McCain Condemns Senate Resolution
John McCain, one of the 19 brave senators with enough backbone to resist the heinous Senate resolution calling for a draw-down of forces in Iraq just passed to appease Democratics, has this to say about it:
Anyone reading the amendment gets the sense that the Senate’s foremost objective is the draw-down of American troops. What it should have said is that America’s first goal in Iraq is not to withdraw troops, but to win the war. All other policy decisions we make should support, and be subordinate to, the successful completion of our mission.
If that means we can draw down our troop levels and win in Iraq in 2006, that would be a wonderful outcome. But if success requires an increase in American troop levels in 2006, then we must increase our numbers there.
Morality, national security and the honor our fallen deserve all compel us to see our mission in Iraq through to victory.
Equally strong is his conclusion:
Because the stakes there are so high — higher even than those in Vietnam — our friends and our enemies need to hear one message: America is committed to success, and we will win this war.
John McCain is becoming a stronger candidate for 2008 with each speech or opinion piece concerning Iraq. The Republicans will not win with an anti-war message – you can mark that down in stone. If the voters want anti-war, they will go with the Democrats. McCain recognizes Democratic pressure for what it is, and is exactly right on this most important of issues facing our nation.
Kudos for a great piece, and for sticking with a fight that needs to be won…
McCain will never get the GOP base unless he changes his tune on immigration.
I would definitely support him for many important reasons realted to FP, over Guilliani or Allen, but unless he has a guy with legit GOP credentials to shore up the base, he’s spinning his wheels as a GOP nominee.
As an independent?
Perot got 19%…I think McCain could drop 40% on the electorate as an independent, leaving the GOP and the dems with a 30/30 draw. This all requires dem and republican approval in congress remaining in the low 30′s. Smells like 92, right now. If his early numbers show he has the lead, but isn’t comfortable with winning below 50%, he can ask the GOP nominee to take the Veep spot.
McCain will not run as an independent. He is loyal to his party and would never leave it. He has said this repeatedly and, even though a lot of people on the far right like to think that he’s some kind of prima donna, I see no reason not to take him at his word.
I also think the blogosphere is counting him out way too quickly. He has name recognition that only Giuliani can match and war credentials that no one can match. If he can talk the base down from its suicidal social policy for a few months, he can definitely win the nomination. And he is exactly the sort of person who I expect would not compromise on his VP slot. Look for someone like Lindsey Graham to get that if McCain is nominated.
If the party selects guilliani-
Could MCain pull a Reagan by saying:
“I haven’t left the Republicn Party, they left me”?
I agree, he won’t run as an independent, he will try for the nomination. If he gets frozen out…all bets are off.
I think he wants rove to run his campaign, which would pretty much set him up with the real support that he would need. Whoever get Rove, wins.
On Foreign Policy, which will be the #1 topic of 2008, he blows Guilliani into the dirt.
There are lots of reasons I wouldn’t support McCain for the nomination in ’06, although if he gets it he’d still have my vote against any likely Democrat. However, he certainly deserves credit for his steady support of the war. Even in 2000, he generally staked out foreign policy positions more assertive and unilateral than Bush’s, something his admirers in the press tended to overlook.
I’m still none too sure he’s even going to run in 2008. He might keep people guessing for quite a while, like Mario Cuomo used to do with the Democrats. I imagine it’s pretty gratifying to have people urging you to seek the presidency. But McCain will be 72 in 2008, nearly as old as Bob Dole was in ’96. And McCain’s primary performance in 2000 doesn’t suggest that name recognition and incredibly favorable press coverage actually translate into winning elections.
I still give him props for his stand on this silly resolution, though. It nearly makes up for the “anti-torture” amendment he’s pushing, which Rich Lowry very effectively exposed as an equally silly and ill-advised piece of legislation.
I agree that the McCain Ammendment is silly and ill-advised, but it in no way measures up to the Iraq War resolution in absolute spinelessness. It does not say, like the Warner Ammendment does, that we need to pull out of a military action we are arguably winning. These past few days have clinched it for me — McCain in ’08, victory matters above all else. Victory in the election and victory in the war.
And in regards to the Veep slot, I think he could both not compromise in his pick and make the conservatives jump for joy by picking Tom Coburn from Oklahoma to run with him (if Coburn would be interested, and if he is skilled enough to run as a VP candidate). I think Coburn and McCain like each other, have similar styles and would complement each other very well on a presidential ticket.
I can understand the desire to pursue the war until victory, and I am fully aware of the stakes involved. However, some wars are not winnable (or, more precisely, they are not winnable at an acceptable cost). The Russians were unable to win in Afghanistan and we were unable to win in VietNam. Some feel that this war can never be won, and the Senate bill implies that it is willing to place limits on the continuation of our involvement in Iraq. What scenario or what series of events would lead you to conclude that the war in Iraq can never be won and our best option would be to scale down and leave?
Here’s an answer for you, Peter: A demonstrable lack of progress both politically and militarily. In my opinion (and this is just my opinion. I fully expect you to disagree with my opinion and I respect that disagreement) I have seen demonstrable progress in Iraq. Maybe at a slower pace than what we expected to see after the fall of Baghdad, but demonstrable (and remarkable) progress. Couple that progress with the nature of Zarqawi (read this for a good comparison of Zarqawi to another of history’s great monsters : http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23460/pub_detail.asp) and currently a scenario where we should leave Iraq becomes hard for me to envision.
I don’t necessarily disagree – we are making progress in Iraq, albeit in a three steps forward, two steps backwards pace. The question is whether the progress we have made justifies the price we have paid. My answer to that question is that from today’s perspective, I think the answer is no, although I’m not foolish enough to predict what the answer will be with ten or twenty years’ hindsight.
I think that asking under what circumstances we should leave is the right question, because it forces one to define what the limits to our involvement should be. The stay-the-course inflexibility of staying there regardless of what happens is wrong, because it assumes that a) the war is winnable and b) winning the war is justified at any cost.
Put another way: a share of Google stock is now above $400. Today I asked someone who bought the stock for $85 at its IPO at what price he would sell his shares. Maybe the correct answer for Google is never. I don’t think that’s the correct answer for Iraq.
Well, I would have sold Google at $250, and my $165 a share real profit would be worth more to me than a $315 a share paper one (I remember 2000 all too well). But Iraq…in my opinion, we’re not even close to the price where it isn’t worth it. We keep defining victory higher and higher…remember, it wasn’t that long ago that people swore that we’d have a draft, the elections would be a bloodbath, etc., etc. I didn’t buy it then, and it’s no more convincing now…
Well, when Google got to $300, I thought seriously of shorting the stock. I decided not to because I thought it was a bad idea to bet against any company which became a verb (although you probably could have done pretty well shorting Xerox). I am sure it is luck and not brains, but fortunately I avoided losing a whole lot of money.
As for whether Iraq is thus far worth it: I think we are probably more or less aligned with the positive side of the ledger, but are in complete disagreement as to the other side. My belief is that the loss of soldiers, fortune, allies, and momentum in the war against Al Qaeda does not justify the progress which has been made to date.
Vietnam was a civil war. Afghanistan was a land grab against the indigenous population. The most appropriate comparison is World War II, a fight against Nazism, where after the War, the SS as ‘Werewolves’ ran a very similar insurgency.
My greatest two moments of pause are as follows-the murder of Steven Vincent and the 20 Ohio marines getting killed in the same day.
The Steve Vincent murder transpired because he wrote an article about Police corruption in the South, which had seemed the mildest area of the conflict. He was kidnapped and killed reportedly by 4 men using a Police car. At that point, I realized that Iraq has a long way to go.
The 20 deaths from a single State, one that had played such a pivotal role in Bush’s reelection, and its timing after the special election where Schmidt won…if that event had occurred at a two certain times in history, the news and the presidency would have been drastically different.
As I sit comfortably home and type it bothers me that my support will cause the deaths of, by my guess, 500 more soldiers. You are morally safe Steve. If your beliefs and desires came true, these people would not have to die, and continue to die. It bothers me that National Guard are deployed and dying when we had 3 times as many active soldiers in 92 to call upon. They(NG) are the heart of our National Defense, and should only be used in its defense. (The professional’s should be fighting this.) This was as an elective war. Another small concession I will make is that this War never happens if not for 9/11. It was a used to justify this war.
Here’s where my sympathy for the ‘far’ left’s argument ends.
Calling it an unjust War, saying that the intelligence was cooked, describing it as unwinnable, ridiculing the President and a host of other lies undermines the chances for success. Reasonable discussion/understanding is not being provided by the left. It borders on insane, petty political pursuits born out of jealousy and distaste for being in the minority, anger over Florida 2000, and Clinton’s impeachment. The dems are not without ulterior motives-and the actions of several have alienated my independent blood, to a point where I could never vote for the Senators and Congressmen who carry on like babies. A voice of dissent? Sounds like shrill babies crying. The democratic party has abrogated its right to even have a voice.
The Administration was hamstrung by having to play to both the world and our country. We were always going to occupy the country. To say so to the American people, would have been prudent, but also debilitating to the World’s perception. The argument that this was for oil, which was tried, never rang true. Iraq peak production is 20 billion dollars a year, maybe 30 someday, but when the number ‘at least 200 billion’ came out, it had to be obvious that the oil was not the motive. I actually understood what the Administration was looking at, and agreed with their choice. Great change only occurs from great action. Apathy is the greatest sickness in this world.
So what was the ‘motive’?
Over the past 25 years, the Middle East was increasingly becoming a source of exponentially increasing instability in the region. Each decade was a new level in increasing violence against the US., culminating in 19 terrorist killing 3000 people while they worked. The funny argument about increasing the number of terrorists in the world…19 killed 3000. Apparently they would have an unlimited supply beofre we even looked at Iraq. Saddam wasn’t a sponsor of State terrorism? He openly offerred and paid 25,000 dollars to Palestinian Suicide Bombers. Sounds like a dictator who had given up on his aspirations of having the entire ME rise up agianst Israel and then the US?
The Oil for Food Scandal was a disaster. As soon as the bribes were paid, and the sanctions were lifted, the second most resource rich country in the ME was about to be completely unfettered. Was Saddam a homicidal maniac in the style of Stalin? Short term goals would be to have chem/bio weapons ready to go? Saddam bought those 20,000 chem/bio suits because he got a good deal? After the sanctions were lifted, no more airstrikes without the approval of the UN. You have France, Russia, and China more than willing to assist. Funny thing that all three Countries’ governments own their Oil companies. Kim Jong-Il supposedly has nukes, and we are in the position to do squat. What would we do when Saddam got his? What would Israel do? 2500 soldiers dead in three years versus that unknown?
That is what this comes down to. Democrats have never stated an alternative solution. They gave up on those calls to ‘internationalize’ before the election and then wandered back to it. The Oil for Food scandal has to be a factor in considering the World’s motives. So alien for a dem to think that the World is just as greedy and malicious and evil as we are. No better, no worse. Believe it or not, the french would have gone with us, but they wanted to divy up the country and we wanted to keep it together.
This country, this rich country would continue to descend into decades of cruel ruling from one family. Udai and Quisai were ‘normal’ dictators? They were raised to kill their enemies, and anybody else. Where is the ME ten years from now? Each year for the past fifty years the hatred has grown until now….
Syria is out of Lebananon, Egypt is moving towards elections, Lybia has abandoned its pursuit of weapons (actually for all the oxycontin Qadaffi can swallow). recntly jordan has suffered and thier sentiments are changing. Our approval rating in Iraq is in the 50′s. It never got above the 20′s in ANY arab Country for the past 20 years. They are about to become the second to hold free elections to chose their government, after Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is the Vietnam that never happened. There are no cities to fight for, the terrain is the most advantageous to a defending miltia, soldier and milita would have wandered in and wandered out. If we had followed what would have been the Al gore plan, we would have 100,000 troops(targets) sitting around while we looked for UBL, who would be in Pakistan. Cost? For a country without an infrastructure? 3-4 trillion. Casualites? If we had 100,000 we would have 5000 dead in the first year. If you really care about soldiers, you should be grateful that we did not proceed down that path. Afghanistan is unwinnable, and not worth winning. Rumsfeld was a genius in this matter.
So 2500 dead? The world they have given us a ‘chance’ to survive for the price they pay… They plowed Iraq, and took the salt out of the ground-what grows is up to its people and its government. I really wouldn’t mind sticking around til this government gets going. There was also a modest Country named Ukraine that was about to be placed under Soviet ‘guidance’. Reputation for a willingness to take arms was part of what Russia had to bargain with. They backed down. After Iraq, the need to use physical force will be greatly diminished in all future conflicts. Our reputation, and our soliders reputation will precede us.
Had a dem been in office, we would be bogged down in Afghanistan, or have been thoroughly disgraced and fled.
Say we don’t go into Iraq…what was the democrat’s choice that they offerred? How do you see the World turning out?
“the SS as ‘Werewolves’ ran a very similar insurgency.”
Similar in intention, perhaps, but not in damage inflicted. Partly due to technological limitations (no cell phones, etc.), partly due to the much greater damage inflicted on the society. They were BEATEN. The Ba’ath and their Buddies just sort of deflated in 2003 … at least it seemed so at the time.
I agree with your larger analysis, mtl, but the “Werewolf” analogy is invalid.
The difference between Germany and Iraq, is that Germany was one people before and after the War.
Iraq has never been ‘one’ people, as it resembles something closer to apartheid.
Our most effective method of fighting the SS was thru other Germans. The belief that after Hitler was overthrown, the War was over does not do justice to what we faced then and now.
Financially we invested far more in the reconstruction of Germany and Europe relative to Iraq, and even after the War, it would seem that FDR had no plan on ‘winning the peace’. No one could forsee the affects on a society like Iraq, after its liberation.
IN germany, the holdouts were the dead-enders, as in Iraq-in Iraq they are a larger percentage-but still are a modest part of the population. The war was completed in both places historically, but required military presense beyond the military victory.
Any chance you got a casualty count on post war Germany?
This slate article diminishes the post WWII argument, but fails to provide actually fatalities:
http://www.slate.com/id/2087768/
I can’t find any numbers…there is the mixed story of Patton’s death by auto accident/sabotage, but was it supressed by an admin, who had complete control over the press? The fact that there are no numbers available on deaths post WWII…very strange.
Since Rummy was born in 32, he might have a little more knowledge than Daniel Benjamin. From his photo it would be kind to say he was born in the 50′s, and despite his diminishment, he proveds only anecdotes, and has no actual numbers. He doesn’t know either.
http://www.iht.com/articles/1996/01/27/edold.t_66.php
This is interesting, in that the death count was ‘revised’ up by about by about 5646 after 46.
Would you tell a war weary nation that although the War is over, we would continue to lose some in the reconstruction, post-war, or just revise the number upwards?
There seems to be some conflicting info, as Juan Cole is pointing to some other story for confirmation, but no one says how they confirmed it…live by the blogs, die by the blogs I guess.