The surge as originally outlined meant far more than an increase in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.
McCain, if he is able to "own the definition" will nevertheless continue to, in effect, proffer this position.
If this view prevails, what follows?: U.S. troop levels increased, violence decreased, ergo, the surge has succeeded. Below is a McCain quote and three subsequent comments.
The following sentence is quoted from John McCain:
"As I've said, we have succeeded. This strategy is not (just) succeeding, we have succeeded."
Three points in reaction:
- The "surge" has not succeeded. If it had, then the Iraqis would have now accomplished the necessary political work. After all, as defined, the outcome of the totality of the activities referred to as the surge was a stable Iraq which required, in addition to the military component, a political component and an economic component.
- Given item 1, if the surge has succeeded, then by definition the U.S. should leave.
- Finally, the disingenuousness of McCain in this regard puts his duplicity in full view. As per item 1 the surge was, as defined, to be much more than an increase in the number of troops to quell the degree of violence, injury and death to both the U.S. troops and the Iraqis. That is, more than the military component of which, in fact, the increase in U.S. troop numbers was itself just a part. The other parts of the military component were the Sunnis changing sides (aided with bribes and weapons) and Muktada Al Sadr calling off his people. So, yes the increase in U.S. troops has resulted in less violence, but that is not synonymous with the statement, "the surge has succeeded." McCain wishes it to be so. More importantly, he wants the electorate to internalize them as synonymous. Further, why is it such erudition and superior judgement to conclude that if U.S. troop levels were increased, they would be effective? Maybe one would have been telling Rumsfeld something but nobody else.