McCain on Basra

John McCain tries to grapple with the Battle of Basra:

“Look, I didn’t particularly like the outcome of this thing, but I am convinced that we now have a government that is governing with some effect and a military that is functioning very effectively,” Mr. McCain said of the Iraqi operation. He spoke in a taped Fox News interview that was broadcast Sunday.

If even outcomes McCain says are bad ones constitute evidence of progress in Iraq, well then of course we can't listen to Democrats' counsels of retreat and defeat. After all, an outcome McCain likes is progress and an outcome McCain doesn't like is also progress so if McCain is in the White House there will be outcomes, and irrespective of the outcome McCain will cite it as progress and evidence of the need to continue. But don't call the man a "warmonger" -- he tells us he hates war; he just likes starting 'em and continuing 'em forever which isn't at all the same thing.

Comments

No, he's just a Taoist, is all. What happens happens. Don't try to fight it, Matt. That path leads only to suffering.

Posted by Luke | April 7, 2008 9:32 AM

Starting them, continuing them forever, and let's not forget - using them to advance his political career.

Just keeping straight all the ways he's not a warmonger.

Posted by joe | April 7, 2008 9:43 AM

So when did it become politically incorrect to call a warmonger a warmonger?

Posted by Pug | April 7, 2008 9:43 AM

He starts and continues them and holds them up as our national calling and source of meaning. But I guess he doesn't actually like war. I suppose.

He may not pray to Ares or Mars, but he sure as hell hopes to go to Valhalla.

Posted by Consumatopia | April 7, 2008 10:01 AM

McCain came to bury war, not to praise it.

Posted by aleks | April 7, 2008 10:06 AM

I am beginning to believe that McCain is truly sufferring from dementia. His inability to get his facts straight is dangerous, and his continuing efforts to put a happy face on the disasters that keep happening in Iraq are dishonest and immoral.

Calling him a warmonger is just name calling and falls right into the hands of the Republicans name calling game. Democrats must highlight and force discussion about his dishonest claims about Iraq and his numerous gaffes. There are plenty of examples, and his latest comment "we now have a government that is governing with some effect and a military that is functioning very effectively" needs to be called out and he must explain what his definition of "effectively" means.

Posted by SMN | April 7, 2008 10:11 AM

Governing with "some" effect, yes, in the same sense that John McCain has "some" decency left.

Posted by en_dash | April 7, 2008 10:12 AM

an outcome McCain doesn't like is also progress

I don't think this is what he is saying. I think he's saying he's convinced that there is progress despite the recent events. Reporters should press him on what makes him convinced of this? Democrats should attack him for possessing the same unreasoning certitude as the current president.

Posted by Jim W | April 7, 2008 10:15 AM

McCain IS a warmonger. A very foolish warmonger who seems to only see the very next move on the chess board. Problem is, the only moves he sees are his own. He doesn't seem capable of anticipating what his perceived enemies might do in response.

Posted by Curt M | April 7, 2008 10:31 AM

Calling McCain a warmonger IS stupid and plays into GOP hands as SMN says, but we shouldn't allow it to fall into "renouncement" territory either.

Surely singing songs about bombing Iran is worse than calling the person who sings these songs a warmonger, even if neither act is a particularly good idea.

Posted by Consumatopia | April 7, 2008 10:36 AM

It doesn't mater what happens, McCain will always be right on the issue as evidenced by Katty Kay on the Chris Matthew Show this weekend, "If things get worse in Iraq it's good for McCain and obviously if things get better in Iraq it's good for McCain". I don't remember her exact words but that's very close to what she said.

Posted by tom.a | April 7, 2008 10:39 AM

No Matt is correct about calling McCain a warmonger. The conclusion of the analysis is that McCain is a warmonger. Glenn Greenwald is surely right to observe that McCain is being repackaged in the same way as bush (see Great American Hypocrites: McCain's Old Packaging).

The message can't be too simple. The kind of thinking that lead us into the Iraq quagmire is exactly the kind of thinking that McCain is exhibiting. It is a over-readiness to use war where it is counter-productive; it is warmongering. Those that are buying all the folksy clap-trap are failing to see this. Good old-fashioned calling things as they are backed up by good analysis and nuanced argument are needed.

The challenge for the democratic candidate will be to explain to the electorate why McCain is a warmonger. I think McCain is attractive in many ways but he seems to believe that there is no international problem that can't be solved with the glory and might of the US military. People have to understand what that means.

Posted by Chris Dornan | April 7, 2008 11:24 AM

True or not, the warmonger label is not constructive. Let's take McCain at his word: Despite mass defections by the Malaki-led forces, McCain believes the military is functioning "very effectively".

More disturbing, many civilians in the area believe the attack was an effort to wipe out supporters likely to back the Opposition in the upcoming elections. True or not, this perception presents a major roadblack toward reconciliation, which is the key to peace. Despite this, and despite the lack of influence Malaki's power structure had over organizing a cease-fire in Basra, McCain believes that the government is functioning fairly well. Really?

What we need from McCain (or any candidate) is an honest assessment of Iraq--the good and the bad--instead of "platitudes".....

Posted by AKBY | April 7, 2008 11:29 AM

I was depressed to see that Obama was apparently going to denounce or whatever the supporter of his who made that statement*. And even more depressed that this might get spun as McCain being more principled than Obama because he denounced his supporter who referred to Obama by his middle name or whatever the comparable case was.

I don't know how much of this is because the press likes both McCain and Obama and how much of this is a general problem, but there seems to be a weird rule that everyone must treat everyone else's chosen image as if it's for real. McCain says he's not a warmonger, McCain says diplomacy is important and will be the centerpiece of his foreign policy, McCain says war is horrible and he'd know better than anyone blah blah blah. But he has supported pretty much every military venture that happened since he has been in the Senate. Even ones that most of his party opposed, like Bosnia. For someone who hates war in the abstract, it's funny how he just happens to get along with each particular one he has to take a stand on.

He's certainly not the worst warmonger in history, but that word is an accurate description of him or it has no meaning at all. And yet, I assumed that Obama would distance himself from the remark, because it's rude. Sigh.

* Obviously, I don't know if this happened, and I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment.

Posted by Cyrus | April 7, 2008 1:18 PM

According to the news out of Baghdad, Maliki's latest wheeze is to announce that his Government will refuse to allow anyone they label as an al'Sadr supporter to vote in October unless they hand over their weapons.

Which only goes to prove, as our wingnut cousins always said, that the failed attack on pro-Sadr militias in Basra had nothing at all to do with Maliki being scared shitless of losing the Shia vote to al'Sadr come October.

The Writer's Strike really did have global ramifications, didn't it?

Posted by Tony J | April 7, 2008 1:57 PM

Maliki's attempt to disenfranchise the Sadr movement from the provincial and parliamentary elections is merely going to force Sadr to go fully insurgent.

Saying that Sadr's group has to turn in their weapons to vote, when the Badr and Dawa party militias are integrated into the Iraqi security forces, is a joke. Sadr will not allow this to stand.

And he has millions of supporters, and an estimated 60,000 men under arms - with enhanced support from Iran these days as Iran sees that Maliki, Badr and Dawa can't form a viable government.

And if Sadr resumes all-out insurgency against the Maliki government, you know who will be right behind him taking advantage of that disruption of the Shia government - the 100,000 Sunni "Awakening" forces.

And Iraq will be right back where it was in the first half of 2007 - full out ethnic cleansing and sectarian civil war. I think it's pretty clear that by the end of this year, that's where things will be again.

Right now, the US is clearly planning to try to crush Sadr in Baghdad. US forces have surrounded Sadr City, mortar fire and gun fights are increasing, and people are streaming out of the area or stockpiling food and hiding indoors. Full fledged open war between Sadr and Maliki/US could erupt at any moment.

The US lost the first two fights with Sadr, Maliki and the US lost the last one, and Sadr has more and better armaments and troops and Iranian support than he did the last time. If the US tries this crap again, they will lose again.

But, you see, that is the GOAL - to lose again - then blame it all on Iran, to justify a war on Iran.

The Iranian nuclear weapons crap didn't work. The Israelis don't want to be blamed for starting a war with Iran like Cheney wanted them to. So Bush and Cheney are left with only one option - start a major conflict in Iraq and blame it on Iran, then expand it into Iran.

They will do this by the simple sleight of hand - pushed by the media as represented by Lara Logan today - of talking about how Sadr has "Iranian support" without ONCE mentioning that both Badr and Dawa have Iranian support.

And of course, not ONE Congressman or Presidential candidate will challenge that framing of the situation. Not Clinton, not Obama, not McCain.

This is what Petraeus is testifying before Congress to do - justify expanding the Iraq war into Iran.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 7, 2008 6:36 PM