Going to Iraq

[Matt]

Obviously, a political gimmick is what a political gimmick is, but there's really something very strange about the conceit that flying to Iraq and taking a guided tour courtesy of the U.S. military is the best way to learn about the country. I went to Spain for a week once, saw the central parts of Madrid and took some day trips to noteworthy towns that were easily accessible by train, but to answer even very basic question about Spain like "how wealthy is this country?" or "how many immigrants live here?" you need to look up the data not wander around. The McCain approach leads to a lot of incidents like this, "McCain's claim that Mosul is "quiet" was disproved earlier today in grim fashion. Three suicide bombings -- two in Mosul and another in a surrounding town -- left 30 Iraqis dead and more than two dozen injured, according to press reports."

Of course we can expect to hear more about this and about related things like McCain using General Petraeus in fundraising appeals, since turning MNF-Iraq into an extension of the McCain is a pretty appealing tactic. Active duty officers will try to avoid getting dragged into the political fray, but the Bush administration has repeatedly shown that it can be done easily enough, and active duty generals are hard surrogates for Obama to push back against.

Comments

This is a pretty idiotic post. The issues involved in Iraq are not even remotely like "how wealthy is this country?" or "how many immigrants live here?" How Iraq is doing is simply not something you can "look up the data" about.

For Matthew to compare a Presidential trip to Iraq to Matthew's vacation to Spain is unfathomable. This is the type of thinking that is going to be leading the Democrats for the next 20 years? Matthew thinks that all Obama would do on a trip to Iraq is just "wander around"??? Really?

Can Matthew even conceive that Obama might, while he's there, actually meet with some of our military and with some Iraqi leaders face to face? That Obama might be able to get a better impression of the true situation there by engaging in direct conversations with the people most affected? Apparently Matthew thinks that Obama would go for a vacation, rather than a working trip.

Wow. I'm going to chalk this post up to Matthew being in the sun too much on his vacation.

Posted by Al | May 30, 2008 5:26 PM

McCain offered to take Obama for a tour of Iraq,
Obama should offer to take McCain for a tour of the U.S.

Posted by jackifus | May 30, 2008 5:26 PM

McCain offered to take Obama for a tour of Iraq,
Obama should offer to take McCain for a tour of the U.S.

Posted by jackifus | May 30, 2008 5:30 PM

Given that McCLame's several trips there have left him ignorant of basic facts, such as--to cite today's gaffee--that our troop levels are now down to pre-escalation ("surge") levels, I'd have to say I agree: just going there doesn't necessarily teach you anything.

Now going there with a brain, which is what Obama is planning to do in a month or so, that's another thing entirely.

Posted by DrBB | May 30, 2008 5:32 PM

Yes, let's all remember McCain's last trip to Iraq, where he declared the streets safe and the country peaceful! I'm so happy to hear this pronouncement... so we can bring our troops home now, right?

Posted by yaya | May 30, 2008 5:39 PM

Hi,

This is off-topic, but I'm kind of hoping you'll read this, so here goes:

Regarding the RBC meeting tomorrow, I think there is a fairly simple solution. It would be even simpler if the meeting hadn't been scheduled at such a weird moment, but in any case the committee should decide on some version of the half/half arrangement from which Clinton gains a few delegates but not all of what she wants. Then the rest of the primaries take place, and by all accounts Obama will need only a handful of superdelegates to put him over the definitive 2210 number. After that the DNC can announce that both Michigan and Florida delegates will be seated fully, according to this admittedly BS scheme where Obama gets zero votes from Michigan.

This ensures that Clinton does not get some false momentum going into the last primaries (hence the weird timing of the meeting tomorrow), but there is no way Clinton goes to the convention.

I'm guessing (hoping) that this path has already been discussed, but I didn't see it anywhere so I wanted to put it out there.

Posted by common sense | May 30, 2008 5:48 PM

Al, you're reaching on this one. If anything, the situation is even more like Matt says because someone like Obama or McCain can go very few places freely and see very few things and people. There's almost nothing a high-profile, short-term visitor could learn about the actual situation in Iraq by taking a guided tour by the military. C'mon.

Obama has access to both the information sources that the general public does, and those our Senators do. Learning from those sources presents far, far more opportunity than even a "working trip". This is obvious to anyone not trying to make a silly partisan point.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | May 30, 2008 5:53 PM

Obama should visit Iraq and Afghanistan regardless. Not on the McCain "it's just like Indiana" tour, but as a real fact-finding mission that any potential president should take.

Posted by Owen | May 30, 2008 6:01 PM

Not on the McCain "it's just like Indiana" tour, but as a real fact-finding mission that any potential president should take.

Is that the one where he walks around with a freaking target on his chest? KME said it right, there's no way either of these guys can go there without so much security that it makes getting a feel for the situation on the street impossible.

Posted by daveNYC | May 30, 2008 6:25 PM

since turning MNF-Iraq into an extension of the McCain is a pretty appealing tactic

WTF does that mean?

I assume MY meant "McCain *campaign*" ???

Posted by MY Strikes Again | May 30, 2008 6:38 PM

Obama or McCain can go very few places freely and see very few things and people

Really? You're saying he couldn't meet, one-on-one and face-to-face, with various US officers and other military people actually doing the work in Iraq? He couldn't meet with Iraqi government and parliament members? He couldn't meet with religious leaders or coalition members? Huh.

Posted by Al | May 30, 2008 6:40 PM

Well, I suppose Obama as a substitute measure could agree to meet--without preconditions--with General Petraeus.

Posted by Thomas | May 30, 2008 6:48 PM

But Matt, you miss the point. Most Americans have no problem going to a different place for a few days or so, seeing a few tourist things and then thinking they can draw vast conclusions about a place based upon what they saw and who they dealt with. I had a cousin take a Mediterranean cruise one time and come home feeling he was a verifiable expert on French, Spanish and Italian culture based upon the 10 hours he spent in port in each country.

This has resonance to a vast number of people in our country.

Posted by Doug-E-Fresh | May 30, 2008 6:55 PM

I expect McCain will at some point just challenge Obama to get waterboarded with him, with the guy holding out the longest getting to be president.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 30, 2008 7:00 PM

Good one, Al. Matt has never forced a hundred soldiers to risk their lives sweeping and clearing the neighborhood so he could get his picture taken and declare himself knowledgeable.

Meanwhile, Matt, don't sell yourself short. I was in Rome last October and I missed my Vatican stop because the bus was so crowded I couldn't fight my way to the exit in time. Therefore, the Italians are winning the war against global warming. Surely you must've learned something similar?

Posted by Aatos | May 30, 2008 7:06 PM

1. If going overseas and meeting with leaders and seeing "the ground facts" is such a waste of time, why are followers of the Black Messiah so enthusiastic about him travelling overseas and meeting with enemy leaders? While decrying the meeting with troops and friendly or neutral leaders as a waste of the Great Orator's time?

Can't have it both ways, Lefties!

2. The McCain approach leads to a lot of incidents like this, "McCain's claim that Mosul is "quiet" was disproved earlier today in grim fashion. Three suicide bombings -- two in Mosul and another in a surrounding town -- left 30 Iraqis dead...

And the deaths in Mosul are why Al Qaeda is facing strategic defeat. The rest of the Islamic world has gone weary of radical Muslims slaughtering innocent law-abiding Muslims. This follows the rejection of the Islamists in the 90s Algerian 2nd Civil War, 90s Egypt. Mosul is the last place Al Qaeda has strength and they are very close to being smoked out there, and whacked by US and Iraqi forces. These sort of bombings only make their defeat liklier.
Leading Muslim thinkers, many former radicals have lately begun laying out the case against terror by Muslims in the following fashion:

1. While Jihad can be done against weak infidels, radicals foolishly attacking powerful infidel nations that are not hesitant to fight and not cowed by human rights lawyers and lefties end up coming into the Ummah if their lands in the East or West are attacked.
2. Radicals pervert Islam. They are takifiris and liars.
3. They have killed more innocent Muslims than foes of Islam. In Iraq, they have proved worse for the people than the Crusaders..

Posted by Chris Ford | May 30, 2008 7:07 PM

they both shall go to iraq.Mccain return home safe and sound.

Posted by hlg | May 30, 2008 7:09 PM

Matt, can you stop with the acronyms already? MNF? Not all your readers live in the district and/or grew up text messaging. Thanks

Posted by Paul | May 30, 2008 7:12 PM

Chris Ford as usual is a moron.

Meeting with leaders to discuss diplomacy has nothing to do with touring a city while surrounded by a company of troops and attack helicopters to determine if the whole country is FUCKING GOING DOWN THE TOILET!

And, yes, thinking you speak for Islam or even the Islamic moderates makes you a complete fucking moron.

Go burn a cross on somebody's lawn and leave us alone, please.

And Al is equally stupid. Nothing Obama could learn in Iraq meeting with Iraqi government sycophants or military liars like Betray-Us would be relevant. Now, if he could meet with Sadr, the Sunni coalition bloc representatives, Sistani, that might be useful. Better yet, if he met with some of "The Awakening" crowd or actual Sadr militia members, that might be useful.

Talking to the "man in the street" is mostly a waste of time as well. The Iraqi polls show that most Iraqis want the US out - and approve of attacks on US soldiers if they don't leave. What five or ten people say on the street is a crap shoot.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 30, 2008 7:21 PM

I think you can learn a lot about a country in a week or two. But you can't do it on a tour supervised by any government or tourist agency. You need to be on your own and not try to look for anything specific. And you need to be comfortable in places where nobody speaks a language you know or has ever seen anyone like you. And you need to take your driver's translations with many grains of salt. But you can still get some good information if you you can filter it right. You might think you can trust the data on countries, but every country manipulates their data for political purposes. Being there really has some advantages. But being there under the supervision of others isn't really being there.

Posted by fostert | May 30, 2008 7:55 PM

McCain's right! Only latte-sipping elites care about stupid littly details like tenses! After all, "We have drawn down to pre-surge levels" is pretty much the same as "We will draw down to pre-surge levels", just like "We have captured Bin Laden" is basically the same as "We will capture Bin Laden"...oh, and "Mission Accomplished" is of course the same as "We will accomplish our mission"

Posted by Rob | May 30, 2008 9:07 PM

McCain's right! Only latte-sipping elites care about stupid little details like tenses! After all, "We have drawn down to pre-surge levels" is pretty much the same as "We will draw down to pre-surge levels", just like "We have captured Bin Laden" is basically the same as "We will capture Bin Laden"...oh, and "Mission Accomplished" is of course the same as "We will accomplish our mission"

Posted by Rob | May 30, 2008 9:07 PM

McCain will try this, and anything else that comes to mind, so long as it turns the campaign into a dick-measuring contest.

So long as the Presidential campaign can be tunred into and kept a job interview for a hired killer, McCain has a chance. That's the lesson the GOP took away from 2004. Bush will off brown people for you, so you won't be afraid. Kerry, not so much.

It's not great, but what else have they got? The economy?

Posted by Davis X. Machina | May 30, 2008 9:20 PM

1) The rank and file in the military, intelligence, and foreign service are reasonably patriotic.

2) So what Congress should do is repeal the Orwellian-named Intelligence Community Whistleblowers Protection Act of 1998 (it doesn't protect --quite the opposite) and give EVERY American citizen the right to report wrongdoing or problems to the Senator of his choice.

3) This fucking idea that the President controls the flow of info to Congress is bullshit. If the Supreme Court doesn't agree, then impeach and remove every fucking judge until it does agree -- or else delete the Supreme Court. (It's not really in the Constitution anyway.)

Posted by Don Williams | May 30, 2008 9:28 PM

DaveNYC: Journalists covering Iraq go to Iraq because folks briefing them in the US are unreliable. Same thing goes for policy makers: Chalabi, the Pentagon and the NY Times were virtually 100% wrong. In contrast, most every reporter in Iraq knew they'd turn on us within 6 months.

Posted by Owen | May 30, 2008 9:58 PM

Al blathers: "You're saying he couldn't meet, one-on-one and face-to-face, with various US officers and other military people actually doing the work in Iraq? He couldn't meet with Iraqi government and parliament members? He couldn't meet with religious leaders or coalition members? Huh."

I hope they just go ahead and release the Al-Petraeus porn tape so we can see just how loudly Al grunts when he's "following orders."

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | May 30, 2008 10:40 PM

McCain's argument that Obama hasn't visited Iraq enough to understand that we are winning is just plain stupid. Amazingly it is getting covered as if it has deep meaning. McCain can go to Iraq a zillion times, and he is still a zillion times wrong. I've never been there but I know our military presence there is wrong.

Every day that goes by McCain says more and more things that are just plain ridiculous. I'd like to think the American people are smart enough to see it. Unfortunately George Bush has been walking around saying incredibly dumb things for years and he's the president and he even got reelected.

Posted by Sherry | May 31, 2008 1:17 AM

You travel to a country to get a feel for the entire environment. Since wherever either of these two guys would travel would, with the ultra high levels of security, effectively become an extension of the green zone, I don't see any value in them actually traveling to Iraq. Now if they just want to talk to people who are on the ground there, then there's the lovely invention called the telephone. If they want to go whole hog, they can video conference with them.

Posted by daveNYC | May 31, 2008 1:19 AM

Even if you think he can't learn anything from visiting Iraq, he should go to win the election. He isn't going to be able to effectively counter McCain's far-fetched Iraq claims if he never visits, and he's going to lose respect from important demographic groups if he's seen as lacking the courage to visit.

Is the argument that he shouldn't go that he's just too important to the America to lose in Iraq?

Posted by Owen | May 31, 2008 9:50 AM

The Supreme Court is in the Constitution. It's not fully explained, and Judicial Review isn't there, but, the Court itself? Definitely present.

Posted by Taddie Bell | May 31, 2008 11:26 AM

It's not a panacea but it certainly could be valuable to meet the players face-to-face and get a some better feel for the situation.

Really childish to shoot down the idea just because McCain brought it up.

Posted by Decided | May 31, 2008 11:33 AM

Agreed that traveling to Iraq is not going to be particularly instructive.

I'll also add a wtf?! that our presidential candidates are even allowed to tour war zones in the first place.

And finally, it's obvious that this is just good politics on McCain's part. The people running the war want it to continue, so they're going to give a rather unbalanced presentation of the country. This works for McCain, because even if he's aware (as he must be) that it's complete bullshit, it does give him an opportunity to make somewhat plausible-sounding statements about how he's been to Iraq and it's just peachy. On the other hand, if Obama goes, he's probably not going to come back with any new stories of demonstrable failure--but even if he could come back and cite some examples, he'd be instantly savaged for his backstabbing of the troops, etc. There's really not an upside to it for him.

Posted by Matt | May 31, 2008 12:32 PM

The day that McCain takes a commercial airline, flies into Iraq and travels around un-accompanied by military is the day that we can declare progress. In the meantime, many of us head up our households alone because our spouses are on the ground in Baghdad.

Traveling by Military Air outside the wire in Iraq with a full complement of young soldiers does little to prove progress. These types of trips have to be a distraction for those on the ground. It is pretty easy to see the difference between a boondogle, photo-op trip vs. a trip where people are rolling up their sleeves and getting the job done. I know my spouse is working 16+ hours every day. I also hear what it takes to travel around Iraq.

I would prefer our resources on the ground focus on keeping the streets safe, completing our reconstruction activities, and enabling the Iraqi people to get back to living their lives.

Posted by Home Alone | May 31, 2008 1:38 PM

Somebody wrote: "Obama or McCain can go very few places freely and see very few things and people."

Al [overreacting] wrote: "Really? You're saying he couldn't meet, one-on-one and face-to-face, with various US officers and other military people actually doing the work in Iraq? He couldn't meet with Iraqi government and parliament members? He couldn't meet with religious leaders or coalition members? Huh."

When someone visits Iraq for a little factfinding,
they rarely get out of the green zone [and much of what they get is either a rosy military briefing or a dog and pony show.]

Nobody can simply go out in the "red zone" {ie: the rest of iraq] and visit "places freely" or see much of anything beyond the rooftops of the buildings that lie between the airport and the green zone as they helecopter in.

besides, mccain's visited iraq a bunch of times and it's not like he knows what he's talking about when he gets back home.

Posted by dj spellchecka | May 31, 2008 1:40 PM

@Al: McCain's trips to Iraq as a candidate are basically a sideshow. No one is claiming that McCain _as president_ would consider 'walking around' to be a viable surrogate for hard data. However, McCain has referenced his trips to Iraq, on multiple occasions, to parry questions. As both a Senator and a candidate, McCain has used his anecdotal, sanitized tours as a crutch to deflect criticism. To this is what MY appeared to be alluding, despite your churlish claims to the contrary.

Grow up, Al.

Posted by concerning the trolled | May 31, 2008 5:07 PM

@chris ford: Obama meeting with leaders as a candidate is a far cry from meeting with leaders as Prez. Nice try, though.

Posted by shadow tompkins | May 31, 2008 5:13 PM

somebody wrote : "Three suicide bombings -- two in Mosul and another in a surrounding town -- left 30 Iraqis dead..."

Chris Ford replys "And the deaths in Mosul are why Al Qaeda is facing strategic defeat."

Thanks Chris, i'd forgotton about the ever-popular "last throes" agrument which has worked out so well in the past.

Posted by dj spellchecka | June 1, 2008 1:49 PM