McCain Better Suited To Handle Iraq

National Review Online: Dems Won't Capitalize On Public Exhaustion With “100 Years War”

(National Review Online)  This column was written by The Editors Of National Review Online.

---

Democrats are congratulating themselves on the political cleverness of the cheap shots they are taking at Sen. John McCain over his already-famous “100 years in Iraq” comment.

What McCain said at a townhall meeting in New Hampshire in January was inarguably true. He was asked about President Bush’s comment that we could stay in Iraq for 50 years. McCain replied, “Make it 100. We’ve been in South Korea . . . we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that’s fine with me. I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day.”

The statement speaks for itself. If we prevail in Iraq and the violence ends, American troops can be stationed there just as they are in other peaceful, strategically important countries such as South Korea and Japan. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have suggested that this means McCain “wants to fight a 100-year war,” in Obama’s words. This is so obvious a distortion that it must backfire against Democrats over time, especially if they nominate Barack Obama, who has so loudly advertised his commitment to civil discourse (at least outside of church).

Democrats have long been counting on the Iraq war being a big political bonus this fall, but that is by no means guaranteed. McCain is a staunch supporter of the war who is not associated with its initial failures because he was warning against them from the beginning. As early as November 2003 he gave a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations that identified the need for a surge in Iraq, even if no one was calling it that yet.

He correctly diagnosed the strategic imperative on the ground: “Security is a precondition for everything else we want to accomplish in Iraq. We will not get good intelligence until we provide a level of public safety and a commitment to stay that encourages Iraqis to cast their lot with us, rather than wait to see whether we or the Ba’athists prevail. Local Iraqis need to have enough confidence in our strength and staying power to collaborate with us. Absent improved security, acts of sabotage will hold back economic progress. Without better security, political progress will be difficult because the Iraqi people will not trust an Iraqi political authority that can’t protect them.”

McCain called for more troops and put his finger on what would be a key failing in the administration’s strategy for years: “Prematurely placing the burden of security on Iraqis is not the answer. Hastily trained Iraqi security forces cannot be expected to accomplish what U.S. forces have not yet succeeded in doing: defeating the Ba’athists and international terrorists inside Iraq.”

Of course, many conservatives and the Bush administration didn’t catch up to McCain until it was almost too late - in 2006, when Iraq was descending into hell. McCain lobbied the administration internally for the surge and for sending Gen. David Petraeus to Iraq. He was the surge’s most vocal supporter when the media were deeming it an act of suicide and other Republican senators were wobbly at best. McCain said he would rather lose an election than lose a war, and meant it. In contrast to Obama, who talks beautifully about political courage but has never demonstrated any, McCain put his ambitions on the line. He did more than any political figure besides President Bush to turn around the war in Iraq.

The success the surge has had in diminishing violence has changed public perceptions of the war. Most people still believe the war was a mistake, but they are more optimistic about our efforts and less inclined to favor the kind of immediate withdrawal favored by Obama and Clinton. A Pew Research survey found that people are evenly split on whether the war is going well or poorly, and split over whether we should bring the troops home or keep them in Iraq until the situation has stabilized. A majority, 53 percent, believe we will succeed in our goals. A CBS News poll had 42 percent of the public saying the surge had made things better, up from a mere 17 percent in June. Gallup found that only 18 percent favor withdrawing troops “as soon as possible,” and among those favoring withdrawal, a two-to-one majority wants it to be gradual and orderly.

Of course, these figures all will fluctuate with the state of the war. The media has played up the latest violence in Iraq, but it’s not news that Iraq continues to be dangerous, and the context is always important. (Increased activity by Shia militias, for example, reflect a positive development if they are being hit by Iraqi government forces.) Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker have presented President Bush a plan to keep troops levels at their pre-surge level of 15 combat brigades for a period of “consolidation and evaluation” after the drawdown from the surge in July. This plan likely means that the internal administration battle over what to do after the surge has been won by those favoring more troops rather than those - especially the institutional army - favoring less. Their victory will give us a much better chance of holding and building on gains we’ve made over the last year. An Iraqi battalion commander in hotly contested Mosul put it tartly to the New York Times the other day: “There are those who say the Iraqi Army can control Iraq without the Americans. But they are liars. Without the Americans it would be impossible for us to control Iraq.”

We have paid a dear price in Iraq. Four thousand brave Americans have fallen. The Democrats think that they will therefore be able to capitalize on public exhaustion with the war. But we suspect the public still prefers winning a war to losing one. If it does, John McCain is better suited for the task than either of his two opponents, no matter how often they throw out the 100-year comment.

[guysdigdirt]

I will vote for Hillary as the trops want. I will never vote for Obama.
Posted by ranger1948

The troops sure as heck do not want hillary!!!

[guysdigdirt]

Iraq and terrorism will have to be dealt with, the dems complain that Bush messed it up, maybe he did and maybe they did too, but tell us how they will fix it... they will not do that.

We have to deal with Iraq and with terrorism, McCain will absolutely do a better job than either the liar or obama could do.

[it_oldtimer]

@ ranger1948: You say that you don''t "trust" Obama, without ever once giving a single concrete reason why you don''t? Hmmm...

On the other hand, you apparently DO trust Hillary, who just got caught last week totally fabricating an outrageous LIE about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia in 1996?

Just how do you get that paradox to jibe in your own mind, I wonder?

It was clearly not simply a matter of Hillary having "misspoken" (as she desperately hopes we will all believe) since she couldn''t possibly have just innocently mixed up one place or incident with another -- her entire claim is an obvious lie because she''s never been in ANY situation that EVER involved sniper fire, or gunfire of any sort, for that matter. She obviously just made it all up in order to create an impression of herself in the voters minds as being "cool under fire".

A lie is a lie. We see Hillary getting caught in her lies all the time lately. I don''t see Obama suffering from that same character defect.

Even long-time Clinton friend and supporter David Geffen said of the Clintons:

"Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it''s troubling."

You go with who you trust, and more power to you. I''ll go with the candidate who doesn''t fabricate obvious lies and then try to pass them off to voters as "the truth".

[thatanial]

The dems have made it clear they will drive the 100 years comment into the ground. Hoping beyond hope people will never look to find out what he really said.

Whether its sectarian or religous fighting, it on our watch now. Crying about illegal wars and offering no vision for what Iraq will become will not bode well in Nov.

[tbweb]

If the U.S. thinks Terror and War is in its future McCain would probably be the better choice to navigate that scenario, however if the U.S. thinks "Peace" will be in its future with the election of a Democrat, Obama or Clinton, then a Democrat will win. For many Americans Voting in this election will be as simple as that.

[greatdrivew]

FROM THE ARTICLE: "Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have suggested that this means McCain %u201Cwants to fight a 100-year war,%u201D in Obama%u2019s words. This is so obvious a distortion that it must backfire against Democrats over time, especially if they nominate Barack Obama, who has so loudly advertised his commitment to civil discourse . . ."

ANALYSIS: This op-ed piece is lauhable. McCain''s 100 year obsession with Iraq is not limited to peaceful activities.

And for those who dount that, simple go to your favorite video website and search "McCain there will be more wars."

Watch that video for insight into the psyche of John McCain and his neocon base.

[zakariael]

The man is too old to go to war. Let him go home and have a fun with his wife. Blieve me that is better for humanity.

[zakariael]

The man is too old to go to war. Let him go home and have a fun with his wife. Blieve me that is better for humanity.

[zakariael]

The man is too old to go to war. Let him go home and have a fun with his wife. Bleave me that is better for humanity.

[zakariael]

The man is too old to go to war. Let him go home and have a fun with his wife. Pleave me that is better for humanity.

[ranger1948]

IT -OLDTIMER
With all due respect as you talk like you are intelligent. I do not trust Obama. I will vote for Hillary as the trops want, if not her my first choice has always been Ron Paul. I will never vote for Obama.

[ioweign]

what is obamas plan for iraq?

Posted by jamesm12341 at 10:36 AM : Mar 30, 2008

The link to enlightenment...

http://www.barackobama.com

[clestes-2009]

Frankly, the only thing fossil McCain is suited to handle is retirement. Just because he is a surviving POW does NOT make him the leader we need in he current crisis.

Christ, he has NO IDEA of what is happening in Iraq at all. He still thinks the surge is working and the US is going to be victorious!! He is so far from reality that he is as bad a shrub.

What victory? The US has no mission of victory in Iraq. If victory is defeating the terrorist, what the hell are we doing in Iraq. All the fightng in Iraq is secular, one religious faction against another.

Our role of teaching the Iraq army to be an army is a joke! They are Shiite, Sunni first and Iraqi second. It has been this way for thousands of years. We cannot change that by putting US troops in the way to get killed.

Obama is the only candidate with any kind of reality when he sees Iraq. And he sees it for what it is, a religious quagmire that should not involve US troops.

[grumpas]

As far as I am concerned it''s ''Bush''s War''! It isn''t the Iraq War. He wanted it so bad he had to lie, cheat and harp on it to start it. Now he has bought it for all time! If any right wing nut thinks they are ever going to win anything there dream on! They lost the mess in the first months in 2003. The incompetence and complete ignorance was beyond belief.

[gkc99]

The Nether Republican Orif*ace just hates for the war profiteers they pimp for to have the gravy train dry up.

We can be sure McCain will keep feeding the war profiteers all they want. The Dems are less certain in that regard.

Therefore, completely predictably, the Orif*ace pushes hard for their ho.

[ramos937]

The National Review has been and always will be a right wing administration prop. Nothing it writes in a political sense, including the Iraq war can be trusted.

the National Review cannot accept the fact that while we cannot be defeated in Iraq we cannot acheive anything remotely resembling victory.

[it_oldtimer]

What the troops in Iraq may not know is that Hillary has claimed that she''ll do an awful lot of things (she has another new idea about once every 15 seconds) but she often fails to follow through.

If you really want our troops out of Iraq quickly and safely, vote for Obama.

[ranger1948]

I just received an email from my daughter in Iraq. I was undecided who to votte for so asked her to ask her fellow soldiers who they wantd to see elected. She asked and they all said they want Hillary. They believe she will pull us out of Iraq. I am now giving my vote to Hillary. I think we owe it to support what our troops want that are doing the fighting.

[ranger1948]

I totally disagree with McCains point of view. If we stay in a country as volatile as Iraq the killing of Iraqui''s and American troops will not stop. These people have been fighting since the beginning of time. They will never stop and we can''t make them.

[javalation]

If the truce between warring factions in Iraq is now over then the Iraqi death toll will rise. If the number of American casualties also rises then politicians who want to stay the course will lose support. Surely this will have an impact on the election.