Senator McCain’s Rejected Column

We don’t have the readership of the New York Times, but B&S is proud to carry Senator McCain’s column.

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

1. I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

   I thought this guy was dead set against setting “time-horizons”.

   The Maliki government wants to remain in power.  To do that they will have to prove that they are able to keep the country secure.  They want to prove it.  They have to prove it.  We should start to take our troops out and let them prove it. 

   If it is proven that they can’t keep the country secure and it starts to slide back into chaos then we have to rethink our redeployment strategy.

   Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 1343 hrs




2. The problem is that this report comes via Drudge who for a right leaning source, is about as unreliable as the left’s Daily Kos.

   Without support from another news source I give it zero credibility.

   Posted by Sandi on July 21, 2008 at 1603 hrs




3. This is the real deal, and it demonstrates that McCain has no definition of victory.

   Glad to see that the media is finally standing up to the nonsense and holding McCain to some accountability rather than just throwing around the usual generalities.

   What Drudge didn’t give you is the reason why:
   

   (David) Shipley (the NY Times op-ed editor), who was President Bill Clinton’s senior speechwriter from 1995 to 1997, had advised the McCain campaign that “the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.

   “It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory—with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.”

   By the way, The NY Times has run my letters FIVE TIMES. They get 5,000 submittals a day.

   Not shaping up as a god week for McCain.

   Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 2006 hrs




4. Let me begin by saying I’m no fan of McCain.  But why in the world is it necessary for the NYT to prescribe the format and content of an article written by one of two remaining major-party candidates?  They even tell him to put “victory” in terms of “timetables,” which he specifically eschews.  Mind-boggling.  Well, actually, not really.  Par for the course, sadly.

   You can’t convince me there’s a chance in hell that a similar prescription was sent to the Obamessiah prior to him (or his staff) writing his article.

   Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 2111 hrs




5. What did McCain think would happen? That the NYT would come anywhere close to being impartial? THe NYT is so in the tank for His Most High Obamaship that they will do anything they can to see that McCain doesn’t win.

   Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 2127 hrs




6. And Keith.

   The NYT has run five of your letters? So what? All you have to do is follow the late Molly Ivin’s formula for writing opinion pieces: just write “I hate Bush” enough times, and it doesn’t matter what the topic is - they’ll run it regardless.

   Not impressive at all.

   Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 2130 hrs




7. This is the paper that reported every rumor about Whitewater and alleged Clinton Bimbos.

   This is the paper that runs Maureen Dowd, who coined the legend “al Gore claims he invented the internet” and the nonsense about Gore being dressed in earth tones by Naomi Wolf.

   This is the paper that ran the Judith Miller articles that led to the myths about WMD’s in Iraq and led us to this disaster.

   This is the paper that runs David Brooks and whcko Bill Kristol on a regular basis.

   Please, please pack away this cry baby liberal bias crap.

   The Times would have done journalistic malpractice letting McCain get away with yet another cry for victory without specifics.

   Glad the NY Times decided to uphold standards, something you won’t find at Drudge or Fox"News."

   Yeah we hate Bush. Let’s admit it. What has this disaster done to earn our admiration or respect? Only fools and the fearful give it away.

   Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 2144 hrs




8. Darn it, Keith, you’re right.  The NYT really HAS been in the tank for the GOP all these years.  I owe you one, pal.

   Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 2152 hrs




9. Damn simplistic thinking Tony.

   Posted by on July 22, 2008 at 0610 hrs




10. Agreeing with you makes me simplistic?  Yeah, I guess that’s fair.

    Posted by on July 22, 2008 at 0650 hrs




11. Keith - you’re not REALLY suggesting that Maureen Dowd is a member of the VRWC are you? You need to lie down and apply cold compresses to your forehead…

    Posted by on July 22, 2008 at 0810 hrs




12. When you are on the hard right every one is a liberal. So it’s time to stop beating the head against the wall.

    I’m just stating a fact about Dowd. Political orientation has nothing to do with it. Sorry for attacking one of your cherished myths about Al Gore.

    Posted by on July 22, 2008 at 0839 hrs




13. Keith, I think you nailed it on the head why it was rejected: “(David) Shipley (the NY Times op-ed editor), who was President Bill Clinton’s senior speechwriter from 1995 to 1997”
    Enough said.

    Posted by on July 22, 2008 at 1208 hrs




14. You mean Al the hypocrite? Who flies all over the world in private jets, travels in 9 MPG SUVs, supports hate groups like the Daily Kos, and then lectures the rest of us?
    THAT Al Gore?

    Your credibilitiy is sinking like rock, buddy.

    Posted by on July 22, 2008 at 2002 hrs