The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in What McCain gets wrong about the surge and Iraq

Re: What McCain gets wrong about the surge and Iraq

RememberNovember — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:38:16 -0000

very interesting read- but if you remember it was a chorus being chanted all along on both sides of the aisle to a deaf SecDef ( maybe Sec Deaf?) Rumsfeld who saw the military as "fungible" rather than a collection of "people, ideas and hardware". How long did it take for the vehicles to get "uparmored"- which they should have been, in the first place. Corporate Shills Rumsfeld and Cheney were too busy shooting their friends in the face.

Re: What McCain gets wrong about the surge and Iraq

RememberNovember — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:13:41 -0000

When was Petreus "attacked" in Congress? If by attack you mean by asking a few pertininent, investigative questions about the surge and his strategy, then God forbid we should ever question those in high authority for they can do no wrong.

As for Move-On- that was a cheapass stunt they pulled and pretty low.

"Petraeus has a political future for his great service to the country in the face of nitwits like Al-Maliki & domestic opponents---plus AQ & other nasties in-country."

Nitwits like Maliki? Well thank GWB for that and the Iraqi Parliament that put him there. Better than that bought and paid for criminal Chalabi who scuttled off to parts unknown with his cache of US cash.
He's a fine General, but he should stick to what he's best at- don't try to paint the horse when it's already saddled.

Re: What McCain gets wrong about the surge and Iraq

DLS — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:18:40 -0000

I also want to know what McCain would do differently at Defense and with military programs. Does he share some of the same classic gripes found here?

[heavily anti-bureaucracy, new-program-fads; pro-tracks, anti-wheels, pro-armor...]

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/pd...

Then I ask the same about Obama. Reform or just raiding the military budget to buy votes with additional social spending?

Re: What McCain gets wrong about the surge and Iraq

lurxst — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:40:19 -0000

Well stated piece Elrod.

The Bush admin had never really defined "victory" in Iraq for the U.S. voters or the world. I believe that for them victory meant staying in Iraq with a huge military presence to forever secure resources and have bases to wage more cold war with Iran and other m.e. nations. For most of us, victory meant most of our troops come home and diplomacy takes over. But that wasn't the Bush and neocon plan, ever.

Now they are in a bind. The general in charge did a good job, and the Iraqi factions that we've been waiting on to "step up" did it. Victory is happening but it is being steered towards U.S. withdrawal and not permanent occupation.

So we get things like the White house spokeperson saying that AL-Maliki was "misinterpreted".

Re: What McCain gets wrong about the surge and Iraq

GeorgeSorwell — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:02:20 -0000

I know I'm late to this, but what really reduced violence in Iraq was the ongoing ethnic cleansing.

The surge provided some cover for the more-or-less final stages of this ethnic cleansing.

Re: What McCain gets wrong about the surge and Iraq

DLS — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:00:11 -0000

"I just argue that the 'surge' is a small component of what happened in Iraq the last year and a half."

It is. There has been other fighting, then there are the improvements made in the less violent parts of Iraq that never make the news because everyone's worried about the violence.

I just hope after we've left that the oil doesn't fall into terrorists' or Iran's hands.

Re: What McCain gets wrong about the surge and Iraq

runasim — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:38:55 -0000

Marlowecan,

There are two ways to think about this.
One is political: who was right or wrong, who deserves the credit, etc. That seems to be what you're going after.

i'm just trying to figure out what happened, and, honestly, i don't know how to split either the blame or the credit about the surge.

I was one of those deeply suspicious of the surge, because it was proposed at the end of a long series of pronouncements that things were improving, only they never improved. McCain was on CNN bragging about how safe Baghdad was only to have a rocket whizz by as he talked. Looking back, I think it was more a matter of distrust in the messengers (Bush and McCain) than the message. ,

I opposed the war because I predicted all the horrendous consequences that ensued. How could I trust leaders who seemed to understand less than I, a nobody?
To oppose the war also meant enduring endless accusations of being a traitor and the like. That's not trust building, either.
Who is to blame, then. the people who ddin't trust or the people who instilled the distrust and antipathy by making this a political party war? I leave it to you.

I don't know how much of my history has anything to do with Obama. I do know that feelings like mine are common among those who opposed the war.
If there is blame for us to assume, it lies in not recogizing that Petraeus was different than the other Bush mouthpieces. At the time, he looked just like another war happy guy, like McCain is today, in fact. We should have trusted his background over and above his position as Bush's man, I guess. .

I wish I could say I've learned my lesson. To atone for my misjudgment of Petraeus, I backed Mukasey's confirmation, only to feel utterly betrayed by him regarding his promise to not be the president's lawyer and to be an independent AG. Now he is seeing to it that Cheney can avoid testifying in front of Congress.

Wrong again.

Re: What McCain gets wrong about the surge and Iraq

daveinboca — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:31:02 -0000

Good piece & McCain does deserve credit for advocating an increase, however temporary, to help Petraeus accomplish his marvelous service---even as he was shamefully attacked by Congress, the NYT, and Move-On's scandalous low-cost ad.

I think when the pendulum swings back after a brief dalliance with Obama [who does seem a bit like Jimmy C Redux], Petraeus has a political future for his great service to the country in the face of nitwits like Al-Maliki & domestic opponents---plus AQ & other nasties in-country.

Re: What McCain gets wrong about the surge and Iraq

elrod — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:01:43 -0000

JSpencer,
Great article. Klein gets it just right.

Petraeus is great because he understands that counterinsurgency involves winning hearts and minds. And I mean that as more than slogans.

Re: What McCain gets wrong about the surge and Iraq

JSpencer — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:39:32 -0000

Marlowecan, maybe this will to help answer your question:

http://www.time-blog.com/sw...

Re: What McCain gets wrong about the surge and Iraq

Marlowecan — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:27:00 -0000

Elrod said: "I think Petreaeus was far more important than the surge itself."

I don't disagree with you...except as a matter of emphasis (I think McCain...have rolled his dice...deserves his point here).

I find your quote above interesting, as you hint at this in your essay, but don't fully flesh it out. Why was "Petraeus . . . far more important than the surge itself"?

Not disputing you here, but I am curious.

This is an interesting point you are making, and I would like to hear more.

Petraeus, not the Surge? Are you talking about the Home Front politics of appearances, or his work in Iraq?

Re: What McCain gets wrong about the surge and Iraq

elrod — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:13:27 -0000

Marlowecan,
The surge definitely helped. I think Petreaeus was far more important than the surge itself. My beef is with the McCain contention that the surge alone is responsible for everything.

Re: What McCain gets wrong about the surge and Iraq

Marlowecan — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:05:06 -0000

Runasim...

McCain supported the Surge when it was unpopular...almost radioactive...and "everyone knew" Petraeus did not have a hope in Hell.

Obama himself opposed the Surge...and was fiercely critical of Petraeus. Being no dumb bunny, he wants to be on the side of the winners...and so Obama has softened his stance on both.

Elrod's analysis was well-done. But had there been no Surge and no Petraeus things would have been up shit creek in Iraq. . . and Obama would have had no need to purge his website of statements opposing the Surge.

Give McCain his due. He supported Petraeus and the Surge when it was politically incorrect and unwise to do so. Obama opposed both.

The Surge helped. Petraeus helped. Even Elrod admits, without both the situation would be much worse.

Given McCain his due.

Re: What McCain gets wrong about the surge and Iraq

runasim — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:03:21 -0000

"the claim that political progress would have proceeded more quickly without the surge"

I don't know if it's worth aguing about that. .
What I do beleive, however, is that the talk in the US about withdrawal in the post Bush.era spurred th Iraqis to take their own responsibility more seriously and in direct proportion to the time remaining in Bush's term in office.

When details leaked out about the proposed US-Iraq security agreemen, Iraqis put a lot of pressure on Maliki to reclaim full sovereignty.
Again, it was a chance combination of events that determined the direction.

Re: What McCain gets wrong about the surge and Iraq

Ricorun — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:36:56 -0000

Very good article Elrod. "Counterfactuals" (I never heard that word before, but I'm putting it in my vocabulary starting now) are indeed difficult, if not impossible. But IMO (and with due respect), I do think the surge made a critical difference. For one thing, it seems to me it would have been exceedingly difficult to both clear andsecure the "belts" around Baghdad without the extra personnel. The previous "whack-a-mole" strategy was woefully inadequate. At any rate, I'm inclined to take Petraeus's word on that.

But now the surge is over (for all intents and purposes), there is a semblance of security (for whatever reason), and thus a new set of challenges. So the big question is, what comes next?

Among the other counterfactuals is the claim that political progress would have proceeded more quickly without the surge. I'm not sure I agree with that, either. But I am inclined to believe that there comes a point when too much intervention/dependence does impede progress. And that, I think, is the front and center challenge now. And the dynamics involved are obviously different -- involving a heavier dose of politics and diplomacy, and requiring different skill sets and judgements. Thus, it is difficult to extrapolate whatever success was achieved in one situation to the next. That disconnect was demonstrated with stark clarity years ago, when the Bush admin tried to transition from invasion to occupation. Counterfactuals are involved there, too. But whatever else could be said, success in the first context obviously didn't extrapolate well into success in the second.

Considering all that, my attitude is that arguing about whether the surge was necessary or not is rapidly becoming a moot point. Now the question is how best to light a fire under the Iraqi's butts to take reasonably effective responsibility for their own country. And in that respect I'm not sure either candidate can realistically claim greater expertise than the other. I need more information. I worry about McCain's serial gaffes and the other things that suggest he's stuck in the past. One or two instances are easy to explain away. But it's not just one or two. And he seems to have a hard time correcting them when they occur. I guess you could say if it weren't for Obama's lack of experience it'd be an easy choice.

Re: What McCain gets wrong about the surge and Iraq

JSpencer — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:32:18 -0000

Unfortunately I have to agree with runasim, too much of the public follows whatever narrative the "media" chooses to adopt, regardless of how accurate it may or may not be. And yes, thanks Elrod for the thoughtful analysis.

Re: What McCain gets wrong about the surge and Iraq

runasim — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:23:18 -0000

Elrod.
Thanks for puting all the pieces of a jigsaw together.
There is nothing with which I basically disagree .

We, as a country, have a huge problem, though. Once the media adopt a narrative line, they stick with it, no matter how many different ways it's shown to be false, misleading or incomplete. The media and the public have bought into the McCain version of the surge. just like they bought the need to invade Iraq. An alarming number still believe in the 9/11 connection.

i don't see how Obama, or anyone, can break through the perception. It took a long post for you to lay it all out, but we're a sound bite nation. We don't handle multi word messages well, and the single word slogan often is the one that sticks (victory, etc.).

Your next mission: develop a no-more-than-three word synopsis of your post.
We all need it,
While you're working on that, thanks again for your excellent analysis.

Re: What McCain gets wrong about the surge and Iraq

elrod — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:47:10 -0000

DLS,
I would agree that the "surge is successful." I just argue that the "surge" is a small component of what happened in Iraq the last year and a half. It fits into our politics nicely, but as a descriptor of events, it doesn't do what McCain says it does.

Re: What McCain gets wrong about the surge and Iraq

DLS — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:39:14 -0000

The surge has been successful; it is incomplete and we'll never do as good a job as we'd like because so many of our assets are in Afghanistan instead. The issue is not 100% prevention of violence because the terrorists and their sponsors aren't about to stop -- they believe they can outlast our forces. The surge is reducing strife in Iraq but won't pacify Iraq, nor is it going to win for McCain any substantial improvement in support for him and his campaign by referring to it.

"John McCain simply cannot argue that Iraq would never have experienced an improvement in security if not for the surge. "

That's true.

Re: What McCain gets wrong about the surge and Iraq

JSpencer — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:11:43 -0000

McCain and the GOP understandably want to paint the surge as a "success", since by doing so they hope to spin the war as a "success", or at least as justified - and hope America buys it. That strategy however requires eilther selective forgetting, or partisan loyalty extraordinaire. I wouldn't bet against that loyalty factor, but the forgetting is a pipe dream.