While progressive bloggers and Democratic strategists spent the weekend and much of Monday slapping each others backs and their own knees over the news coming out of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki's office on Saturday (well, out of an interview with Mr. Maliki in the German new magazine Der Speigel, anyway), Republican strategists and members of the McCain Campaign filled that time with much hand-wringing and efforts to spin the Iraqi PMs comments to their own advantage. The narrative they've settled on: "If it wasn't for the surge, about which Barack Obama was wrong, we wouldn't be in a position to withdraw in the first place. Besides, any plan to pull out of Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not some arbitrary date set by domestic political pressures." While volumes could be written pointing out all the wholes in this rhetoric, the point that is veiled by all this nonsense is what Republicans actually believe about the only way to achieve true "victory" in Iraq. Any plan to withdraw would be seen as a "surrender to terrorists" should it be anyone other than a Republican Commander-In-Chief who gave the orders.
The New York Times received a lot of attention today (as well as the article in question) when it became known that the paper had refused to print an op-ed piece by Sen. John McCain in response to Sen. Barack Obama's article "My Plan for Iraq" which appeared in the paper last week. The rationale the Times used to defend its decision was that the article "would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Sen. McCain defines victory in Iraq." Anyone who's read the article - as is probably the case with many here at Kos - would agree that, rather than presenting any new information or a "concrete" definition of what "victory" actually is, the article is more of a disjointed rant against the positions of Mr. Obama.
Perhaps the most interesting part of the article submitted by Mr. McCain is the glaring inconsistencies, and it is these inconsistencies, as well as the subsequent Republican talking points, that lead the author to his conclusions. The most egregious of these contradictions was pointed out here on Daily Kos in a diary this afternoon by kubla000 (also provided is a full text of the op-ed piece as submitted by Mr. McCain - recommended reading, IMHO). In his article, Sen. McCain states:
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. ...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.
He then starts the subsequent paragraph subsequently:
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.
What McCain is saying here is that a withdraw ending in 2010, as proposed by Barack Obama, is flawed in that sets an arbitrary time limit on removal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq while his "plan" for withdraw ending in 2013 is based on "conditions on the ground" and would ensure an American victory in Iraq. Are we really to believe that 3 years (the difference between midterm elections and the commencement of a new presidential term) is what will separate victory from defeat? One would find it hard to believe the American people could be so easily duped, especially with the disastrous run-up to the invasion still vivid in our collective memory.
But this isn't the only place where McCain's belief in his own, and his party's own, singular possession of the conditions of victory. He points to the success of the surge as evidence, not that we ought to be able to leave right away, but that we indeed need to remain to protect the progress made:
In 2007 [Sen. Obama] 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.
Nevermind that the purpose of the surge was to provide "breathing room" for political reconciliation on the part of the Iraqi government, not to perpetuate a long-term Korea-style troop presence in Iraq. Nevermind that the Iraqi Prime Minister is calling for a foreseeable end to U.S. occupation, only John McCain and the Republican party have the ability to declare victory and end the war "with honor." Also, his multiple trips to that country notwithstanding, one would assume that the Iraqi government would have a better sense of its own stability and effectiveness than anyone in the United States.
These talking points have been repeated multiple times by conservative pundits and McCain surrogates on the cable news shows all day on Monday (indicating that the article written by Mr. McCain was passed around to conservative groups and Republican officials before being submitted to The New York Times). Through all of this it appears that McCain is using the "Not Obama" strategy to win votes. In other words, if you vote for Obama and his 2010 withdraw, you're voting for defeat in Iraq; on the other hand, McCain's 2013 withdraw is a vote for Republicans, and therefore victory. This of course fails to recognize that Barack Obama's plans are based on facts and pragmatism and contain the flexibility to adapt to unforeseen developments that cannot be planed for in the long term; and that John McCain's "plan for victory" ignores any sense of political or military realities and instead relies on platitudes and generalities to invoke an emotional response in the electorate. This is hardly the type of dialogue we, as the American people, should accept when engaging a potential future president.