John McCain, when discussing the war in Iraq, hasn’t had any luck at all lately. He’s repeatedly been confused about al Qaeda’s and Iran’s role in Iraq; he’s publicly contradicted Gen. David Petraeus; and now he’s not quite sure who came out on top after Maliki’s failed offensive in Basra.
Asked if the Basra campaign had backfired, he said: “Apparently it was Sadr who asked for the ceasefire, declared a ceasefire. It wasn’t Maliki. Very rarely do I see the winning side declare a ceasefire. So we’ll see.”
I can appreciate as much as the next guy that events were unfolding quickly in Iraq last week, and that much of the conflict is and was confusing. McCain has probably been fairly busy, you know, being a presidential candidate, and hasn’t had a lot of time to keep up on current events.
But for him to suggest that Maliki was on the “winning side” of events suggests McCain simply has no idea what’s going on.
Maliki launched an offensive, oversaw a “crackdown” on Shiite militias, vowed to see this through to “victory,” and was backed up by U.S. forces, despite his apparent reluctance to tell U.S. officials about his plans before he attacked. And the whole thing turned out to be a disaster: “If anyone comes out a winner, it’s Sadr,” said Joost Hiltermann, Middle East director of the International Crisis Group. “He’s coming out stronger, and Maliki looks like a lame duck.”
These aren’t complicated theories McCain doesn’t have time to digest; these are the basics. It’s the kind of information one could glean from reading a newspaper. And yet, McCain — running on a platform of military and national security expertise — still appears fundamentally confused.
Too bad Lieberman wasn’t there to whisper reality in his ear.
Jonathan Stein pointed to this item, in which Sadr’s forces claimed victory.
At the Sadr Office in the centre of the massive slum in northeast Baghdad, home to 2.5 million impoverished Shias, the receptionists greeted visitors with sweets to mark their victory over Nouri al-Maliki, the increasingly isolated Iraqi Prime Minister, who directed the assault on Shia rogue militias in Basra, the lawless southern oil city. “This is for victory over Maliki,” one said with a grin. “The fighting ended on our terms.”
Certainly Mr al-Maliki’s huge gamble appeared to have failed yesterday. Having vowed to crush Shia militias with a 30,000-strong force in Basra, he ended up suing for peace with the people he had described as “worse than al-Qaeda.” Al-Mahdi Army kept its weapons and turf.
…Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish lawmaker, said that the latest spasm of violence merely showed Iran’s huge influence in Iraq, holding enormous sway over al-Mahdi Army and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the main Shia party in the Government, as well as its own militia, the Badr Brigades. “It’s a big victory for Iran over America and for Moqtada over Maliki,” he said. “Iran has the upper hand in Iraq. They are choosing the time to start trouble and they are choosing the time to end it.”
And what about McCain’s argument that “it was Sadr who asked for the ceasefire”? First, it was Maliki’s forces that made overtures to Sadr. Second, Sadr ended Maliki’s offensive on his own terms — by having the commander of Iran’s Qods brigades broker a settlement after Maliki’s efforts failed.
I suppose McCain will go a week without an embarrassing Iraq-related gaffe sooner or later, but this is not that week.