicted it would increase sectarian violence, and called for our troops to retreat as quickly as possible.

“Today we know Senator Obama was wrong. The surge has succeeded. And because of its success, the next President will inherit a situation in Iraq in which America’s enemies are on the run, and our soldiers are beginning to come home.”

Let’s take this one step at a time. First is the notion that McCain used to stand right alongside Obama, denouncing Bush’s “failed strategy” and demanding that we “change course.” It’s certainly possible that McCain doesn’t remember any of the last several years — he is an awfully forgetful fellow, especially when it comes to details he’d like Americans to forget — but to argue, in public, with a straight face, that he and Obama were on the same page about Bush’s pre-2007 Iraq policy is truly insane.

Just the opposite is true. In June 2005, when Bush was “pursuing a failed strategy,” Tim Russert suggested to McCain that on Iraq and other issues, “The fact is you are different than George Bush.” McCain disagreed: “[O]n the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I’ve been totally in agreement and support of President Bush…. I’m particularly talking about the war on terror, the war in Iraq.”

Over and over again, McCain said he supported Bush’s Iraq policy, and over and over again, McCain said we needed to “stay the course.”

“Both of us agreed the Bush administration had pursued a failed strategy”? It’s not especially surprising to see McCain grant himself retroactive wisdom, but that doesn’t make it true.

Second is the notion that the surge has “succeeded,” which necessarily means, according to this argument, that McCain was right and Obama was wrong. I think I’ll just quote some of Obama’s speech on the subject today:

“It has been 18 months since President Bush announced the surge. As I have said many times, our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence. General Petraeus has used new tactics to protect the Iraqi population. We have talked directly to Sunni tribes that used to be hostile to America, and supported their fight against al Qaeda. Shiite militias have generally respected a cease-fire. Those are the facts, and all Americans welcome them.

“For weeks, now, Senator McCain has argued that the gains of the surge mean that I should change my commitment to end the war. But this argument misconstrues what is necessary to succeed in Iraq, and stubbornly ignores the facts of the broader strategic picture that we face.

“In the 18 months since the surge began, the strain on our military has increased, our troops and their families have borne an enormous burden, and American taxpayers have spent another $200 billion in Iraq. That’s over $10 billion each month. That is a consequence of our current strategy.

“In the 18 months since the surge began, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. June was our highest casualty month of the war. The Taliban has been on the offensive, even launching a brazen attack on one of our bases. Al Qaeda has a growing sanctuary in Pakistan. That is a consequence of our current strategy.

“In the 18 months since the surge began, as I warned at the outset – Iraq’s leaders have not made the political progress that was the purpose of the surge. They have not invested tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues to rebuild their country. They have not resolved their differences or shaped a new political compact.”

I’d just add one broader point to this. If today’s remarks in Albuquerque were any indication, McCain’s strategy is to look back and argue that his judgment was superior to Obama’s. That’s extraordinarily ridiculous — McCain’s been fundamentally wrong about every aspect of the war since before it began (remember, back in ’02, when he said Sunnis and Shi’ia would get along fine?).

McCain would be smart to talk about a strategy for the future, because the more he focuses on his record, the more it’s a reminder of how catastrophically wrong he’s been from the outset. Unless, that is, McCain is hoping that he can just manufacture a record that doesn’t exist in reality, and that the media won’t call him on it.

Oh wait….

But, Steve, look…. DONUTS WITH SPRINKLES!

  • “I know how to win wars.”

    We all know he did a specacular job winning the Viet Nam war single-handedly.

  • SaintZak:

    Don’t you DARE impugn the massively heroic service of Senator McCain. He’s running for President, got shot down during the Vietnam war, and therefore is automatically MORE than qualified to be commander-in-chief. End of story, nothing to see here.

  • This “I invented the surge strategy” is part of the same fiction that gives us the phony “I called on Rumsfeld to be replaced” baloney.

    He just thinks the American public is too stupid to actually remember what he actually said at the time.

  • He just thinks the American public is too stupid to actually remember what he actually said at the time.
    Well he’s got one thing right.

  • He just thinks the American public is too stupid to actually remember what he actually said at the time.

    Well he’s got one thing right.

    I’d argue that’s not entirely fair. Change “American public” to “American media, and I’d be right onboard.

  • “He just thinks the American public is too stupid to actually remember what he actually said at the time.”

    While rethugnicans continue to believe in the overwhelming stupidity of the amerikan publik, the main factor is that the corporate news media will echo and amplify McBush’s lies rather than call him on them.

    That is what McCrap is counting on and it is likely what he will get!

  • he can just manufacture a record that doesn’t exist in reality, and that the media won’t call him on it.

    Sounds like the Bush playbook.

    Farging Media.

  • $3858.02. If Obama’s figures are correct, and I have no reason to doubt that they are, we spend $3858.02 every second we remain in Iraq. Given the median cost for a house in the U.S. in 2007, and the current interest rate, the median mortgage payment, right now, would be something like $ 1,446.68. Add in taxes, PMI, and other expenses, and the average American family is probably paying something like $1800.00 per month for mortgage payments (assuming traditional 30 year mortgages). Every second that we stay in Iraq, that’s 2 months of mortgage payments for a typical American. Every month (assuming 30 days) that we stay, the U.S. is paying enough money to cover the mortgage payments for 5.2 million families.

    And in the middle of the housing market’s collapse, that’s not irrelevant. In the last quarter of 2007, 675000 people filed for bankruptcy.

    Yeah, Iraq’s been a brilliant idea. What vision, to spend well over 30 times the amount needed to help hurting citizens here, in order to chase after some non-existent WMD’s and line the pockets of oil executives. And this, the media won’t ever comment on.

  • Right, and let’s not forget he “orchestrated” the release of the hostages in Columbia. What a guy!

    Gag me with a spoon…

  • McCain knows how to win wars, huh?

    Getting shot down (after wrecking 4 planes previously) and being a prisoner of war doesn’t exactly constitute winning a war.

    I wonder what his strategy for fighting terrorism is? I can’t recall hearing him present a plan… oh wait, he has… it’s Bu$h’s plan!

  • Saw a tagline: Anybody who believes the surge is a success,believes Thelma and Louise had a flying car.

    Hey Clar-z I was just thinking of that phrase this morning: Gag me with a spoon.

    You don’t hear that much any more.

  • The media may not be willing to do their jobs, but he’s sure making a lot of double-speak video available for ad buys closer to the general election. It’s going to be so easy for the DNC & any PAC to put together 30-second ads of him going back and forth and back and forth on any one issue. I wouldn’t give up faith just yet – wait to see which of the inherent spinelessness of institutional Dems or Obama’s new approach to politices wins out.

  • And let’s not forget much of the current ‘decline’ in violence is due to the cease fire between various Shiite factions that was brokered by IRAN. Bush’s policies have effectively handed Iraq to Iran on a silver platter. In a period of seven years we’ve removed two of Tehran’s biggest enemies/threats, the Taliban to the east and Saddam to the west.

    The ‘increasing threat’ from Iran is largely of Bush’s creation.

  • Diogenes said Lots & lots of numbers related to costs of Iraq.

    So what! That is going to be cheap compared to the costs of bailing out failed & failing banks. Estimated cost of that will be between $1-3 TRILLION!

    Good thing the repugnicans have a plan. The reduction/elimination of Medicare & Medicaid & Social Security will be the next major rethug ’cause’ to help pay for the next round of major corporate bailouts. After all, we are a nation ‘of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation’.

  • SadOldVet,
    But Bush said today in his address that it is not a “bailout”, since the companies will still be owned by stockholders… He seriously said that. I guess giving a corporation billions of dollars is not a “bailout”

    THE PRESIDENT: Government action — if you’re talking about bailing out — if your question is, should the government bail out private enterprise, the answer is, no, it shouldn’t. And by the way, the decisions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — I hear some say “bailout” — I don’t think it’s a bailout. The shareholders still own the company. That’s why I said we want this to continue to be a shareholder-owned company..

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080715-1.html

  • Wait. . . did the surge work or didn’t it? If the surge didn’t work, then why has Obama now purged his website, scrubbing away any and all indications that he opposed it? If it did work, wasn’t Obama wrong when he opposed it from its conception, through its commencement and implementation, right up until today, when he no longer seems to want to be on record as opposing it?

    Which is it? Was the surge a mistake, and Obama right to oppose it? If so, why the website purge? Or was the surge a success, and Obama wrong to oppose it? Or, is it just that the Great Helmsman must always be right?

  • It’s the old ‘Bigotry of low expectations’. The surge is a success because it wasn’t an epic failure. Forgive me if I don’t get all warm and gushy because we didn’t create further catastrophe.
    But, don’t bother to forgive me for thinking those who celebrate this incredible milestone of meritocracy are friggin morons. They are, and I’m not about to change my mind.

  • To JoeW:

    I hear a lot of sarcasm, and a lot of evasion, in your response .But you didn’t answer my question. If I read you right, you are saying the surge was not a success. At best, it was some kind of pseudo-success. Well, if that’s the case, why is Obama now scrubbing his criticisms of the surge from his website?

    Surely, a legendary wordsmith and master of nuance such as Obama should be able to explain, on his website, where he has unlimited time and space and full access to his advisors, and is not required to think extemporaneously, that, while the surge might appear to be a success, that’s only because expectations were set so low that it not preciptating an epic failure, and leading to further catastrophes, masks the real truth of its actual failure, and, therefore, that those who advocated the surge are still, as you put it, “friggin morons.”

    Instead, as I said, he is scrubbing his criticisms of the surge from his website. Do you believe it’s possible that, contrary to your assessment, Obama might actually think that, just maybe, the surge has worked, and that, rather than honestly admit he was mistaken when he opposed it, and when he continued to insist that it was a failure, he now “hopes” that people will simply forget his former position and assessments, and not notice that his view has “changed”? And that’s what explains the scrubbing? If it doesn’t, then I put the question to you again, if Obama was right, why is he now scrubbing?

  • It’s certainly possible that McCain doesn’t remember any of the last several years — he is an awfully forgetful fellow, especially when it comes to details he’d like Americans to forget — but to argue, in public, with a straight face, that he and Obama were on the same page about Bush’s pre-2007 Iraq policy is truly insane.

    Is it me or are elections getting more and more surreal every four years?

  • Comments are closed.