McCain's Issues - Part 1: Iraq Strategy

Over the next several weeks I plan to examine the specifics of Senator John McCain's plans for his potential Presidency as described on his web site. We know the generalities, but I thought it would be interesting to get it straight from the straight talker's web site.

Please let me know if I miss important points - especially as it pertains to factual evidence.

This is the first in the series. The topic is his Iraq Strategy.  Hold on tight...

http://www.johnmccain.com/...

SECOND SENTENCE: He believes strongly disagrees with those who advocate withdrawing American troops before that has occurred.

That's not my typo.  That's what his site actually says.  McCain could not even manage to get the second sentence of his most important policy plan proof read. Rough start.

SECOND PARAGRAPH: Iraq must not become a failed state, a haven for terrorists, or a pawn of Iran. These likely consequences of America's failure in Iraq almost certainly would either require us to return or draw us into a wider and far costlier war.

John McCain voted to authorize the war in Iraq. He was one of 73 Senators to do so.  If not for our invasion, Iraq could never have been a "haven for terrorists or a pawn of Iran". Costlier war?  We spend at least $12 billion every month to maintain our position in Iraq alone.  McCain is asking for a pass on the decision he made in 2002 to make all of this possible. Let's see what former Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee thinks about this:

"Being wrong about sending Americans to kill and be killed, maim and be maimed, is not like making a punctuation mistake in a highway bill," Chafee writes in a new book..."

"Helping a rogue president start an unnecessary war should be a career-ending lapse of judgment, in my view."

NEXT PARAGRAPH: At the end of 2006, four years of a badly conceived military strategy that concentrated American troops on large bases brought us near to the point of no return. Sectarian violence in Iraq was spiraling out of control. Al Qaeda in Iraq was on the offensive. Entire provinces were under extremists’ control and were deemed all but lost.

McCain implicitly roasts General Tommy Franks and George W Bush here so he can prop up the surge. However, the surge was no stroke of genius because we knew after four years that stay the course was a loser. The only other option was withdrawal, a non starter.  Nevertheless, this is strong language from McCain regarding the early performance of the war he authorized.

THE ESCALATION OF FORCES: From June 2007 through March 2008, sectarian and ethnic violence in Iraq was reduced by 90 percent. Civilian deaths and deaths of coalition forces fell by 70 percent. This has opened the way for a return to something that approaches normal political and economic life for the average Iraqi. Political reconciliation is occurring across Iraq at the local and provincial grassroots level.

This point deserves consideration. First, McCain does not note that it was achieved by an all time high 170,000 US troops, which is now down to 155,000. For the year, it has never been below 150,000 though. That is still higher than when George W Bush declared the end of combat in May, 2003.  Last time troop levels were reduced to under 140,000 the results were poor. So it remains to be seen what will happen when troop levels are reduced again - likely post-September if I remember the Petraeus hearings correctly.  And while it appears that Petraeus is performing better than his predecessors in terms of violence control, there is yet to be any tangible gains socially and economically to complement fewer losses. McCain offers little more than vague generalities on this part. I gather he doesn't quite do the non-military stuff.

REGARDING IRAN: The United States must also bolster its regional military posture to make clear to Iran our determination to protect our forces and deter Iranian intervention.

Exactly what does "bolster military posture" mean? Can we get some clarification on this?

A WORD FROM THE MAN: "To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility."

The Iraqi people are our most vital interests of the US government?  Really? That may concern US citizens, especially those in the military.

CONCLUSION: I do not see any space at all between McCain's views and Bush's views. I think Barack Obama and anyone else is fully justified in tying Bush to McCain.