McCain's embarrassing assertions on the Iraq surge

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Even military leaders involved in last year's troop escalation agree that the prospect of U.S. withdrawal is the main reason violence has ebbed.



By Joe Conason

July 25, 2008 | "The surge worked."

So insistently do the media's mainstream and conservative commentators repeat the Iraq success meme -- echoing the mantra of George W. Bush and John McCain -- that to probe its premises and assumptions is not permitted.

To question the success of last year's troop escalation supposedly implies a negative assessment of the performance of American soldiers and Marines and may even imperil their morale, creating a frame that stifles dissent.

But now McCain himself has inadvertently reopened real debate on the subject by claiming that strategies and tactics used to quell the Sunni insurgency long before the surge troops arrived in Iraq should nevertheless be attributed to the surge. Indeed, the surge is so brilliant and so powerful, according to McCain, that it makes things happen in the past as well as in the present and the future.

That must be what passes for "maverick" thinking, although there are certainly other names for it. For those of us who remain tethered to reality, however, the success of the surge must be measured in a context that accounts for many other factors -- as must the simple assertion that we are winning the war in Iraq as a result of the escalation.


The rebuttals of McCain's embarrassing assertion that the Sunni insurgency's turn toward the U.S. and away from al-Qaida came because of the surge have been ample and devastating. His badly skewed sense of time and events has raised fresh doubts about his fitness for the presidency, since he was either incapable of comprehending contemporary facts or intentionally misleading the public when he told CBS anchor Katie Couric that the Anbar awakening "began" during the surge (and that troop escalation enabled the U.S. to protect a Sunni sheik who was actually assassinated during that period).

But aside from that moment of untruth, there are deeper problems in all the airy assertions about the triumph of the surge.

First there is the matter of that shift by the Sunni insurgents, which had nothing to do with the escalation. What changed the minds of the Sunni rebels in Anbar province and elsewhere was a revamped counterinsurgency doctrine that emphasized careful bribery over indiscriminate reprisals -- and that seized upon the growing alienation of the Sunnis from the bullying, murderous leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq. The American military officers who oversaw and implemented that strategy, including Gen. David Petraeus, deserve full credit. Even Petraeus, a strong supporter of the surge, makes very limited claims about its role in bolstering the Sunni turn, however.

In fact, it was the prospect of an early U.S. withdrawal, not the surge, that prompted the Sunni insurgents to change sides, according to the American officers who worked with their leaders. A fascinating article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs by Georgetown professor Colin Kahl and retired Gen. William Odom quotes Marine Maj. Gen. John Allen, who ran the tribal engagement operations in Anbar during 2007, saying that the Democratic sweep in the 2006 midterm elections and the increasing demand for withdrawal by the American public "did not go unnoticed" among the province's Sunni sheiks. "They talked about it all the time." Allen also told Kahl that the Marines exploited those concerns by telling the sheiks: "We are leaving ... We don't know when we are leaving, but we don't have much time, so you [the Anbaris] better get after this." Kahl and Odom write that "the risk that U.S. forces would leave pushed the Sunnis to cut a deal to protect their interests while they still could." They also quote Maj. Niel Smith, the operations officer at the U.S. Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Center, and Col. Sean MacFarland, commander of U.S. forces in Ramadi during that crucial period, who wrote a long article on the Anbar awakening in the journal Military Review. "A growing concern that the U.S. would leave Iraq and leave the Sunnis defenseless against Al-Qaeda and Iranian-supported militias," they recalled, "made these younger [tribal] leaders [who led the awakening] open to our overtures."

There is no doubt that the surge has coincided with diminishing violence in Iraq, although kidnappings and bombings continue daily. As many critics have pointed out, surge proponents always compare the present period with the worst months of 2006 and 2007 -- and the arrival of 30,000 troops is not necessarily why the killing has ebbed.

Perhaps the most plausible reason is that there are many fewer Iraqis to kill in the places where the worst violence occurred, because so many of them have abandoned their homes or left the country altogether. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that roughly 5 million Iraqis have fled, with nearly half of them now living in Syria, Jordan or other neighboring states. Others belong to the cohort known as the "internally displaced," who have sought refuge from the militias "cleansing" Baghdad in either the northern or southern provinces. When there isn't anybody left to kill, the murder statistics tend to improve.

Another fortunate coincidence was the decision of Muqtada al-Sadr, the rebel Shiite leader, to order his militia leaders to stand down in August 2007, just as the surge troops were arriving. That cease-fire broke down last spring in southern Iraq but was then reinstated, in part at the instigation of Iran and in part because of Sadr's own political ambitions.

Why conditions became better in Iraq is a crucial issue not only because it may affect the outcome of the U.S. presidential election but, more important, because it indicates the best way out. For McCain and Bush, proving the success of the surge is important because that means the occupation must continue. For the overwhelming majority of Americans, including Barack Obama, that is an unsustainable option.

What we should learn from the history of the surge is that only the prod of withdrawal, rather than indefinite escalation, can persuade the Iraqis to defend themselves as a sovereign state.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason...pinion/conason

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[Rohirrim]

Here's your surge:
Perhaps the most plausible reason is that there are many fewer Iraqis to kill in the places where the worst violence occurred, because so many of them have abandoned their homes or left the country altogether. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that roughly 5 million Iraqis have fled, with nearly half of them now living in Syria, Jordan or other neighboring states. Others belong to the cohort known as the "internally displaced," who have sought refuge from the militias "cleansing" Baghdad in either the northern or southern provinces. When there isn't anybody left to kill, the murder statistics tend to improve.

Just what we need in the White House; Another stubborn, uninformed, incurious, ignorant man.

Four more years!

[The Lone Bolt]

The American military officers who oversaw and implemented that strategy, including Gen. David Petraeus, deserve full credit.

Weren't you earlier claiming that this was "General Betray-Us" who was "cooking the books" and lying about the decline of violence in Iraq?

[Rohirrim]

Indeed, the surge is so brilliant and so powerful, according to McCain, that it makes things happen in the past as well as in the present and the future.

That's a good line.

[Bob]

I know that the left have invested heavily in America doing poorly in this war, but spin all you want the surge has been working to reduce American deaths and create a tad more stability there. If it wasn’t working, all we would hear is about is how weak, we are and how noble and crafty our enemy is.
In all honesty -- If I was a terrorist I will leave Iraq too ... I would suspect that like any cancer they will retreat, and pop up elsewhere. Kinda like “Whack a Mole” -- that admittedly makes it difficult. I guess McCain and Obama both want to whack them in Afghanistan, but if we crush them there, then what? We repeat the process over and over, and spend billions doing so. If we knew how to spend money more carefully at home that would be sustainable, but eventually any war that is fought carefully is more expensive and last longer. In WWII we did horrific things, but we decided, and the media decided that we were going to almost anything to win, including dropping the A bomb. It might just be worth the money to fight terrorists wherever they are but as far as I am concerned we have run out of money already – if we are broke, we cant fight them there, Or defend ourselves here. THAT, sadly is where we are dangerously getting close to at this point.

Regarding Iraq, we have made progress there (I would not have gone in to begin with) but I cant see how intentionally loosing face helps in a backwards part of the world where that definition of honor is all that matters. Folks see weakness and chip away. I think it is very hard for the folks especially those left of center to crawl into the head religious zealots who don’t hate us because of policies but because we are considered the Great Satan, and are primarily Christian. We stand in their way of the second coming of the Mahdi. For a certain percentage of folks over there -- until we are gone, they will be millions that are willing to blow themselves up to get at that end. How do you fight against that? Do you just try to understand them better, or send them to therapy? I understand that there is ambiguity in the world, but there is no ambiguity for that percentage over there that want conversion or death to the infidel. One group is willing to kill or die for their convictions, the other (us) is barely willing to defend ourselves because we "feel" somehow that we deserve anything that happens to us. Too many Americans feel guilty of some imagined ethical offence, and feel if they were really enlightened they should fill themselves with more self-loathing. Such thinking makes us weak at the core, and we look elsewhere for false ideological/political models to emulate.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Bob

I know that the left have invested heavily in America doing poorly in this war, but spin all you want the surge has been working to reduce American deaths and create a tad more stability there. If it wasn’t working, all we would hear is about is how weak, we are and how noble and crafty our enemy is.
.

You basically ignore those writings that you don't agree with, for example:

Perhaps the most plausible reason is that there are many fewer Iraqis to kill in the places where the worst violence occurred, because so many of them have abandoned their homes or left the country altogether. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that roughly 5 million Iraqis have fled, with nearly half of them now living in Syria, Jordan or other neighboring states. Others belong to the cohort known as the "internally displaced," who have sought refuge from the militias "cleansing" Baghdad in either the northern or southern provinces. When there isn't anybody left to kill, the murder statistics tend to improve.

By "the left" I'm assuming you mean anybody who doesn't drink the Bush Koolaid. Did you ever stop to think that there are some people out there who would prefer the truth over the political hype? What, do you think the Bushies and their cohorts are going to come out all of a sudden and go, "We ****ed up big time. Sorry folks." Hell no. It's like a used car salesman. He knows the car is a piece of ****. That's not his problem. He needs to sell it. That's where his concern begins and ends. All the Bushies want to do now is clear out with their pockets full of cash and leave their disaster in somebody else's lap. Most of the neocon slimeballs have already landed in cushy private industry payback positions. McFlip is playing the Bushie sound-loop on Iraq because he thinks it's a smart thing to play to the Right Wing.

What part of 4000 dead Americans, 10,000 wounded Americans and $1 trillion dollars down the Iraqi toilet don't you get?

Yesterday, a commission reported that we need to fix all our bridges immediately to the tune of $200 billion dollars. We'll have to raise taxes to do that because we're broke. Your hero Bush has ****canned this country for two decades into the future for Iraq.

Was it worth it? Who knows? Someday you can ask your grandkids. Just like some grandkids now might be asking if Vietnam was worth it. Sure. It was to some people. They got rich.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

Weren't you earlier claiming that this was "General Betray-Us" who was "cooking the books" and lying about the decline of violence in Iraq?

That doesn't make this point any less valid...

The worst part about McCain's gaffe - the part that should rightly be humiliating - is that he made the timeline gaffe in the middle of a statement saying "Obama doesn't understand the fundamental reality in Iraq, what's really hapened there, the fact is that The Surge made the Anbar Awakening possible, that's just an historical fact."

So he proved HE doesn't know the facts, while attacking Obama as ... not knowing the facts. I can't imagine a more humiliating context to completely misstate the important timeline of events in a war theater.

And it just so happens that this misunderstanding supports his position on the Surge in particular and Iraq war in general

.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

That doesn't make this point any less valid...

The worst part about McCain's gaffe - the part that should rightly be humiliating - is that he made the timeline gaffe in the middle of a statement saying "Obama doesn't understand the fundamental reality in Iraq, what's really hapened there, the fact is that The Surge made the Anbar Awakening possible, that's just an historical fact."

So he proved HE doesn't know the facts, while attacking Obama as ... not knowing the facts. I can't imagine a more humiliating context to completely misstate the important timeline of events in a war theater.

And it just so happens that this misunderstanding supports his position on the Surge in particular and Iraq war in general

.

So in other words you also are unwilling to admit that the real liars were Move-On.org.

But I agree about McCain. The gaffs are very disturbing.

However even if McCain was senile and dribbling and pooping his underwear he'd still be a more competent POTUS than bush.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

So he proved HE doesn't know the facts, while attacking Obama as ... not knowing the facts. I can't imagine a more humiliating context to completely misstate the important timeline of events in a war theater.

And the BushCo cheerleaders are making the same mistake in this discussion.

"Monkey see-monkey do," I guess.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

You basically ignore those writings that you don't agree with, for example:

And this:

Even Petraeus, a strong supporter of the surge, makes very limited claims about its role in bolstering the Sunni turn, however.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

So in other words you also are unwilling to admit that the real liars were Move-On.org.

But I agree about McCain. The gaffs are very disturbing.

However even if McCain was senile and dribbling and pooping his underwear he'd still be a more competent POTUS than bush.

That's an inspiring standard.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

So in other words you also are unwilling to admit that the real liars were Move-On.org.

But I agree about McCain. The gaffs are very disturbing.

However even if McCain was senile and dribbling and pooping his underwear he'd still be a more competent POTUS than bush.

I do think moveon.org went too far with that ad ... I don't think Petraeus is playing politics at all, I think like anybody doing a job - in any profession - he wants all the tools and assistance he can get to do the job right.

But he's too close to the situation to form a political opinion about the overall policy with regard to the war. Too close to the situation ... that's always been my reaction when Bush says he "listens" to his generals on the ground. I don't think commanders in the field have any business at all in formulating United States foregn policy ... their job description is much narrower.

Schwartzkopf never opined on the Gulf War politics ... he just did his job in the field. HOWEVER, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell in Washington did have policy input. That is how it should be.

.

[Pseudofool]

moveon.org clearly jumped the gun on that ad; it was tactless, wordplay--that used Petraeus as prop to attack Bush; I doubt they thought Patraeus would become a symbol of successful Iraq policy--they were wrong.

None of us have any way knowing what kind of general/politician Patraeus is, but it's clear that eveybody gives him a lots of credit...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Pseudofool

None of us have any way knowing what kind of general/politician Patraeus is, but it's clear that eveybody gives him a lots of credit...

Even Petraeus, a strong supporter of the surge, makes very limited claims about its role in bolstering the Sunni turn, however.

.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

You basically ignore those writings that you don't agree with, for example:

Perhaps the most plausible reason is that there are many fewer Iraqis to kill in the places where the worst violence occurred, because so many of them have abandoned their homes or left the country altogether. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that roughly 5 million Iraqis have fled, with nearly half of them now living in Syria, Jordan or other neighboring states. Others belong to the cohort known as the "internally displaced," who have sought refuge from the militias "cleansing" Baghdad in either the northern or southern provinces. When there isn't anybody left to kill, the murder statistics tend to improve.

By "the left" I'm assuming you mean anybody who doesn't drink the Bush Koolaid. Did you ever stop to think that there are some people out there who would prefer the truth over the political hype? What, do you think the Bushies and their cohorts are going to come out all of a sudden and go, "We ****ed up big time. Sorry folks." Hell no. It's like a used car salesman. He knows the car is a piece of ****. That's not his problem. He needs to sell it. That's where his concern begins and ends. All the Bushies want to do now is clear out with their pockets full of cash and leave their disaster in somebody else's lap. Most of the neocon slimeballs have already landed in cushy private industry payback positions. McFlip is playing the Bushie sound-loop on Iraq because he thinks it's a smart thing to play to the Right Wing.

What part of 4000 dead Americans, 10,000 wounded Americans and $1 trillion dollars down the Iraqi toilet don't you get?

Yesterday, a commission reported that we need to fix all our bridges immediately to the tune of $200 billion dollars. We'll have to raise taxes to do that because we're broke. Your hero Bush has ****canned this country for two decades into the future for Iraq.

Was it worth it? Who knows? Someday you can ask your grandkids. Just like some grandkids now might be asking if Vietnam was worth it. Sure. It was to some people. They got rich.

I know it is hard to keep people stright around here, but we probably have more in common then you would think. I do think it is worth it to win the conflict we are now in, but admittedly worry about the whack a mole approach to the problem. Bush has spent us to death, but I dont see anyone who I believe (except for Ron Paul) that would spent less and get us out of this mess. My point may be simply, that as we committed to Iraq I feel a responsbility to finish the job -- also it seems that the Dems (in general) were too quick to give up. Now that it might not end in a bigger bloodbath, we all should be grateful.

You know what I hate? -- It is the inability of the right or left to call out their own club. Bush has been Embarrassment to those few fiscal conservatives out there. McCain is horrible on the border, and has an ecomic plan that will likely sink us (cap and trade idiocy, just like Obama.) But man, now the Obama is the Choosen One there are few Dems willing to call him out on the issues -- that goes for the OM.

I disagreed with going into Iraq, but I would never be willing to help the enemy by assuming too frequently that we are always the evil entity – the media seemed to be against the troops to support a party that seemed to want us to do poorly (so the Donkey party would do better.) I know that war and politics will sadly always be mixed – but if a Dem pres starts a war, I can disagree but I wont be a traitor to those actually fighting it for political gain -- and confuse the troops with the enemy as happened in Vietnam, and as some have tried to do with our troops (think Code Pink.) Those idiots would have kissed Hitlers Boot, and let 6 million more Jews die, to avoid a conflict with. Sometimes war is needed. was this war needed? Nope. But do we need to win now? Yup.

[frerottenextelway]

Originally Posted by Pseudofool

moveon.org clearly jumped the gun on that ad; it was tactless, wordplay--that used Petraeus as prop to attack Bush; I doubt they thought Patraeus would become a symbol of successful Iraq policy--they were wrong.

None of us have any way knowing what kind of general/politician Patraeus is, but it's clear that eveybody gives him a lots of credit...

Fwiw, Moveon didn't come up with the name, Petraeus's fellow Generals did - to which Moveon then used in their NYT's ad.

[Tombstone RJ]

move-on.org is a whacko leftist site and that is all that really needs to be said. I refuse to even go there because if I did, I'd somehow validate its existence.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by frerottenextelway

Fwiw, Moveon didn't come up with the name, Petraeus's fellow Generals did - to which Moveon then used in their NYT's ad.

That's correct.

The right-wing disinfo slingers also consistently ignore the fact that Petraeus' boss (Admiral William J. Fallon - hardly a Moveon member) called Petraeus an "ass-kissing little chickensh*t."

[frerottenextelway]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

move-on.org is a whacko leftist site and that is all that really needs to be said. I refuse to even go there because if I did, I'd somehow validate its existence.

Way to back up your opinion. Let me do the work for you.

What does "the far left" mean? Here's the attitudes of Americans as a whole on these issues:

Iraq War:

Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?

Favor    Oppose    Unsure    
30       68          2

If you had to choose, would you rather see the next president keep the same number of troops in Iraq that are currently stationed there, or would you rather see the next president remove most U.S. troops in Iraq within a few months of taking office?

Keep Same    Remove Most    Unsure
33            64             3

Stem Cell research:

There is a type of medical research that involves using special cells, called embryonic stem cells, that might be used in the future to treat or cure many diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and spinal cord injury. It involves using human embryos discarded from fertility clinics that no longer need them. Some people say that using human embryos for research is wrong. Do you favor or oppose using discarded embryos to conduct stem cell research to try to find cures for the diseases I mentioned?

Favor    Oppose    Unsure
73      19          8

Abortion:

Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?

Legal:  All   Most   Illegal:  Most   All   Unsure
         19   38                24     13   6

Minimum wage:

Do you favor or oppose an increase in the minimum wage?

Favor    Oppose    Unsure
80        18         2

The Moveon and DailyKos "fringe left" reflects the majority opinion of this country on pretty much every issue, yet people like you continue to pretend that it's the far left, the lunatic fringe because it's been repeated enough times by losers like Bill O'Reilly. The nuts and the sheep are still unwilling to admit the obvious... liberalism is mainstream America.

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by frerottenextelway

Way to back up your opinion. Let me do the work for you.

What does "the far left" mean? Here's the attitudes of Americans as a whole on these issues:

Iraq War:



Stem Cell research:




Abortion:




Minimum wage:



The Moveon and DailyKos "fringe left" reflects the majority opinion of this country on pretty much every issue, yet people like you continue to pretend that it's the far left, the lunatic fringe because it's been repeated enough times by losers like Bill O'Reilly. The nuts and the sheep are still unwilling to admit the obvious... liberalism is mainstream America.

Sorry, I don't cowtow to the far right either. So, I'm not sure what the extreme right believes because I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh either...

[frerottenextelway]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

Sorry, I don't cowtow to the far right either. So, I'm not sure what the extreme right believes because I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh either...

So, you don't know what anyone believes - you just know they're all wrong. Excellent!

The fact is - as shown above - the positions of the Moveon/DailyKos crowd is the same positions held by mainstream America - whether you dig that or not.

[Pseudofool]

I'd be really resistant to lump Moveon with DailyKos. DailyKos is a diaried liberal website, that often breaks news and shares personal stories rather than spread propaganda as Moveon does.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by frerottenextelway

The fact is - as shown above - the positions of the Moveon/DailyKos crowd is the same positions held by mainstream America - whether you dig that or not.

Exactly.

People like W*GS, Texan Bob, et al, don't seem to understand that they represent the right-wing fringe in America.

[Rank&File]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

That's correct.

The right-wing disinfo slingers also consistently ignore the fact that Petraeus' boss (Admiral William J. Fallon - hardly a Moveon member) called Petraeus an "ass-kissing little chickensh*t."

So did you think the ad was a good one then?

Hello all by the way, I stumbled across this site today and found a pretty lively bunch. I will be hanging on the general discussion for the most part, but a drop in for a guilty pleasure from time to time ain't all bad right?