McCain takes ownership of Iraq policy

January 13, 2007

Because I recently suggested that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) might be trying to move away from the escalation policy he used to embrace, I thought it only fair to note that we can still call the 20,000 troop increase the McCain Doctrine.

Sen. John McCain defended President Bush’s Iraq plan on Friday as a difficult but necessary move, parting company with lawmakers questioning the wisdom of the military build up.

“I believe that together these moves will give the Iraqis and Americans the best chance of success,” said McCain, R-Ariz., a leading presidential contender for 2008.

McCain also took a shot at Democrats who say the United States must bring some troops home within four to six months.

“I believe these individuals … have a responsibility to tell us what they believe are the consequences of withdrawal in Iraq,” he said.

On the general point, I’m glad to see McCain endorse Bush’s “new” plan. As recently as last week, McCain seemed to be hedging, suggesting that the president’s so-called “surge” might be too small, even after personally recommending 20,000 additional troops. Now he’s gone ahead and embraced his own idea. If it fails, McCain will not be in a position to say, “If only Bush had listened to me, we would have had a chance at success.”

As for critics’ “responsibility” in this debate, McCain may not realize it, but that’s a two-way street.

McCain argued that we it’s incumbent on us to describe the consequences of withdrawal. The suggestion is not entirely without merit. I think the answer is fairly obvious: withdrawal, or redeployment, creates an incentive for Iraqi forces to step up and take control and removes our troops from the middle of a civil war. Could things get worse? Absolutely. But as every credible person has argued, there are no good options left, only degrees of bad options.

But shouldn’t the same question be asked of McCain? Doesn’t he have a responsibility to tell us what he believes are the consequences of his plan, should it fail? Will he be prepared to consider withdrawal if his last-ditch effort meets the same fate as all the previous efforts?

I also saw McCain in a TV interview yesterday, saying war critics have no policy proposals of their own. I’m afraid that argument jumped the shark quite a while back. I’m afraid the typical discussion has effectively become the following:

War critic: Given the deteriorating conditions in Iraq, I think it’s time to withdraw U.S. forces.

War supporter: No, that’ll make things worse.

War critic: Alright, how about a redeployment plan in which we’ll be at the periphery of the civil war in Iraq.

War supporter: No, that won’t work, either.

War critic: How about a series of enforced benchmarks?

War supporter: No.

War critic: How about a timeline, with enforced deadlines, so that Iraqis know we’re not there indefinitely?

War supporter: No.

War critic: How about a more prominent role for Congress in shaping war policy?

War supporter: No.

War critic: This isn’t getting us anywhere.

War supporter: See? War critics don’t have any ideas to offer.

It’s getting tiresome.

There is a reason why Bill “Wimp of War” Kristol embraced McCain in 2000. Now it is quite apparent some six years later.

  • As Rice stated, there is no Plan B. The Democrats should be screaming from the top of their lungs: what constitutes success? what constitutes failure? What is the backup plan if this fails? Failure is always an option. With this administration it is almost guaranteed.

  • Through 2008, I’m planning on referring to the “new” policy as the “McCain-Bush surgette”, most likely preceded by the word “failed”.

    (I’ll be thrilled if it works, because I am sickened by the prospect of leaving the Iraqis in a mess that we made, but I’ll be surprised if we see anything other than more mess.)

  • Is there a rate at which we could withdraw soldiers that would not be noticed?

    I can see McCain listening to the arguments of Big Oil and Big God and nodding, nodding.

  • McCain…was almost dispassionate when he told a NEWSWEEK reporter that he wishes to expand the war in Iraq. His attitude was coolly self-assured. “All of us establish records,” he says about his repeated calls for more troops in Iraq. “If I was wrong in the beginning, my credibility might be somewhat less now.” McCain suggests that the Bush administration, now scrambling to find enough fresh troops to “surge” in Iraq, should have listened to him all along. “I hate to sound so ‘I told you so,’ but I’ve been saying we’ve got to have a larger Army and Marine Corps for a long, long time.” McCain can sound a little matter-of-fact about sending young people off to combat, but he marches to a different drummer than most Americans. His 18-year-old son Jimmy, a newly enlisted Marine, may soon be deployed to Iraq, the fourth-generation McCain to go to war.

    Let’s go to the film.

    John McCain. During the Senate debate, McCain echoed Bush in declaring Saddam a “grave and gathering danger, a clear threat to American security.” He claimed that Saddam “has developed stocks of germs and toxins in sufficient quantities to kill the entire population of the Earth multiple times” and that Iraq was on a “crash course to construct a nuclear weapon.” (Not even the overstated and flawed intelligence used such hair-raising terms.) He noted he was “deeply skeptical” of inspections. And he led the effort to beat back an amendment that would push Bush to focus on disarming Saddam rather than regime change. In his final speech, McCain reached for eloquence and tried to portray a war against Iraq as a sign and obligation of American greatness. The vote on the president’s resolution, he said, “will answer the fundamental question about America’s purpose in the world.” He laid it on thick: The vote, he said:

    Will reveal whether we are brave, and wise, or reluctant, self-doubting…It will test us…It will help determine whether the greater Middle East will progress toward possession of the values Americans hold to be universal.

    As for what would follow such a war, McCain was positive Iraqis would embrace the liberators from America: “Our regional allies who oppose using force against Saddam Hussein warn of uncontrollable popular hostility to an American attack on Iraq… [T]he people of that tortured society will surely dance on the regime’s grave… [I]t’s a safe assumption that Iraqis will be grateful to whoever is responsible for securing their freedom.” McCain said nothing about the potential problems ahead. He did say, “By voting to give the president the authority to wage war, we assume and share his responsibility for the war’s outcome.” Bottom line: Wrong on the nature of the threat and wrong on what would follow the invasion—and yearning for a good war to pro

  • Both Bush and McCain have in the last several days taken “ownership” or “responsibility” for failures, failings and plans doomed to fail. But their false mea culpas, or mea culpas in waiting, carry with them no price for the failure.

    In other governments, acceptance of responsibility of a massive failure would carry with it the ritual sepuku of at least a round of firings, if not the resignation of the leader themself. With these guys …. nothing. During Bush’s speech, I have no doubt he had a hard time with saying the words “failure” and “responsibility.” But other than a slightly dented ego, Bush, nor McCain, will pay any price for their ill-conceived ideas that resulted in an unbearable number of deaths.

    The Dems, the left and the media need to start rattling the cages and demand that for such massive FUBARs a political and career price needs to be paid to the American people and the world. Bush has no problems making others suffer capital punishment for capital crimes. Now Bush needs to step up to the plate and take his due like a man.

  • “I believe these individuals … have a responsibility to tell us what they believe are the consequences of withdrawal in Iraq,” he said.

    Still think he’s Mr. Straight Talker?

    Even Freedom Fries can see the writing on the wall.

    McCain argued that we [sic] it’s incumbent on us to describe the consequences of withdrawal. The suggestion is not entirely without merit. I think the answer is fairly obvious: withdrawal, or redeployment, creates an incentive for Iraqi forces to step up and take control and removes our troops from the middle of a civil war. Could things get worse?

    Maybe things won’t get appreciably better or worse. Then we’ll have been keeping our troops there to get shot at at a cost of billions of dollars- a pretty grisly realization, eh?

    War supporter: See? War critics don’t have any ideas to offer.

    It’s getting tiresome.

    CB! What, are you saying you’re anti-feminist? Are you saying that war supporters are not qualified to comment on the war?!?

    I’m sure a slick Republican commenter will be along in a second to whump you good with those awesome and obviously honest arguments they used to smear Ms. Boxer.

  • McCain takes ownership of Iraq policy

    Going going gone, sold to the little man from Arizona.

    After a session with my krystal balls, I predict McCain won’t run for president in 2008 either because of health issues or the unpopularity of the war.

    It’s awful I know, but when I read that McCain is one of four generations of his family to go to war, I picture a flock of penguins–egg-shaped and unable to lift their arms.

  • I don’t care who owns Iraq policy. Iraq policy consistently sucks. Have you noticed the details of the “surge?” Not only are 21,000 extra troops not enough, according to people who are paid to know, but the plan is to deploy them piecemeal! That’s insane!

    Once more, a great power underestimates an enemy. Those poor soldiers. In WW I, some German commander commented on British regulars who were being slaughtered in heaps: “Lions led by donkeys.”

  • “War supporter: See? War critics don’t have any ideas to offer.”

    Talk to Iran?

    WS: NO, no, you can’t talk to Iran.

    F**k you BG2 and McCan’t. Don’t claim we don’t have ideas and then shoot down each one we present just because you don’t want to talk to people smarter than you are (still haven’t answered that letter from the President of Iran, eh?). Your ideas may be clever but your execution SUCKS.

    For instance: Idea, take the gloves off and allow the Military to “do what it needs to” in Iraq.

    Execution, attack a diplomatic office in Irbil and piss off the Kurds, the only faction in Iraq who (used to) liked us.

    Idea, add 21,500 more soldiers to Iraq to stablize it.

    Execution, dribble them in a brigade at a time once a month so that the insurgents and militias have time to adapt.

    Effing morons!

  • “I believe that together these moves will give the Iraqis and Americans the best chance of success,”

    I hardly call that ownership. It might give us the best chance, what what are the chances is what I want to know. If a thousand to one is our best chance, we might want to rethink the best chance stratagy.

    • Comments are closed.