Sen. John McCain has an op-ed to run in Sunday’s Washington Post in which he reiterates his support for a large "surge" of U.S. troops in Iraq.
His op-ed is not online yet at The Washington Post ):
First, some of his "thoughts":
Contrary to popular notions that U.S. troops are getting "caught in the crossfire’’ between Sunni and Shiite fighters and are therefore ineffective in suppressing the incipient civil war, the record of U.S. troops in stopping sectarian violence is excellent. Where American soldiers have deployed to areas in turmoil, including Baghdad neighborhoods, the violence has ceased almost immediately. Similarly, the Marines in Anbar province report substantial progress in reducing the nonsectarian, al-Qaida-based violence that is the predominant cause of instability there.
Excuse me, Senator McCain!
From The Baltimore Sun, Jan. 2: http://www.baltimoresun.com/...
AR-RAMADI, Iraq -- After three years of fighting that has killed 143 American troops here in Al-Anbar province, the U.S. military has been unable to quash a vicious insurgency that shows no sign of abating.
Senior U.S. combat commanders, grappling with Islamist fighters through the Euphrates River towns and the dusty,sprawling province west of Baghdad, describe the insurgents of al-Qaida in Iraq as well-financed, well-led and elusive.
snip...
Gen. James T. Conway, making his first tour of the region since he was named commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps in November, called ''disheartening’’ the steadily rising violence against U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians, despite the presence of 20,000 Marines.
Substantial progress? With progress like that, I would hate to see what you call a setback.
More from the Senator from Arizona:
There are two keys to any increase in U.S. force levels: It must be substantial, and it must be sustained. During my recent trip, commanders there spoke to me of adding as many as five brigades (brigades consist of 3,500 to 5,000 troops) in Baghdad and one or two in Anbar province. This is the minimum we should consider. It would be far better to have too many reinforcements in Iraq than to suffer, once again, the tragic results of insufficient force levels.
snip...
A short surge would have all the drawbacks associated with greater deployments without giving our troops the time to be effective. Announcing that we are surging for three or six months -- or any other timeline -- would signal to the insurgents and militias that they can wait us out, and it would indicate to the Iraqi public that the enforcement of their government’s authority will be fleeting. This would strengthen, not weaken, the power of the militias.
Excuse me, Senator McCain:
So you want a BIG surge of indefinite length. Why not just call it an escalation?
More from McCain:
Only by controlling the violence can we pave the way for a political settlement. But once the government wields greater authority it will be incumbent upon Iraqi leaders to take significant steps on their own. These include a commitment to go after the militias, a reconciliation process for insurgents and Baathists, more equitable distribution of government resources, provincial elections that will bring Sunnis into government, and a large increase in employment-generating economic projects.
Increasing U.S. troop levels will expose more brave Americans to danger and increase the number of American casualties.
Excuse me Senator McCain:
Yeah we have heard this one before. Still waiting ...
McCain continues:
When Congress authorized this war, we were committing America to a mission that entails the greatest sacrifice a country can make, one that falls disproportionately on those Americans who love their country so much that they volunteer to risk their lives to accomplish that mission. And when we authorized this war, we accepted the responsibility to make sure they could prevail. Extending combat tours and accelerating the deployment of additional troops is a terrible sacrifice to impose on the best patriots among us, and they will understandably be disappointed when they are given that order. Then they will shoulder their weapons and do everything they can to protect our country’s vital interests in Iraq, and win this war.
Excuse me, Senator McCain:
Hmmm, i guess the situation is so serious in Iraq, that in in April of THIS YEAR, you voted to divert funding FROM Iraq:
http://www.bizjournals.com/...
The Senate approved a measure Wednesday that shifts $1.9 billion from a Bush administration Iraq war request to increased border patrols to help curtail illegal immigration and drug trafficking from Mexico.
Sens. Kyl and McCain voted for the measure, along with most Republicans.
McCain continues:
We have made many mistakes since 2003, and these will not be easily reversed. But from everything I recently witnessed, I believe that success is still possible. Even greater than the costs incurred thus far and in the future are the catastrophic consequences that would ensue from our failure in Iraq. By surging troops and bringing security to Baghdad and other areas, we will give the Iraqis the best possible chance to succeed. Our national security, and that of our friends and allies, compels us to make our best effort to prevail, and to do it immediately.
Excuse me, Senator McCain:
Speak for yourself.
Some of us were against this fiasco from the start.
It was morons like YOU that got us into this mess because you hallucinated "a graver threat.
John McCain, April. 30, 2004:
''Our choice wasn’t between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war," McCain said. "It was between war and a graver threat.Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents.''
http://www.foxnews.com/...
Excuse me, Senator McCain:
I know you don’t want critics, political opponents or FACTS to get in the way of your assinine ideas.
Would logic be worth a try?