Matthew Yglesias (July 22, 2008) - McCain's Waterloo (Foreign Policy)

The big thing from all of this: it's now universal sentiment that there's a possiblity for withdrawal and LEAVING is on the table. And it's not surrendur, the government wants us to go too!

That makes (1) Obama's policy overall correct and (2) takes Iraq off the table and (3) puts the economy as the number one issue where Obama's got a 20 point lead.

This has been good.

Posted by Rhoda | July 22, 2008 9:59 AM

About what is Obama right? He said sixteen months, and the Iraqis says 22 months. Being off by the HUGE margin of 37.5% can be characterized as being right only in the elite playing fields of Cambridge Square.

Posted by gregor | July 22, 2008 10:03 AM

The new media meme is going to be: was Obama wrong about the surge?

It's ridiculous - we can't go back and discuss how we got in the war (and how right Obama was), but we can go back and discuss the "surge."

Sigh.

http://strategy08.wordpress.com

Posted by Dan | July 22, 2008 10:05 AM

Gregor asked:

> About what is Obama right? He said sixteen months,
> and the Iraqis says 22 months. Being off by the HUGE margin
> of 37.5% can be characterized as being right only in the
> elite playing fields of Cambridge Square.

Six months is one-half of one percent of 100 years. Sounds close enough to "right" for me.

Posted by Andy | July 22, 2008 10:08 AM

He said sixteen months, and the Iraqis says 22 months. Being off by the HUGE margin of 37.5% can be characterized as being right only in the elite playing fields of Cambridge Square.

And let's see, McCain said 100 years, meaning he was off by 53,545%. I think Obama wins this one.

Posted by Matt Stevens | July 22, 2008 10:12 AM

Matt--I dig your stuff, but as with the Maliki endorsement, you tend to go off the deep-end about stuff that SHOULD be major campaign positives for Obama, but are greatly diluted by the MSM. One side-show that piques my interest: McCain's current tack, having abysmally lost the overall trip battle (as your post rightly emphasizes), is to repeat ad nauseum that 'Obama was wrong about the surge; the surge worked.' I think McC, & the MSM, is missing the boat here: I think where we're at is more along the lines of 'okay, the surge worked in some respects, so let's get the 'ef out of there. I think some Obama surrogate in the states on MSM during the trip needs to emphasize that (a) the overall goals of the surge have Not been met, and (b) surge works = get out.

Posted by mofo | July 22, 2008 10:12 AM

If McCain were to embrace the timeline, adopt a "declare victory and get out" position, it would be a very strong argument, which would also serve to undercut Obama.

But he won't, because he genuinely holds a principled belief in the wisdom and necessity of having a permanent American military presence in Iraq, in order to keep that country under our thumb as a client state, as well as to take the place of the Saudi bases we've left.

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 22, 2008 10:13 AM

I agree, and yet, Campbell Brown led her CNN show last night with the McCain/NYT op-ed "non-story".

It's game-set-match, but the MSM isn't interested in a contest that's over when they can pretend otherwise. See the Democratic primary, circa 2008.

Posted by Jake | July 22, 2008 10:15 AM

Matt, I think you're seeing this through slightly rose colored glasses. Seems to me that the Republicans are winning the PR battle, since ever conversation about Iraq begins with discussion of the surge. Was the surge successful? Why were you against the surge? Is withdrawal possible now because of the surge?

Nevermind that we shouldn't have invaded in the first place. Or that McCain wants to stay for at least another 4 years (total of over 10). It's all about the surge and how brilliant McCain was for supporting it. Oy vey....

Posted by Roman | July 22, 2008 10:16 AM

OK, so McCain's chances of being elected are now approaching Nader/Barr territory. Please remember this next time someone complains that McCain doesn't get as much coverage.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | July 22, 2008 10:17 AM

gregor is spot on! How will Obama's people spin that huge 6 month (possibly even 7 month!) disparity with Maliki's spokesman? And how about Joe Lieberman's excellent point that Obama couldn't have even visited Iraq if it hadn't been for The John McCain Surge(TM)? I mean, aside from the fact that Obama did actually visit Iraq before the surge. Which totally proves Joe's point!

This is all EXCELLENT NEWS!!!! for McCAIN!!!!

MCMENTUM!!!!

Posted by Jeff S. | July 22, 2008 10:17 AM

To counter McCain's criticism about opposing the Surge, I wonder if Obama should respond that he believes conditions in Iraq would also have improved if his advice had been followed rather than the Surge.

Or, would saying this risk implying that the contribution of U.S. troops weren't all that important?

Posted by Jim W | July 22, 2008 10:19 AM

A follow-up to Gregor' post, snark aside:

The relavant point here is that both Obama and the Iraqis are explicitly saying that we need to leave, and there needs to be a specific timeline for doing so. Both sides agree that the actual dates are subject to changes, but the core message is the same: the Democratically-elected, U.S.-backed government wants us to leave. If we do not, then we cease to be partners, and become foreign occupiers, by any definition.

John McCain refuses to countenance any specific timeline, or specific conditions that would allow the United States to leave Iraq. He talks frequently about "victory" there, but never defines specifically what that is. (Which is one of the key reasons the NYT rejected his op-ed piece on the subject.) McCain's position still seems to be exactly that of the Bush administration: if things are going badly, we have to stay to make them right; if things are going well, there's no reason to leave.

That makes no sense at all, unless the point of having an open-ended, ongoing military presence in Iraq is to, well, e an open-ended, ongoing military presence in Iraq.

Posted by Andy | July 22, 2008 10:23 AM

"About what is Obama right? He said sixteen months, and the Iraqis says 22 months. Being off by the HUGE margin of 37.5% can be characterized as being right only in the elite playing fields of Cambridge Square."

This patently false. Maliki's spokesman said the withdrawal should be completed in 2010. Obama has a 16-month timeframe that would begin when he took office---presumably around February 1, 2009. 16 months later would be sometime in June 2010. This appears to sync up rather well with what the Iraqis have in mind.

Just face it: your guy is toast.

Posted by jack | July 22, 2008 10:25 AM

The new media meme is going to be: was Obama wrong about the surge?

Of course he was wrong about the surge. It was the most important event of his Senate career, and he botched it completely. And yet, now, after the surge has succeeded, he says even knowing what he knows today about how successful the surge has been, he'd still oppose the surge.

Posted by Al | July 22, 2008 10:26 AM

actually, the pessimist in me agrees w/ Roman, that there is not only no "Waterloo," the ReThugs are winning PR battle viz a viz the surge. I'm watching Obama's Jordan presser now & bulk of questions seem to be 'Weren't you wrong about surge; isn't surge the cats meow,' etc. Matt, I wish I could borrow your rose-colored glasses,but I still fear the ReThug spin-machine.

Posted by mofo | July 22, 2008 10:33 AM

Obama has responded to the surge issue in a relatively candid and fair-minded way -- which is to acknowledge improvement (even more improvement than he anticipated), but point out that political developments inside Iraq (as well as the increase in troop levels) contributed crucially to the improvement -- and then further, point out that the central theme of his arguments in 06-07 was that military fixes alone could not be a complete solution.

I suspect the press won't do a good job of translating this sort of complex and candid reply for their viewers. But I also suspect that the American people (outside of passionately partisan GOPers) don't care that much about the "surge" in the abstract. So the whole thing is a bit moot, where swing voters are concerned.

The whole Iraq debate probably matters less than other factors -- gas prices, stock prices, dislike of Bush, Obama's race, Obama's magnetism, and McCain's increasingly creaky stage presence.

Posted by Ted | July 22, 2008 10:34 AM

"About what is Obama right? He said sixteen months, and the Iraqis says 22 months. Being off by the HUGE margin of 37.5% can be characterized as being right only in the elite playing fields of Cambridge Square."

This patently false. Maliki's spokesman said the withdrawal should be completed in 2010. Obama has a 16-month timeframe that would begin when he took office---presumably around February 1, 2009. 16 months later would be sometime in June 2010. This appears to sync up rather well with what the Iraqis have in mind.

Just face it: your guy is toast.

Posted by jack | July 22, 2008 10:35 AM

"About what is Obama right? He said sixteen months, and the Iraqis says 22 months. Being off by the HUGE margin of 37.5% can be characterized as being right only in the elite playing fields of Cambridge Square."

This patently false. Maliki's spokesman said the withdrawal should be completed in 2010. Obama has a 16-month timeframe that would begin when he took office---presumably around February 1, 2009. 16 months later would be sometime in June 2010. This appears to sync up rather well with what the Iraqis have in mind.

Just face it: your guy is toast.

Posted by jack | July 22, 2008 10:35 AM

Yes, Jim W, the contributions of U.S. troops WERE NOT all that important. Three things have been responsible for the decrease in violence: bribery, the playing out of ethnic cleansing, and al-Sadr's decision to keep his powder dry.

The purpose of "the surge" was to provide a cover story for U.S. officials to invoke when the other three factors had their predictable effect. Thirty thousand extra troops are utterly meaningless in a country the size of Iraq if the Iraqis choose to fight you.

Posted by dporreca | July 22, 2008 10:35 AM

Obama's 16 months begins when he assumes office in January 2009, placing the end date in May 2010, which is exactly 22 months from now.

Posted by TH | July 22, 2008 10:36 AM

"Of course he was wrong about the surge. It was the most important event of his Senate career, and he botched it completely."

Wow, you're right, Al. When the local chieftains in Anbar grew tired of harboring insane foreign terrorists and considered changing sides, the absolutely key factor in their decision was surely the fact that there were 160,000 US troops in Iraq instead of 130,000. The fact that Rumsfeld and his cronies were replaced by people who were willing to negotiate with our enemies had nothing whatsoever to do with this breakthrough.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 22, 2008 10:38 AM

Yes, Jim W, the contributions of U.S. troops WERE NOT all that important. Three things have been responsible for the decrease in violence: bribery, the playing out of ethnic cleansing, and al-Sadr's decision to keep his powder dry.

The purpose of "the surge" was to provide a cover story for U.S. officials to invoke when the other three factors had their predictable effect. Thirty thousand extra troops are utterly meaningless in a country the size of Iraq if the Iraqis choose to fight you.

Posted by dporreca | July 22, 2008 10:38 AM

Exactly who doesn't think this is a "change" of mind ..

When asked if he is committed to winning the war in Iraq, Obama said, “I don’t think we have any choice. We have to win the broader war against terror that threatens America and its interests. I think that Iraq is one front on that war, but I think the central front is in Afghanistan and in the border regions of Pakistan.”

This sure makes that Obama's legislation, for a fixed date withdrawal from Iraq by March 31, 2008, look pretty darn stupid .. but it's so yesterday.

Obama now seems to be sounding like McCain .. didn't Clinton do about the same sort of thing back in 1992 ? Take their issues by agreeing with them.

Posted by Neo | July 22, 2008 10:39 AM

Yes, Jim W, the contributions of U.S. troops WERE NOT all that important. Three things have been responsible for the decrease in violence: bribery, the playing out of ethnic cleansing, and al-Sadr's decision to keep his powder dry.

The purpose of "the surge" was to provide a cover story for U.S. officials to invoke when the other three factors had their predictable effect. Thirty thousand extra troops are utterly meaningless in a country the size of Iraq if the Iraqis choose to fight you.

Posted by dporreca | July 22, 2008 10:41 AM

The decision by the locals in Anbar to stop cooperating with the foreign jihadists was also an important factor. BTW, when John McCain was saying that al Qaeda was going to establish a safe haven in this area, Barack Obama was saying that such a thing would never happen, because the Iraqis would never tolerate al Qaeda in the absence of an American occupation.

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 22, 2008 10:42 AM

Obama's 16 months begins when he assumes office in January 2009, placing the end date in May 2010, which is exactly 22 months from now.

Posted by TH | July 22, 2008 10:43 AM

Perceptions:

1. The surge could have been much more of a PR coup for the Republicans if they actually encouraged more coverage of it; as it was, the Pentagon was so busy covering up the violence in Iraq that there was little media attention given to the event.

The upshot is this: there is no iconic media image of the surge. And a military victory without an iconic image is not worth a hill of beans - in domestic political terms.

2. I'm always struck whenever Obama opens his mouth by what a deep, serious voice he has. He can thank the cigarettes for that. But it creates an impression of someone who's calm and very much in control. These bland announcements and pressers are nothing but good for him.

Posted by lampwick | July 22, 2008 10:43 AM

Of course he was wrong about the surge. It was the most important event of his Senate career, and he botched it completely

Can we start referring to this paid shill as "Baghdad Al" yet?

Posted by ed | July 22, 2008 10:46 AM

The principle "good news is no news" goes double on the web. A candidate's opponents never acknowledge good news, and the candidate's supporters are often committed to looking on the dark side in order to inoculate themselves from overconfidence and disappointment. Meanwhile, of course, journalists need a horse race.

I remember ferocious knock-down-drag-out arguments in late April and May. Was Obama doomed because he could never attract hard-working white voters -- or was he doomed because the Clintons had the superdelegates locked up? All the time, of course, Obama's chances of actually losing the primary were in the single-digit range.

His chances of losing the general election are still higher than that. But if he loses it, I promise you that it won't be because the American people staked their votes on the rather nebulous concept of a "surge" that they're told took place a couple years ago in a foreign country that they have never seen in person. Swing voters focus on things they can see and feel -- gas prices, mortgages, whether they like the guy.

Posted by Ted | July 22, 2008 10:46 AM

Obama now seems to be sounding like McCain

You mean like how he's renouncing permanent bases? Calling for a withdrawal? Supporting a timeline? Calling Afghansitan, and not Iraq, the central front in the war against al Qaeda? Respecting the Iraqis' right to determine whether we should be in their country?

John McCain is saying precisely the opposite of all of those things.

When two candidates have different positions on an issue, and one of them is playing up those differences while the other is trying to blur them, it's a pretty good sign of which one is winning the election, and of which one holds a position that the public supports.

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 22, 2008 10:47 AM

I'm always struck whenever Obama opens his mouth by what a deep, serious voice he has. He can thank the cigarettes for that.

Interesting point. I've heard the same thing said about Sinatra, that his voice became truly great only after heavy cigarette smoking.

As to my earlier question, I'm not as interested in the substance of how important the contribution of U.S. troops have been to the reduction in violence, as I am in the question of how Obama should deal with the issue rhetorically. It might be dangerous to slight the contribution of our troops, even if this is done implicitly.

Posted by Jim W | July 22, 2008 10:52 AM

Obama's 16 months begins when he assumes office in January 2009, placing the end date in May 2010, which is exactly 22 months from now.

And exactly 16 months from when he begins to direct American policy.

Was George Bush's tax plan in 1999 to leave tax rates at their Clinton-era levels for a year and a half? No, his plan was to cut taxes, and he implemented that plan as soon as he came to office.

I know McCain supporters are desperate, but claiming that Barack Obama has changed his position because he can't implement his policies until he's inaugurated just screams "flop sweat."

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 22, 2008 10:52 AM

You guys are cherrypicking what Maliki says. He said removing Saddam Hussein was essential also. But no doubt you disagree with that.

"SPIEGEL: Mr. Prime Minister, the war and its consequences have cost more than 100,000 lives and caused great suffering in your country. Saddam Hussein and his regime are now part of the past. Was all of this worth the price?

Maliki: The casualties have been and continue to be enormous. But anyone who was familiar with the dictator's nature and his intentions knows what could have been in store for us instead of this war. Saddam waged wars against Iran and Kuwait, and against Iraqis in the north and south of his own country, wars in which hundreds of thousands died. And he was capable of instigating even more wars. Yes, the casualties are great, but I see our struggle as an enormous effort to avoid other such wars in the future."

I agree with Maliki, you guys weren't familiar with the dictator's "nature."

Posted by Peter K. | July 22, 2008 11:01 AM

Of course the Republicans are going to try to save face by asking if this means Obama was wrong about the surge, and of course the media will try to keep hope alive for McCain by running with that idea.

None of that adds up to McCain actually winning the overall issue, let alone the election, however. The bottomline is that voters now know that the Iraqis basically agree with Obama when it comes to withdrawal, a withdrawl which the American people happen to want themselves. So, no amount of media gamesmanship is going to wipe out the political implications of all that.

Posted by DTM | July 22, 2008 11:18 AM

Oh, I think shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld while the American left howled demonstrated Saddams' nature pretty well.

Rummy giving him that information on Iranian troop movements so the Iraqis could better target their gas attacks reveals a great deal about his nature as well.

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 22, 2008 11:20 AM

Obama's 16 months begins when he assumes office in January 2009, placing the end date in May 2010, which is exactly 22 months from now.

Posted by TH | July 22, 2008 11:26 AM

Can we start referring to this paid shill as "Baghdad Al" yet?

Hopefully we can soon begin referring to him as "body consumed by cancer" Al.

Posted by voice of reason | July 22, 2008 11:26 AM

I put in a rose bush ("Mr. Lincoln") and violence in Iraq declined. Have McCain (or Al) or other Republicans acknowledged this? The most important gesture any American has made to stem the tide of violence in Iraq and they stand mute.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 22, 2008 11:32 AM

I put in a rose bush ("Mr. Lincoln") and violence in Iraq declined. Have McCain (or Al) or other Republicans acknowledged this? The most important gesture any American has made to stem the tide of violence in Iraq and they stand mute.

That comment is awesome.

IMO most people get it: McCain wants to stay in Iraq and Obama wants to leave.

Most Americans want to leave Iraq, which is good for Obama. But most Americans don't like losers, which is bad for Obama. So Obama's challenge is to figure out a way to get the US out of Iraq without it looking like we lost. I think he's clever enough to pull it off, but it will be a tough sell.

McCain has an easier message: 1) Americans don't lose; 2) leaving is losing; 3) therefore Americans don't leave. It doesn't make much sense if you really think about it. But where Iraq is concerned we left logic behind a while ago.

Posted by hubcap | July 22, 2008 11:55 AM

Obama's 16 months begins when he assumes office in January 2009, placing the end date in May 2010, which is exactly 22 months from now.

If you're going to nitpick, it begins January 20, 2/3 into the month. He obviously (to anybody with a a brain) can't start withdrawal on day one, so that puts it into June or July at the very fastest.

Still, the number 16 is not important. What IS important is that Obama wants out, and McCain wants permanent bases.

Posted by LFC | July 22, 2008 12:00 PM

joe from Lowell:

"Oh, I think shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld while the American left howled demonstrated Saddams' nature pretty well.

Rummy giving him that information on Iranian troop movements so the Iraqis could better target their gas attacks reveals a great deal about his nature as well."

Your point? Saddam should have been left alone? I don't follow.

Maybe you mean that, for example, since the US was allied with Stalin when it fought Hitler, once it turned on Stalin after Hitler was defeated, it was being hypocritical? Is that what you mean?

Posted by Peter K. | July 22, 2008 12:00 PM

I'm not as interested in the substance of how important the contribution of U.S. troops have been to the reduction in violence, as I am in the question of how Obama should deal with the issue rhetorically. It might be dangerous to slight the contribution of our troops, even if this is done implicitly.

Good point. I think it's to continue talking about our military being strong, but only as effective as the people commanding them. Even with brilliant minds on the ground, US troops are only as effective as the strategy. Elements of the surge 'worked,' but they were significantly helped by different tactics, and the political gains that were the goal never happened. In fact, the surge helped prove that military tactics alone, no matter how good, cannot ensure a stable, free Iraq.

Posted by Persia | July 22, 2008 12:23 PM

So Maliki either agreed with Obama or he did not.

Or both.

Or neither.

Welcome to the middle east, Barry.

Posted by Mission Accomplished | July 22, 2008 12:31 PM

I tend to think the right rhetorical approach is just to say that our military has accomplished anything a military can accomplish, but what is going on in Iraq doesn't have a military solution.

Posted by DTM | July 22, 2008 12:32 PM

Maybe you mean that, for example, since the US was allied with Stalin when it fought Hitler, once it turned on Stalin after Hitler was defeated, it was being hypocritical? Is that what you mean?

Welcome once again to Bad Analogy Theatre! In this week's episode we travel back in time to 1948, when President Harry Truman takes a strong stand against our former ally-of-convenience, the Soviet Union.

Truman, naturally concerned about rumors regarding the Soviet nuclear program, announced that the US had no choice but to invade the USSR. He justified this decision on the grounds that Stalin viciously invaded Eastern and Central Europe during World War 2, and angrily dismissed critics who pointed out that he had done so with the blessing of American leaders. He further suggested that the Red Army would probably drop their guns and welcome American liberators with open arms, since Stalin was a cruel tyrant.

When the whole invasion went awry and an ugly stalemate turned uglier after an exchange of atomic weapons, conservative pundits accused Truman of incompetence but denied there was anything the slightest bit wrong with the original plan. It was all worthwhile, because Stalin was a terrible man who aggressively invaded Eastern Europe, and millions of people would have been enslaved forever if we hadn't acted firmly and decisively.

The End.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 22, 2008 12:39 PM

LFP, you're my hero.

Well done.

Posted by Magnolia Fan | July 22, 2008 12:54 PM

Peter K.,

My point is that there has only been one group of Americans who didn't seem to understand Saddam's nature, and it sure as hell wasnt' the liberals.

There was never a point in American history when the left was supportive of Saddam Hussein. I wish the same could be said of the Kissingerian "enemy of my enemy" right, but I can't.

Which is why the "you people didn't understand Saddam's nature" argument by war hawks is so implausible.

I never cease to be amazed by people's inability to grasp simple points when they don't want to.

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 22, 2008 12:56 PM

"Waterloo" is a pregnant metaphor: it doesn't just mean "terminal defeat". At it's fullest, it means "end of hopes for empire defeat". The neo-cons, and McCain, wanted an empire on the cheap. If their stooges can get so emboldened that they say they don't want to be part of it, well, the price for empire just went up. Now, they've got it get it retail.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 22, 2008 1:00 PM

"There was never a point in American history when the left was supportive of Saddam Hussein"

I never cease to be amazed by the righteous ignorance of some on the left.

Anti-war people can't seem to make up their minds. Either Saddam Hussein, "wasn't that bad" which would mean Rumsfeld handshake isn't a big deal

or

Saddam Hussein was evil, which makes Rumsfeld bad for shaking his hands. I believe the latter, but Roosevelt met with Stalin in order to defeat Hitler and I believe this was similar. I mean even France, the Soviet Union and China were also helping out Iraq against revolutionary Iran.

Posted by Peter K. | July 22, 2008 1:21 PM

Peter K: Or Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant and we shouldn't have gotten involved at all, one way or the other. You've set up a false dichotomy there, but that's okay, because ever since Bush got elected a lot of right wingers haven't been able to think in any way except false dichotomies.

Why do so many conservative blowhards find it so hard to get over the idea of "evil"? Can we please stop talking like comic book characters and cease to label people with four-color labels like "good" and "evil"? I'm assuming you're not much of a moral relativist if you're seriously using the word evil, so why would you cite France, the Soviet Union, and China as morally acceptable Fellow Travelers in America's strange relationship with Saddam Hussein?

Posted by DaveJ | July 22, 2008 1:47 PM

Peter, have you taken your meds today?

Posted by Dave G. | July 22, 2008 1:50 PM

And yet, now, after the surge has succeeded,...

The "success" of the surge is like the "success" you have when you get a heroin addict to use clean needles. He may survive longer, but it's still a f'ing stupid thing to do.

Posted by sunsin | July 22, 2008 1:53 PM

Wow, Peter K! So there's no option other than "being supportive" or starting a war? The Bush Administration sure is "supportive" of some awful regimes, then. Or does that dichotomy only apply to "the left"?

Get a clue. Effective leaders don't fight wars because some foreign leader is a bad guy, they fight them because another country is a threat. Wars are tremendously costly and almost always somewhat damaging to your own country's standing (cases like WWII being the rare exception), either directly or because of lost opportunities, so fighting them unless the alternative is actually worse is very, very bad policy.

Saddam Hussein was a bad guy who did awful things, so helping him in a misguided "enemy of my enemy" fight was a bad thing. He was also not remotely a threat to the United States, so concocting lies about the threat to launch a war with him was also a bad thing (monumentally stupid, in fact.)

Is it really so hard to grasp how those things are both true? Only in wingnut fantasy land does "opposing sending other people to fight an unjustified war" mean the same thing as "obviously supports and loves Saddam Hussein and wants him to destroy America."

In "righteous ignorance," "the left" obviously has nothing on you.

Posted by Redshift | July 22, 2008 1:59 PM

hubcap wrote:

> So Obama's challenge is to figure out a way to get the US
> out of Iraq without it looking like we lost. I think he's clever
> enough to pull it off, but it will be a tough sell.

Not sure it's even a tough sell. He's already acknowledged that the surge accomplished more than he expected it to; why not simply say, "it worked well enough; the Iraqis are ready for us to leave; our job is done."

A cynic will say that's simply declaring victory and going home. And that cynic would be right.

But what else, exactly, would constitute "victory" in Iraq? What is the obvious endpoint? Saddam is gone; Iraq is not a military threat to its neighbors; the country has an elected government that says it's ready for us to stand aside.

Particularly in regard to that last, critical point, on what principle do we legitimately stay?

One of Senator McCain's spokesmen was quoted today as saying, "the disposition of a sovereign, democratically elected government is one of the conditions that will be taken into account. . . ." Shorter version: we, not the Iraqis, know best whether we should stay or go.

That is -- exactly -- the rationalization for every empire since Alexander's. It's imperialism. I just wish McCain and his crowd would admit what's becoming increasingly difficult to hide: that the purpose of having a large, permanent military force in Iraq is to have a large, permanent military force in Iraq. Whether they realize it or not, it is imperialism.

If we insist on staying beyond the point that the elected Iraqi government formally asks us to leave, there will indeed be a fully united Iraq -- united against us, and a "surge" of half a million combat troops would not suffice in that debacle.

Posted by Andy | July 22, 2008 2:08 PM

er, Did anyone ever hear of this guy Bin Laden?

It's rumored, he was responsible for an attack on American soil, not Saddam. It's rumored he was responsible for killing over 4000 AMERICANS, not Saddam. It's rumored he has Saudi lineage, not Iraqi, Sunni, Shia, Kurds,. It's rumored he was hiding in Afganistan, not Iraqi.

Can someone tell me again why we killed Saddam, invaded Iraqi, while Bin Laden is putting out more videos than Brittany Spears???

What happened to the war hawks? the war mongers? or just anyone wanting justice/vengence!!!!

Posted by Ramblin | July 22, 2008 2:44 PM

er, Did anyone ever hear of this guy Bin Laden?

It's rumored, he was responsible for an attack on American soil, not Saddam. It's rumored he was responsible for killing over 4000 AMERICANS, not Saddam. It's rumored he has Saudi lineage, not Iraqi, Sunni, Shia, Kurds,. It's rumored he was hiding in Afganistan, not Iraqi.

Can someone tell me again why we killed Saddam, invaded Iraqi, while Bin Laden is putting out more videos than Brittany Spears???

What happened to the war hawks? the war mongers? or just anyone wanting justice/vengence!!!!

Posted by Ramblin | July 22, 2008 2:47 PM

Why do polls show Schmuck Talk up 10 points in Ohio?

I wouldn't push the train wreck theme too hard.

Posted by SocraticGadfly | July 22, 2008 3:11 PM

Dan stated:

"The new media meme is going to be: was Obama wrong about the surge?

It's ridiculous - we can't go back and discuss how we got in the war (and how right Obama was), but we can go back and discuss the "surge."

Sigh."

That is correct. You are not allowed to go back and discuss how we got into the war. It has been decreed, and you shall obey, Dan. So, the topic is "the surge". Please discuss.

Posted by Phil K. | July 22, 2008 3:48 PM

Dan stated:

"The new media meme is going to be: was Obama wrong about the surge?

It's ridiculous - we can't go back and discuss how we got in the war (and how right Obama was), but we can go back and discuss the "surge."

Sigh."

That is correct. You are not allowed to go back and discuss how we got into the war. It has been decreed, and you shall obey, Dan. So, the topic is "the surge". Please discuss.

Posted by Phil K. | July 22, 2008 3:51 PM

For Al

A little real history about US+USSR in WWII: The USSR was invaded by the Nazi armies on June 22, 1941.The US was then neutral (although leaning very hard toward Britain, to the consternation of many US isolationists and not-so-secret supporters of the Nazis>) Until then for a year the only active enemy of Germany was the UK, and the only place where there was any fighting was in N. Africa (except for a British fiasco in Greece and Crete, which were sideshows).

Roosevelt was deeply concerned that the Germans would establish hegemony in Europe...indeed, due to the commercial facet of Hitler-Stalin pact of August 1939, Germany was getting more raw materials from the USSR (mainly wheat and oil) than they ever got from invasion, making that invasion probably Hitler's greatest blunder. Had he been able to concentrate his efforts he could have knocked England out and made the bombing campaign that eventually deteriorated his industrial base impossible...even giving his scientists under Heisenberg time to develop a nuclear weapon.

After Dec. 7, 1941, the US was at war with Japan, NOT with Germany. In fact, had Roosevelt sought war with Germany he may not have gotten it (remember, these were the olden days when, as per the Constitution, war required an act of Congress declaring war explicitly, not elastic mumbo-jumbo like the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution). Hitler solved that problem...he declared war on us on December 11 (his second great blunder)! Thus we found ourselves on the same side as Stalin, and a 3rd grader could understand the importance of co-ordinating efforts---which was mostly but not entirely successful and often resulted in great friction. Home front propaganda somewhat made over the perception of Stalin in to "Uncle Joe" but most of the leaders understood the position. Churchill said that if Hitler had invaded Hell he (Churchill) would at least made a favorable reference to Satan in the House of Commons.

And for good reason: Hitler had the bulk of his forces in the East for most of the next two years, making possible the buildup in Britain that led to D-Day (and even then the U-boat campaign came close to strangling Britain in 1943). Had the Red Army been defeated, the world would have been a very different place.

BTW, in spite of the legend of American military prowess, it was not the US that defeated Hitler, but essentially the Soviets, who lost 20M dead (that's 12% of the total population) in the process of, as Churchill put it, tearing the "guts out of the Wehrmacht".

Your analogy fails in many ways, but suffice it to say that it was Saddam (then our "friend", which is the point of the famous Rumsfeld picture)) who invaded Iran. It was not Stalin who invaded Germany.

Posted by jrosen | July 22, 2008 4:19 PM

Funny, McCain used to be a two pack a day smoker and it did nothing for his chipmunk-like voice.

Yea, smokin' 'em down, with a drink or two at the gaming tables in 'Vegas, baby.

With the super special Vegas entre' that Cindys father was able to get from his friend and business partner Kemper Marley.

Posted by shano | July 22, 2008 4:47 PM

But instead of either of those things happening, Obama went to Iraq and Iraqi leaders said he'd been right all along! That's about as close to "game, set, match" as you get in terms of real world events influencing your political campaign.

Tee hee hee. Yeah, that must be why Gallup's daily tracking poll shows McCain gaining on Obama since your "devastating game changer" "exploded" in the media.

Posted by Mixner | July 22, 2008 7:04 PM

Mixner, as usually, is correct on a minor point only to miss the major one.

Right now the campaign is largely about the positioning, and the heavy artillery will be deployed later. McCain committed a pretty heavy blunder by committing himself to a very unpopular position on Social Security, while his putative advantage as a proven leader for the time of continuing war is evaporating (as there will be nothing to continue).

Right now, some pundits noticed the change of the relative advantages in the candidates positions, some obviously will be denying any such thing, small part of the public noticed something, but the actual fruits will come in the future.

Right now, large segments of public opinion support or oppose McCain on the strength of his moderation on issues like abortion or Social Security, on which he is not moderate at all. In time, the opinion will be more aligned with his actual positions, which, more often then not, are unpopular. And the biggest danger to McCain is that the right wing base will get funk and will not turn out in as large numbers as before.

War was a winner for GOP for two election cycles, a looser in 2006, and a victorious turn-around was supposed to bring it back as a winning issue in 2008. Now, it looks like a loose-loose issue: things go well -- withdraw, things go badly -- withdraw, while McCain wants to stay for 100 years.

Posted by piotr | July 23, 2008 1:56 PM

Mixner, as usually, is correct on a minor point only to miss the major one.

Right now the campaign is largely about the positioning, and the heavy artillery will be deployed later. McCain committed a pretty heavy blunder by committing himself to a very unpopular position on Social Security, while his putative advantage as a proven leader for the time of continuing war is evaporating (as there will be nothing to continue).

Right now, some pundits noticed the change of the relative advantages in the candidates positions, some obviously will be denying any such thing, small part of the public noticed something, but the actual fruits will come in the future.

Right now, large segments of public opinion support or oppose McCain on the strength of his moderation on issues like abortion or Social Security, on which he is not moderate at all. In time, the opinion will be more aligned with his actual positions, which, more often then not, are unpopular. And the biggest danger to McCain is that the right wing base will get funk and will not turn out in as large numbers as before.

War was a winner for GOP for two election cycles, a looser in 2006, and a victorious turn-around was supposed to bring it back as a winning issue in 2008. Now, it looks like a loose-loose issue: things go well -- withdraw, things go badly -- withdraw, while McCain wants to stay for 100 years.

Posted by piotr | July 23, 2008 1:59 PM

what was he right about? the surge not working? or his 2007 senate legislation to remove ALL troops by march 2008 (his first timeline, which changed after he hired 300 advisors)?

Posted by archie | July 23, 2008 8:08 PM

McCain's Waterloo

Comments (66)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories