Watching it all fall apart at once

Matt Yglesias had a very good item this morning, noting the “debacle” for the Republican approach to foreign policy.

[McCain had] spent, several weeks with the main theme of his campaign being, quite literally, to criticize Barack Obama for not having been physically present in Iraq recently. This (of course) got Obama to go to Iraq, thus setting up a dilemma. Either Obama would survey the “progress” in Iraq and change his position, thus making him a flip-flopper, or else he would refuse to change his position, thus making him obstinate and out of touch with reality.

But instead of either of those things happening, Obama went to Iraq and Iraqi leaders said he’d been right all along! That’s about as close to “game, set, match” as you get in terms of real world events influencing your political campaign. What’s more, given the domestic situation and John McCain’s inability to talk about domestic issues persuasively, he can’t afford to play for a draw on Iraq.

Quite right. David Kurtz added how surprised he is to see “just how complete the Republican collapse on foreign policy has been in the short span of just a few weeks.” Kurtz noted that it’s “hard to think of any recent historical parallels.”

I’d just add that it goes beyond just Iraq. Over the last couple of months, the entire GOP foreign policy — the strategy, the worldview, the assumptions, the tactics — has crumbled to the point of destruction. The Bush administration bucked the McCain approach and adopted the Clinton policy to reach an accord with North Korea. McCain endorsed Obama’s policy on Afghanistan. Bush established the most direct diplomatic efforts with Iran since 1979. Just today, the administration sounded very Obama-esque in reaching out to Syria, which would have been unthinkable a year ago. Hell, the Bush administration is even distributing memoranda, telling officials to stop using language such as “jihadists,” “mujahedeen,” and “Islamo-fascism.”

And what’s left? To hear McCain tell it, the surge.

For McCain, that’s literally the only thing that matters anymore. In 2007, Bush and McCain decided it was wise to send thousands of additional troops into Iraq, in order to provide “breathing space” for political progress. Violence came down, Iraq became less unstable, but the political progress hasn’t materialized. To that, McCain effectively says, “Close enough.”

Now, I thought there was a general consensus among experts that the reduction in violence in Iraq can be connected to a variety of factors, including the surge, the “Awakening” in Anbar, the Sadr ceasefire, the completion of ethnic cleansing campaigns, and the fact that we’ve put a lot of the people who were shooting at us on the payroll. McCain sees a direct and unambiguous connection — more U.S. troops went in, Iraq got better — but that’s probably an overly simplistic take on what’s transpired.

But nevertheless, even if we accept McCain’s unsophisticated spin at face value, there’s just not much of an argument here. McCain, faced with the most important national security and foreign policy decision in a generation, got the war wrong. Indeed, he kept getting the war wrong, telling Americans we had to “stay the course” while the Bush/Rumsfeld policy was failing miserably. Now there’s a sovereign Iraqi government, and wouldn’t you know it, the prime minister thinks McCain is still wrong.

And the surge is supposed to be the saving grace? McCain got the big question wrong, and was half-right about a tactical decision after supporting a half-decade of failure? Please.

At this point, McCain has nothing to fall back on. His surrogates, desperate to find something, have fallen back to, “Oh yeah, we’ll he’s still inexperienced!”

It’s the wholesale collapse of the Republican foreign policy. Let’s see if voters notice.

After he spoke with the White House, Iraq’s prime minister does not think McCain is still wrong.

  • His surrogates, desperate to find something, have fallen back to, “Oh yeah, we’ll he’s still inexperienced!”

    And of course “the media is biased, WHAH!!!!”

    Which of course is what Dole tried to do, and McCain scoffed at, in 1996:

    Dole, on the other hand, was visibly frustrated in the final weeks of his campaign, at one point blaming the media, whom he said had given Clinton an easy ride. “Where is the outrage?” he repeatedly bellowed at a rally in fall ’96. “Where is the outrage?” Watching the events offstage, McCain, according to the Associated Press, “rolled his eyes.” “I know it is not productive to beat up on the press,” McCain said, a line he virtually repeated to NEWSWEEK last week when asked about his own press coverage.

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/141506/page/2

  • After he spoke with the White House, Iraq’s prime minister does not think McCain is still wrong.


    It’s just that all McCain’s ideas are the opposite of Iraq’s prime minister. That doesn’t mean he thinks McCain is wrong!

  • McCain’s emphasis on the surge has been so over-the-top this week that he comes across as sounding almost pathologically inflexible. It’s like he’s got Tourette’s Syndrome and can’t help himself from repeating, the surge!, the surge!, the surge!

    Meanwhile, Obama talks broadly of strategy, resources, and the future. The contrast is striking and ought to have the McCain more ruffled than usual.

  • Racer X :

    So, you are criticizing McCain for being CONSISTENT?! I agree that it is not productive to beat up on the press. Take your case directly to the American people, I always say.

  • “McCain, faced with the most important national security and foreign policy decision in a generation, got the war wrong.”

    That has to be the hammer. JSMcC*nt says Obama “got the Surge wrong” and the Obama campaign should reply that the American People believe that JSMcC*nt got the War in Iraq wrong. Spit it back in his face, every time.

    Defeat JSMcC*nt on every issue. Don’t give him the courtesy of suggesting he might be better at anything (except picking trophy wives).

  • Speaking of the McCain campaign disintegrating, there has been some buzz this morning about Chalabi taking credit for Maliki backing the Obama plan. It has focused, see here for example, on Chalabi screwing his ally McCain. I think there may be something else at play.

    Chalabi must know that his Iran ties are well known in this country. He may have decided that If he can push the story that that he is behind the Maliki statements this would discredit them. Thereby helping his ally McCain.

    If Chalabi is nothing else, he is a master manipulator. With McCain in the White House he will still have access. With Obama in the White House, not so much. And even if McCain doesn’t win, this claim won’t hurt him with Obama.

    Just something to think about.

  • Let’s see if voters notice.

    Probably not, since the media they would learn such things from is too busy following the McCain camp’s shiny “VP rumors” bauble.

    Maybe we should just concede the McCain position on the surge, to disarm it, leaving him with about a 100:1 ratio of wrong to right to campaign on. Heck, we could still attack it around the edges:

    “Yes, Senator McCain supported the surge which – while not providing the advertised political stability has, fortunately, reduced American casualties since it began in 2007. But the surge would not have been necessary had Senator McCain not supported so many wrong decisions of the Bush Administration before 2007. The surge would not have been necessary had a Republican administration not taken America to war on false pretenses in the first place. And while the reduction of American casualties in Iraq is certainly good news, what is not such good news is that at the same time there has been a sharp increase in American casualties in Afghanistan, the real source of 9/11 attacks, the real front line against al Queda, and there has been little we can do about it because all of our troops are in Iraq where Senator McCain wanted them. That is what I mean when I talk about a long history of wrong decisions on military policy; the benefits of the surge, while welcome, are Senator McCain’s equivalent of a stopped clock being right twice a day — but in these dangerous times we need a President with good judgment the other 23 hours and 58 minutes as well. We need a President who will not mislead the country into a needless war that costs over a trillion dollars, over 4,000 American lives, and countless injuries. We need a President who keeps his eye on the real battle and makes sure we have enough troops in reserve to go to the real front line, the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Twenty years in the Senate does not make one an expert, and it does not prove one’s judgment. Twenty years in the Senate makes you a Washington insider who thinks inside the box. We need a new approach: a foreign and military policy that makes sense, that makes us safer, that represents real change — change we can believe in, change that gives our servicemen and women and their families and communities hope, that gives our allies hope, and that returns the United States to moral leadership in world affairs.”

  • The Bush/McCain GOP—it’s like one of those cheap horror flicks, where the vampires suddenly find themselves exposed to the sun, burst into flame, and die screaming piteously.

    I like it. Pass the popcorn….

  • Senator Obama was RIGHT when he OPPOSED the Iraq War.

    General Shinseki was RIGHT when he said we needed a MUCH LARGER force if we were going to invade Iraq.

    These two facts trump any and all other arguments. Period.

    You can’t make up for one of the biggest foreign policy blunders of all time with a bandaid.

    It’s like saying to a patient – “We amputated your hands instead of your feet, but we caught on to our mistake before we amputated your arms.”

    Not a huge comfort.

  • He’s gonna blow a gasket at one of the debates, mark my words. He’s getting close now.

  • Wow. The Surge. Huh. I mean, making the Surge – a temporary increase in troops – your cause celebre is extra amounts of stupid. Especially since it forces McCain to argue that “temporary” means keeping more of our already overstretched military in the region until … something happens.

    But that’s been BushCo’s take the whole damn war.

    And we’ve already signalled that we’re tired of the war. I guess the Senator from Arizona was too busy worrying about the Iraq/Pakistan border to notice.

  • It’s the wholesale collapse of the Republican foreign policy. Let’s see if voters notice the so-called “liberal media” notices.

    Fixed.

  • JakeD: And what the hell does that mean, the supreme court? What, you want it stacked with right wing activist judges who’d overturn Roe Vs. Wade, eliminate consumer protections, and destroy the Bill of Rights, all in an effort to protect corporate monied interests?

    Please. Step aside now son. The world has changed and passed you by.

  • Last time I checked, Planned Parenthood is a “corporate monied interest.” They once told abolitionists to “stop aside” too …

  • To be fair, John Kerry laid the groundwork for this when he inserted the name Tora Bora into the mainstream consciousness in his first debate with Bush. The whole Afghanistan-Iraq tension has been growing steadily ever since. Too bad his domestic debate was so horrible.

  • You know, Obama, as “inexperienced” as he apparently is (they keep saying so, so it must be true, right?), is making what seems to be the right moves on everything. What’s the fact that McCain keeps stealing Obama’s ideas say about John McCain’s “experience?”

  • what, JakeD, it isn’t enough that 7 of the 9 are Republican appointees? and Breyer is hardly a true progressive. seriously, if a bunch of Republican appointees most of whom (except Thomas and Alito) have stellar credentials wont legislate far-right positions from the bench, perhaps that is less a problem with the Court and more a problem with the far-right positions?

    really, what is it you want the court to do that it isn’t presently doing?

  • Yes, but he’s a Republican, so all that doesn’t matter, since Republicans are always better at foreign policy…..

  • I believe the Supreme Court is slowly working to overturn Roe v. Wade. A few key “replacements” will speed that process up (Just like Fort Sumter did ; )

  • JakeD: You have outed yourself as a right wingnut. You should leave now before you are tainted by our liberal ideas.

    You also said, “I’m still voting for McCain. Two words: SUPREME COURT.”

    I’ve got bad news for you friend. McCain isn’t going to put forth another judge in the make of Alito/Roberts. McCain will be putting out a centrist at best, and a left leaner more likely, who would be able to get through the Democratically controlled congress. Not that McCain has a hope in hell of being elected.

  • Get out of the office, guys!

    “Game, set and match”? All this stuff with the Iraqi government coming out for Obama’s plan isn’t going to resonate outside of the blogosphere. Maybe not even in it.

    First of all, it’s too early to make much difference. Secondly, the media is going to continue to work on behalf of McCain. Third, McCain is now settled into his preferred mode of campaigning: underdog. Finally, the “Obama was wrong on the surge, which is working” thing is going to have some legs.

  • Gridlock:

    Chances are still better that McCain puts forth another judge in the make of Alito/Roberts than Obama doing so ; )

  • JakeD, for the Court to overturn Roe would require the Court to do everything you wingy’s complain about: being “activist” and “legislating from the bench.”

    I’ll give you that Roe has been, can be, and will be watered down, but other than late term intact D&X restrictions and perhaps additional types of parental/informed consent, even that wont go much farther. Trust me, even the RATS block wouldn’t all approve the new South Dakota law. And you talk about more justices like Roberts and Alito — here’s a bet I’d be happy to take: if it actually came down to directly reversing Roe, and it was 4-4 and everyone was looking at the Chief, Roberts would not overturn it.

    Alito would, of course, but only because he is unfit — he is purely a partisan in a robe – which the right has always complained about until it looks like they can get enough partisans in robes on their side. a little hypocrisy with your “hear ye”?

  • My foreign policy is to get elected so we can stay. So, dependant on the situation on the ground, we will pull troops out of Iraq they day I enter office.

  • We still have a few months to go for the general election. There’s no doubt in my mind that Bush will announce in October a major drawdown, to start after he leaves, and proclaim that his policies produced victory. He may even let McCain stand next to him at some point and claim that McCain’s support for the surge helped. Bush will give Maliki whatever else he wants in terms of deal points as long as our oil cos. keep their hands on the oil spigot, our defense contractors get some fat contracts, and our troops and contractors get immunity from local prosecution.

  • ““Yes, Senator McCain supported the surge which – while not providing the advertised political stability has, fortunately, reduced American casualties since it began in 2007.”

    Wrong. The Surge may have reduced American and Iraqi casualty RATES, but there is no way it can have reduced American casualties. Staying in Iraq means there will be more casualties. Staying for the Surge meant there were more American casualties. Now the Surge might have meant there were fewer Iraqi casualties, but having achieved so little during the Surge on reconciliation, won’t those casualties happen eventually?

  • My only concern about all of this is that while Obama seems to have been very successful at combating McCain’s stupid attacks, he is still letting the Right define the agenda. Granted, they are having their ass handed to them, but why is he not moving to a position of real strength – namely talking about the economy that the Bush adminstration has left us with?

    The other concern I have is that the Right seems to be able to successfully ignore everything that is wrong with McCain. Now, I know they’d say the same about people that follow Obama, but it is amazing the level at which they will ignore what doesn’t agree with them. What does this bode for the general election?

  • good clarification, Lance. no amount of surging can bring back those lives lost to compensation for Bush’s inadequate manhood.

  • What angers me most every time I hear or read people talking about Iraq devastation is that it’s always around the 4500 (and counting) dead Americans. The lives of those poor troops will never be the same.

    What I don’t hear much about are the tens of thousands of severely injured troops, people who will need care for the remainder of their lives. Men and women who have lost limbs, eyesight, hearing, and what their families will have to deal with forever. And how the lives of these brave men and women were and are forever altered.

    This isn’t just about dead troops. And the numbers are staggering.

  • So JakeD, you’d have the U.S., a so-called Democracy and beacon of freedom and richest nation in the world already, outlaw abortion like the third world nations in Africa and South America?

  • JakeD: “Take it up with Steve if you don’t like my posts.”

    Hey Steve, JakeD is touching me again! And he’s imitating you. But every time you turn around he stops.

    Now he’s giving me the finger. Steve! Steve?

  • the sooner we stop answering idiot posts on this site, the sooner they’ll leave.
    don’t feed the trolls.

  • MsJoanne said:
    This isn’t just about dead troops. And the numbers are staggering.

    So true and so important. Sometimes surviving can be hell.

  • chrenson said:
    Now he’s giving me the finger. Steve! Steve?

    LOL. Yeah and he has stuff leaking out of his bottom. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

  • MsJoanne,
    And that is the problem, in a nutshell: We, the people of the U.S.A, do not recognize the humanity of the people, whether “ours” or “theirs”, who are being impacted every day, every hour, every second. We seem to be a culture obsessed with numbers, statistics, facts, but no humanity. Trillions of dollars are being “invested” in a “war” of occupation, a “war” on terror, and no one is counting the cost in human terms. What is it like to have to leave your home and travel to another country, perhaps never to return? What is it like to know that your loved one(s) will suffer for the rest of their lives from the trauma of violence, whether physical, mental, emotional or spiritual? The atrocities of war are incalculable, and the politicians do not address them. And, the people do not force their hand. One courageous volunteer from McCain’s campaign called him to task on the inadequacy of his paid staff, and he joked about their being “on work furlough.” Someone needs to call him on his inhumanity to his own staff, his wife, the people of Iran who he wants to kill with “our” cigarettes. But no, the CSM is called liberal and yet fails to cover the outright lies of this one candidate. I am going on too long.

    I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
    peace,
    st john

  • I wish the media would stop using that Bushie euphemism “surge.” A surge is something that quickly builds and just as quickly subsides, like those bursts of electric current you want to protect your computer from. When was the quick subsiding of this military “surge?” Call it what it is, an escalation.

  • mim@44, that’s a very good point. The right has been superb (and superbly Orwellian) in using language, and we progressives and Democrats have let them set the verbal agenda. We need to take it back, as you suggest.

    I also prefer “forced childbirth” and “pro-choice” in the abortion brouhaha.

  • My only comment to JakeD …why does he think he has the right to decide what a women does with her body? Maybe we should make castration an option for these anti-choice men….no not an option… a law! After all these men who hate women are all castrated there would be many fewer abortions….and fewer rapes.

  • It’s about judgment, my friends….

    “I believe that either today or tomorrow – and I’m not privy to his schedule – Sen. Obama will be landing in Iraq with some other senators” [John McCain, prior to Obama delegation arriving unannounced in Iraq, 07/18/08]

    “And I believe that the success will be fairly easy” and “There’s no doubt in my mind that… we will be welcomed as liberators.” [John McCain 3/24/03]

    “There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias. So I think they can probably get along.” [John McCain 4/23/03]

    “Look, we’re going to send young men and women in harm’s way and that’s always a great danger, but I cannot believe that there is an Iraqi soldier who is going to be willing to die for Saddam Hussein, particularly since he will know that our objective is to remove Saddam Hussein from power.”
    [John McCain 9/15/02]

    “But the fact is, I think we could go in with much smaller numbers than we had to do in the past. But any military man worth his salt is going to have to prepare for any contingency, but I don’t believe it’s going to be nearly the size and scope that it was in 1991.” [John McCain 09/15/02]

    “He’s a patriot who has the best interests of his country at heart.” ]John McCain on Ahmed Chalabi, 2002]

    “Absolutely. Absolutely.” [John McCain, asked by Chris Matthews, “you believe that the people of Iraq or at least a large number of them will treat us as liberators?” 03/12/03]

    I think the victory will be rapid, within about three weeks. [John McCain, MSNBC, 1/28/03]
    It’s clear that the end is very much in sight. … It won’t be long. It, it’ll be a fairly short period of time. [John McCain, ABC, 4/9/03]

    We’re either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months. [Meet The Press, 11/12/06]

    “Well, then why was there a banner that said mission accomplished on the aircraft carrier?” [John McCain, responding to assertion by Fox News’ Neil Cavuto that “many argue the conflict isn’t over,” [John McCain, 06/11/03]

    “My friends, the war will be over soon, the war for all intents and purposes although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years.” [John McCain, 02/25/08]

  • MsSwin said: “I believe that either today or tomorrow – and I’m not privy to his schedule – Sen. Obama will be landing in Iraq with some other senators” [John McCain, prior to Obama delegation arriving unannounced in Iraq, 07/18/08]

    I imagine some members of Senator Obama’s Secret Service security detail would like to have a conversation with Senator John Sidney (5’9″) McCain…
    … in a dark alley, with rubber hoses.

    JSMcCUNT deliberately and foolishly endangered the life of the Democratic nominee for the Presidency of the United States (and two other sitting U.S. Senators). I think that’s pretty close to treason myself.

    He really is a small man, in every sense of the word.

  • Senator Obama or McCain and congress can say what they would like to do about Iraq….BUT the only people who will make the changes are Pres Bush ,Gen Petraus, Amb Crocker and the Iraq Goverment…..Drawdown will depend on conditions in Iraq…..Iraq spokesman said Dec 31 2010 was a fair time frame if conditions on the ground permited it…..

    Obama’s time frame was 16 months to bring 15 combat brigades home….That takes care of 60,000 combat troops but what about the other 80,000 support troops ?? It takes as much time to put troops in,, as it does to bring them out.

    By the time Pres Bush leaves office on Jan 2009 ..The Iraq Iran and Afghanistan issues will have changed ……

    The way to defeat a country is shut off its supply lines…….We import most of our oil,,,,,How long can America defend its self witrh no oil ????……..National security is the issue for drilling more oil… not the $4.00 at the pump now……congress can only see getting reelected not National security….Alt energy is down the road 10-30 years…Oil and national security first then then we will have time to get altenergy

  • Comments are closed.