McCain: I Know What Iraqis Want

Meredith Viera asks John McCain about the fact that the Iraqi government keeps praising his opponent's vision of forward-looking Iraq policy. McCain retorts:

I have been there too many times. I've met too many times with him, and I know what they want. They want it based on conditions and of course they would like to have us out, that's what happens when you win wars, you leave. We may have a residual presence there as even Senator Obama has admitted. But the fact is that it should be -- the agreement between Prime Minister Maliki, the Iraqi government and the United states is it will be based on conditions. This is a great success, but it's fragile, and could be reversed very easily. I think we should trust the word of General Petraeus who has orchestrated this dramatic turnaround.

A few points. Clearly, it would be a bad idea to totally ignore the views of General Petraeus at CENTCOM. And you're also going to want to talk to General Odierno commanding US forces in Iraq. And you're going to want to talk to a variety of other civilian and military officials responsible for US policy in Iraq and around the region. You don't want to just ignore anyone's point of view. But by the same token you can't ignore Maliki's perspective. That's not even a question of Maliki versus Petraeus, it's a question of Maliki's views being relevant to Petraeus giving any serious assessment of the situation. Until these past couple of weeks it wasn't even controversial to say that if the Iraqi government wants us to go, we should go. The debate was about whether we should go even if they want us to stay.

Second -- the arrogance on display here is stunning. McCain is saying we should ignore the expressed views of the Iraqi government because he knows (through telepathy? experience? "cred"?) that secretly these aren't their views. That's ridiculous.

Comments

The mendacity of all of this rhetoric is the inclusion of "based on conditions" all over the damn place. Obama has never said we're going to get out no matter what, even if Hitler turned up in Iraq allied with Al Qaeda and there was a ticking time bomb before they were going to launch ICBM's at us. By constantly including this "condition" caveat all over, they are lying about Obama's position, lying about what Maliki is saying, and lying about their own strategic goal.

Posted by Will Hutchinson | July 21, 2008 10:36 AM

the Iraqi government keeps praising his opponent's vision of forward-looking Iraq policy

But of course, Matthew's lying about what the Iraqi government is saying. As has been pointed out repeatedly to him below.

No matter how many times Matthew repeats it, it is still a lie. The Iraqi government has not ever said that it wants the American troops to leave in 16 months regardless of conditions on the ground. Matthew may want the Iraqi government to have said that. But Matthew's wish doesn't make it reality.

Posted by Al | July 21, 2008 10:37 AM

That's ridiculous?
That's McCain.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | July 21, 2008 10:38 AM

Was will das Iraq?

Posted by Sigmund Freud | July 21, 2008 10:38 AM

The Iraqi government has not ever said that it wants the American troops to leave in 16 months regardless of conditions on the ground.

Uh-huh. Neither has Obama.

It seems just about everyone and their brother is coming around to Obama's line of thinking on this. Who's the candidate with all the foreign policy cred again? McBush?

BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Posted by Jake | July 21, 2008 10:40 AM

i really need to stop reading what al has to say about iraq, given that he's been wrong about every aspect of this misbegotten adventure since 2002.

sort of like mccain.

anyhow, i'm not sure what we're supposed to ask petraeus about: the only question he can answer is whether we've "won," and since that has no meaning, he can't answer it meaningfully. the idea that a national security decision - is iraq worth more US blood and treasure - should be based on the opinion of the cop on the beat is absurd.

Posted by howard | July 21, 2008 10:41 AM

The mendacity, but also the incoherence of it is stunning.

I was watching. I don't know whether it was too early in the morning, or whether McCain just couldn't believe his own tail-wagging-dog argument (which is that anytime anyone says that future events might change a plan, they agree with his choice not to have a plan). But I can tell you that it was impossible to figure out what the guy was saying. The key sentence about conditions got lost in the dizzy swirl of "I've been there too many times . . . of course, residual presence . . . Petraeus." Huh?

Posted by Ted | July 21, 2008 10:42 AM

Al, when people say things you don't like, that's not the same as lying.

What are you, four years old?

BAGHDAD - Iraq's government spokesman is hopeful that U.S. combat forces could be out of the country by 2010.

Ali al-Dabbagh made the comments following a meeting in Baghdad on Monday between Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama, who arrived in Iraq earlier in the day.

The timeframe is similar to Obama's proposal to pull back combat troops within 16 months.

"Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq." -Maliki

Posted by southpaw | July 21, 2008 10:43 AM

Frankly, I think we are seeing now (to some extent) what could have been, had the war been planned properly in the first place. I would oppose the invasion in any case, but it is clear that the neo-cons led us to disaster in Iraq, and the professionals are now digging us out of this mess. The best thing the Bush administration ever did, was to throw the neo-cons overboard. Why oh why then has McCain stocked his camp with neo-cons? Does anyone (anyone!) want Perle and Feith and Wolfowitz back? I could understand supporting McCain (v2000) but a McCain camp stocked with the worst failures of the Bush administration?

Posted by Cornfields | July 21, 2008 10:45 AM

McCain appears to be saying that the US will leave Iraq when it wants to leave. Sure Malicki has a say in the matter, but the US is the big dog and what we say goes. Many Americans like this kind of talk. Malicki is aware that he will be able to play ball with Obama but with McCain not so much

Posted by Running Dog | July 21, 2008 10:50 AM

"They want it based on conditions and of course they would like to have us out, that's what happens when you win wars, you leave.

So much for McCain's 100 years, and treating Iraq like Germany or South Korea.

So much for McCain's statement that withdrawal was surrender.

So much for McCain's prior statements that we succeeded in Afghanistan, and that going into Iraq wouldn't take away from that mission.

How many times does one man have to be wrong before he grasps reality? I guess if you're McSame or Bush, or any of a vast array of right-wingnutosphere pundits, reality is simply beyond your grasp.

Posted by LFC | July 21, 2008 10:51 AM

McCain appears to be saying that the US will leave Iraq when it wants to leave. Sure Malicki has a say in the matter, but the US is the big dog and what we say goes. Many Americans like this kind of talk. Malicki is aware that he will be able to play ball with Obama but with McCain not so much

Posted by Running Dog | July 21, 2008 10:54 AM

Iraq's government spokesman is hopeful that U.S. combat forces could be out of the country by 2010

As I said on the thread below, hope is not a plan. Everyone is "hopeful" we could get troops out by 2010. But Obama thinks we should remove the troops regardless of conditions on the ground. And the spokesman doesn't say anything about whether the troops should be removes regardless of conditions on the ground.

Posted by Al | July 21, 2008 10:56 AM

Is McCain really going to stick with this bullshit all the way through the debates? Is he going to make this his core foreign-policy idea?

"Anytime anyone admits that future events might change a plan, they agree with my choice not to have a plan. Whatever he says, my opponent is incapable of admitting that future events might change his plan. He says he acknowledges that, but -- if he does -- why has he gone ahead and announced a plan?"

And if he does stick with this crazy line of argument, is it going to fly? The American people aren't little Einsteins, but political BS works best when it plays according to type. If the rap about Obama was that he was inflexible, maybe this would work . . .

But no . . . it's really just too far away from anything believable.

I think this has to be a temporary damage-control maneuver, to avoid looking like a flip-flopper. Over the long haul, surely McCain is going to have to tack to the center, admitting that the Iraqis want us out, and that we're probably going to need to plan to get out.

Posted by Ted | July 21, 2008 10:56 AM

Now, this is the schmuck "Al". The real "Al". Accusing Yglesias of lying by contriving words for Yglesias that he didn't say. Amazing stuff. Only in America. Land of opportunity and Fox News.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 21, 2008 11:02 AM

But Obama thinks we should remove the troops regardless of conditions on the ground.

That's false. If Obama did think that, he would have had a lot easier time in the primaries.

Barack Obama:

As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began.
[. . .]
In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.

Posted by southpaw | July 21, 2008 11:05 AM

Al said... And the spokesman doesn't say anything about whether the troops should be removes regardless of conditions on the ground.

Damn, Al! Nobody involved said that, not Maliki, not any other gov't spokesperson, not not even Obama. NOBODY! When are you going to get that through your skull? You're lashing out at a strawman.

Hello. McFly.

Posted by LFC | July 21, 2008 11:06 AM

al, given your distinguished track record of foolishness regarding iraq, really you should just keep your mouth closed, but if you're going to insist upon labelling people "liars," then you should stop telling lies yourself.

for example, "everyone" does NOT want troops out by 2010. john mccain doesn't, for example.

for example, to my chagrin, obama has always been clear that his withrdrawal plan is for combat troops and is contingent: the fact that you don't want to acknowledge or recognize this is consistent with your entire brainlock on the matter of iraq but that doesn't make it "true" (you know, the condition of not "lying").

for example, obama has made it perfectly clear that as a strategic matter, the continued waste of american blood and treasure in iraq is a foolish and pointless exercise, and therefore, while he will not withdraw combat troops in a way that leaves them exposed, he is not fetishizing returning iraq to a totalitarian state's level of civic order, and maliki is agreeing that from an iraqi perspective, this is perfectly reasonable. that's a "condition" on the grounds, too.

you can toss the "l" word around all you want, al, and it won't change the basics: mccain has no interest in leaving iraq, since he ties it to "winning" a war that can't be "won." obama has a large interest in leaving iraq, because it's an enormous drain failing every cost-benefit analysis.

period.

Posted by howard | July 21, 2008 11:07 AM

Al, dude -- you're right that hope is not a plan.

Obama has a plan to leave -- obviously contingent on future conditions because all plans are so contingent, and because he has repeatedly said that his is, in particular.

Why doesn't McCain have a plan?

"Because it would give comfort to our enemies."

But, dude, we're winning. Success of the surge, all hail Petraeus, etcetera. And our friends in Iraq now seem to want us to define a plan, and announce a timeframe for withdrawal.

So what's so scary about having a plan?

Posted by Ted | July 21, 2008 11:09 AM

"Everyone is "hopeful" we could get troops out by 2010."

Really? Because it seems to me that not so very long ago McCain wanted us to have troops in Iraq for 50+ years, along the lines of Germany or South Korea. And the Bush team certainly seemed to want a permanent presence (or at least permanent bases) when it was negotiating the status of forces agreement.

It's only in the last few weeks that "everyone" has started to sound like Obama on this. Reality is finally starting to catch up with these bozos.

Posted by Leo | July 21, 2008 11:10 AM

The Iraqi government has not ever said that it wants the American troops to leave in 16 months regardless of conditions on the ground.

Like Obama, they've said that we should set a date, set a schedule, and only depart from it slightly, if necessary, as we carry out the withdrawal.

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 21, 2008 11:12 AM

To paraphrase the Waitresses tune "I Know What Boys Like":

I know what Iraq likes,
I got what Iraq wants
I know what Iraq likes
Iraq likes, Iraq likes, Iraq likes me.

-- John McCain (whose time has also passed)

Posted by LFC | July 21, 2008 11:13 AM

Perhaps it's just me, but the MSM--the NYT in this case-- never ceases to amaze. Following a tip from JMM I tried to track down today's story about the interview in the national edition. It took me a while because it wasn't on the front page, wasn't mentioned in the 'Inside the Times' section on A2-3, wasn't in the international section but was... in the campaign diary in the National section (A14). There, as Josh notes, despite a headline that suggests the exact opposite (viz. 'Iraqi Premier Steps Back on U.S. Troops Comment'), the story makes it plain that Maliki said what der Spiegel said he did. But isn't it passing strange that this story should be viewed first and foremost as about the American presidential campaign rather than about the war in Iraq, which because it is the most pressing problem facing the nation is rightly an issue in the campaign? It says a lot about the narcissism, self-absorption and callous indifference to human suffering of our ruling class and their chums in the media that the first question they ask is not 'what is the truth about Iraq?' or 'What should we do?' but 'How do developments there impinge on our domestic politics?'

Posted by J | July 21, 2008 11:15 AM

P.S.

Not blaming the individual reporter, whose beat is I assume the campaign, but the editorial decision about how to present the story.

Posted by J | July 21, 2008 11:20 AM

McCain is, somewhat outrageously, trying to evolve his position in plain view while hoping the press doesn't notice. Now it's all come down to "conditions". But obviously, any US withdrawal plans, and arrangements with the Iraqi government on a post-occupation relationship, are going to have all sorts conditions in the fine print.

But look where McCain is going. Old position:

We're going to stay in Iraq for 100 years, if that's what it takes to win the war, and we shouldn't be making any withdrawal plans that specify a timetable for getting out. That only emboldens our enemies. We'll leave when we have succeeded.

By the end of the week, his position is going to look like this:

We have succeeded in Iraq, and can move forward on a timetable for withdrawal, now that we and Genral Petraeus have won this great victory. But that withdrawal plan must include conditions, and will provide for a residual presence, as my good friend President Maliki has communicated to me many times.

And he is then going to try to paint the Obama position as unconditional withdrawal. He's essentially going to try to move to the Obama position, claim it as his own, rhetorically nudge Obama to the left, and claim that this pseudo-Obama of his own campaign's creation is reckless and irresponsible.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 21, 2008 11:21 AM

I wonder if Obama hasn't absolutely nailed this thing shut because he's overseas.

The way the press handles this will be interesting. Of course Iraq isn't the only important issue of the election, but it's certainly up there. The press may be hesitant to make too big of a deal out of this for fear of being accused of being biased. However, it's pretty clear this is a big deal. I haven't really been sold on the "the media is shaping this election to be closer than it really is in order to boost ratings" idea, but this could end up being a referendum on that theory.

Posted by socctty | July 21, 2008 11:22 AM

Dan, I think you're right. But I can't quite tell which way he's going.
He sure hasn't been willing to say "timetable" yet, and the moment he says it, the media is going to pounce.

There's another option available, which would be to say "I trust Petraeus, and our American commanders, more than I trust any mere Iraqi politician, who may only be responding to domestic political pressure."

That, of course, would commit him to straight-up imperialism, softened by only the gauziest veil of pretense. We'll see.

Posted by Ted | July 21, 2008 11:30 AM

McCain is the supreme brainlord. He knows all thoughts. Barack Obama cannot know this because they teach you Iraqi mind reading on the 4th trip, not the second. Bow to McCain's awesome power and don't dare listen to the Iraqis.

Posted by Matthew | July 21, 2008 11:36 AM

Another argument I expect to see, soon:

"The Iraqis are trying to influence our election, and Barack Obama is collaborating with them."

In fairness, the first part of the charge is not altogether false.

Posted by Ted | July 21, 2008 11:37 AM

Second -- the arrogance on display here is stunning. McCain is saying we should ignore the expressed views of the Iraqi government because he knows (through telepathy? experience? "cred"?)

It's almost as if McCain has looked into the Iraqis' eyes and was able to get a sense of their souls.

Posted by Woody Bombay | July 21, 2008 11:37 AM

I know what they want. They want it based on conditions and of course they would like to have us out, that's what happens when you win wars, you leave.

But leaving is losing. They've said as much so many times.

Imperial hubris.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 21, 2008 11:43 AM

"McCain is the supreme brainlord. He knows all thoughts. Barack Obama cannot know this because they teach you Iraqi mind reading on the 4th trip, not the second. Bow to McCain's awesome power and don't dare listen to the Iraqis.

Posted by Matthew | July 21, 2008 11:36 AM"

After all, how else do you think he was able to go to that Iraqi market? It wasn't all those troops around. McCain just read the insurgents thoughts and found out when they would all be out doing errands and laundry.

So basically McCain is running on empire, but not empire. It's so very post-modern with a splash of Dada. Makes me think that the GOP has become a performance art troop.

Posted by Reality Man | July 21, 2008 11:58 AM

" I know what they want"

"trust the word of General Petraeus"

What a jerk. That's just imperialism.

Posted by chris | July 21, 2008 12:02 PM

If John McCain actually has changed his position, and now hopes that we can ultimately leave Iraq, will he be joining Obama (and Clinton, and Biden) in renouncing permanent bases there?

Of course not, because John McCain doesn't actually share Obama's, Maliki's, Clinton's and Biden's position that we should leave Iraq. He is just hoping nobody notices that his use of phrases like "withdrawal" and "leave" don't actually mean we will leave Iraq.

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 21, 2008 12:03 PM

Who rules Iraq?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 21, 2008 12:17 PM

"trust the word of General Petraeus"

We're talking about THIS Gen. Petraeus, right? The one that showed maps of Baghdad spanning Dec. '06 to Aug. '07 , each one showing lessening violence, But lo and behold, the ethnic neighborhood makeup in each map was identical, and it was from Aug. '07?

Why did this matter? Because the same maps shown by Gen. Jones actually showed the amount of ethnic cleansing and partitioning that occurred. So Petraeus credited "The Surge" and ignored the massive murdering and displacement of people. (Patraeus then caged up each ethnic neighborhood with 17' blast walls, the situation that remains today.)

Gen. Petraeus is under the orders of George W. Bush. He is not independent, and is not free to voice his actual thoughts. You can't trust what he says any more than you could trust Colin Powell's horribly dog and pony show at the U.N.

Posted by LFC | July 21, 2008 12:26 PM

As always, Matt is missing the important bit. Obama has been saying since 2006 that we need to withdraw in defeat, while McCain argued that we needed to change strategies to win. We did change strategies, and now Maliki says we've won. Why isn't it important to note that because we adopted McCain's strategy, not Obama's, we've won? That seems kind of important. Adopt Obama's strategy, and lose Iraq, or adopt McCain's strategy and win Iraq. We adopted McCain's and won. Big story, right?

But instead of focusing on the fact that Obama's judgment has been awful, Matt, as any good partisan would, spins a different story. He ignores Maliki saying we've won, and says that Maliki thinks we should adopt the Obama plan. The difference between the Obama plan and the McCain plan for Iraq is simple and profound: Obama says we need to have our combat troops (a weasel formulation, but what can you expect?) out of Iraq within 16 months of January 2009, regardless of whether present trends continue. McCain says that we've won a fragile peace in Iraq, and that we should withdraw victorious, but if that fragile peace is undermined by our withdrawal, we shouldn't abandon Iraq.

Matt's suggestion that the Iraqi government wants us to abandon them in the event that the current McCain initiated trends don't hold isn't credible. It doesn't fit with any other public statements Maliki has made, and it doesn't suggest itself as somehow obvious.

Posted by Thomas | July 21, 2008 12:41 PM

As always Thomas is too stupid to argue against Obama's position so he uses a charicature of that position. Thomas battles straw men because that's what idiots do.

One of John McCain's next few positions will be to adopt Obama's. The only way a partisan moron like Thomas can fit that into his world view is to pretend that Obama's is the position of an insane person.

Posted by Not As Stupid As Thomas | July 21, 2008 12:52 PM

Since 'Thomas' is a reliable Drum-troll, and most likely remunerated too, we can assume that 'this means we won!' is the week's wingnut refrain.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 21, 2008 12:53 PM

thomas, do please explain to us how the "fragile peace" that you think we've won in iraq was worth tens of thousands of iraqi lives, thousands of american lives, and hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars? we can hardly wait to find out....

Posted by howard | July 21, 2008 12:57 PM

Trust the man who upon his return from the famous Baghdad market trip stated on national television that he did not wear body armor during his market tour and that Patreaus rode around in an unarmored vehicle? I don't think so.

Trust the man who also said:

“And I believe that the success will be fairly easy” and “There's no doubt in my mind that... we will be welcomed as liberators.” [John McCain 3/24/03]

“I think we could go in with much smaller numbers than we had to do in the past... I don't believe it's going to be nearly the size and scope that it was in 1991.” [John McCain 9/15/02]

“There's not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias. So I think they can probably get along.” [John McCain 4/23/03]

???

No, thank you.

McCain can wage all the war he wants along the 'border of Iraq and Pakistan' or 'Chekeslovakia' for that matter. I simply don't trust the man with reality.

Posted by MsSwin | July 21, 2008 1:33 PM

If Obama had his way we would be pulling out of Iraq in the midst of a genocidal civil war. Instead we will be pulling out due to a success. Nothing will change the fact that Obama was unequivocally opposed to the surge that will make his 16 month time frame even close to doable. McCain was right. Now that we are successful Iraq is feeling a little confident and thinks that they can handle it all on their own. Maybe they are right, however, if you read other reports there are people in his own government that doubt the ability of the Iraqi army to control the country. Maliki is going to say what is popular, much as Barack Obama does. What is realistic is another matter.

Posted by UKATS71 | July 21, 2008 1:33 PM

If Obama had his way we would be pulling out of Iraq in the midst of a genocidal civil war. Instead we will be pulling out due to a success. Nothing will change the fact that Obama was unequivocally opposed to the surge that will make his 16 month time frame even close to doable. McCain was right. Now that we are successful Iraq is feeling a little confident and thinks that they can handle it all on their own. Maybe they are right, however, if you read other reports there are people in his own government that doubt the ability of the Iraqi army to control the country. Maliki is going to say what is popular, much as Barack Obama does. What is realistic is another matter.

Posted by UKATS71 | July 21, 2008 1:33 PM

If Obama had his way we would be pulling out of Iraq in the midst of a genocidal civil war. Instead we will be pulling out due to a success. Nothing will change the fact that Obama was unequivocally opposed to the surge that will make his 16 month time frame even close to doable. McCain was right. Now that we are successful Iraq is feeling a little confident and thinks that they can handle it all on their own. Maybe they are right, however, if you read other reports there are people in his own government that doubt the ability of the Iraqi army to control the country. Maliki is going to say what is popular, much as Barack Obama does. What is realistic is another matter.

Posted by UKATS71 | July 21, 2008 1:35 PM

Trust the man who upon his return from the famous Baghdad market trip stated on national television that he did not wear body armor during his market tour and that Patreaus rode around in an unarmored vehicle? I don't think so.

Trust the man who also said:

“And I believe that the success will be fairly easy” and “There's no doubt in my mind that... we will be welcomed as liberators.” [John McCain 3/24/03]

“I think we could go in with much smaller numbers than we had to do in the past... I don't believe it's going to be nearly the size and scope that it was in 1991.” [John McCain 9/15/02]

“There's not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias. So I think they can probably get along.” [John McCain 4/23/03]

???

No, thank you.

McCain can wage all the war he wants along the 'border of Iraq and Pakistan' or 'Chekeslovakia' for that matter. I simply don't trust the man with reality.

Posted by MsSwin | July 21, 2008 1:35 PM

Trust the man who upon his return from the famous Baghdad market trip stated on national television that he did not wear body armor during his market tour and that Patreaus rode around in an unarmored vehicle? I don't think so.

Trust the man who also said:

“And I believe that the success will be fairly easy” and “There's no doubt in my mind that... we will be welcomed as liberators.” [John McCain 3/24/03]

“I think we could go in with much smaller numbers than we had to do in the past... I don't believe it's going to be nearly the size and scope that it was in 1991.” [John McCain 9/15/02]

“There's not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias. So I think they can probably get along.” [John McCain 4/23/03]

???

No, thank you.

McCain can wage all the war he wants along the 'border of Iraq and Pakistan' or 'Chekeslovakia' for that matter. I simply don't trust the man with reality.

Posted by MsSwin | July 21, 2008 1:35 PM

Obama has been saying since 2006 that we need to withdraw in defeat

I'm sure you're right, but I just find it odd that since he's been saying that since 2006 -- 1.5 years -- that it's curious that nobody has ever caught that statement on tape. It sounds like one of those UFO things.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 21, 2008 1:36 PM

If Obama had his way we would be pulling out of Iraq in the midst of a genocidal civil war. Instead we will be pulling out due to a success. Nothing will change the fact that Obama was unequivocally opposed to the surge that will make his 16 month time frame even close to doable. McCain was right. Now that we are successful Iraq is feeling a little confident and thinks that they can handle it all on their own. Maybe they are right, however, if you read other reports there are people in his own government that doubt the ability of the Iraqi army to control the country. Maliki is going to say what is popular, much as Barack Obama does. What is realistic is another matter.

Posted by UKATS71 | July 21, 2008 1:41 PM

Yep, that email memo sure did spread fast. The new arrivals should really just cut and paste the contents: they'll still get their McCain Points, redeemable for a trip to Czechoslovakia.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 21, 2008 1:49 PM

The Surge has been successful but not too successful that we shouldn't stay there forever. After all, Iraq is a unique place. We're honor bound to extinguish any future crisis there. The rest of the world be damned. And our own problems, too. Pfft. What do we care? We'll forever do without fixing bridges or decent health care for all rather than break our sacred bond to Iraq. Other countries, other crises? Pathetic though their plights may prove, we're sticking with our sweetie, Iraq.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 21, 2008 1:57 PM

Actually, the arrogance McCain displays is standard issue American arrogance, accepted by the press and the D.C. establishment since 2003. We are, after all, talking about the American press, which published something like a thousand articles of analysis about how Chalabi would become the first democratically elected pro-American leader of Iraq, and continued doing it up to the very day that his party received .06 percent of the vote in 2006. Three years into the war, the embedded reporters in Iraq still did not have a clue. Go back and read Slate - the contrarian heart of CW - back in 2002 and 2003, and there are plenty of articles laughing at the crazy loony lefties who worry that American planes bombing and killing civilians would, uh, cause the victims families, villages, etc. to turn against Americans. No - they can see freedom clearly when it rips off one of their arms or legs, and would simply hop to the nearest fourth of July parade to sing the star spangled banner.

The lack of any sense whatsoever of Iraqis as separate people, with a separate culture, with, in fact, their own views on being on the receiving end of American violence has never played any role in the discussion of the war in this country. In terms of America's ability to imagine what the Other is like - forget it. We are talking a lack of moral imagination to a degree that is commonly ascribed to serial killers. Combine that with chronic collective short term memory loss, and you have a pretty good picture of the problem with American foreign policy.

Posted by roger | July 21, 2008 2:09 PM

IMO, the fall-off in violence in Iraq had almost nothing to do with the surge — and everything to do with actually talking with and supporting the previous Sunni insurgents. Talks with the insurgents began all the way back in December of 2003, when military officers met with Sunni insurgent leaders in Amman, Jordan. The Bush administration opposed talks, but the military went ahead with them anyway.

In April of 2007, BEFORE THE SURGE, Patraeus told the Congress that the level of violence in Iraq was down significantly and that “the tribes” were the key to that transformation. Recruiting the Sunni tribes (and paying them) has been the key to success in Iraq, along with the stand-down of the Mahdi Army. The tribes of Anbar also joined U.S. forces. The Iraqis were convinced Coalition forces are going to leave, and they do not want Al Qaeda to take control of the area when that happened

And all of this began before the surge. The surge in Iraq had nothing to do with defeating the Iraqi insurgency and everything to do with actually talking with them. John McCain needs to acknowledge and give credit where credit is due: to those fine officers of our military who decided to talk, even as the administration continued to beat the war drums.

Posted by IIFLA | July 21, 2008 2:13 PM

There's another option available, which would be to say "I trust Petraeus, and our American commanders, more than I trust any mere Iraqi politician, who may only be responding to domestic political pressure."

If McCain leans on that one, I think Obama should begin to respond in something like the following way:

"I don't know about Senator McCain, who sounds like he might be running to be General Petraeus's aide-de-camp. But I am running for President of the United States, which includes the job of being commander-in-chief of the armed forces. One of us will be elected president in November, and on the day that person is inaugurated, he will assume the chair where the buck stops, and General Petraeus will begin looking to him for answers.

"I suspect Senator McCain has already spoken with General Petraeus and other commanders in the field many times, just as he has spoken to President Maliki. I suspect he also reads the papers every day, and is briefed frequently on the situation in Iraq. I know that my own advisers keep me very well-informed. Both of us have an abundance of information on the facts on the ground in Iraq.

"At some point, I wonder if Senator McCain will quit kicking this question down the road and stop hiding behind generals. He's running for president, and ought to have a plan by now. If he has one, he should let us know what it is. If he doesn't, he should stand down."

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 21, 2008 3:13 PM

I think John McCain is , sadly, still fighting the Vietnam War. He can't get over the fact that he sacrificed five years of his life for what? So AMerica could leave the country he sacrificed those years to? And he's gonna make damned sure America doesn't dishonorably engage in the same kind of disgraceful unpatriotic retreat if he can help it.

While I commend his service (and yeah, I know I know --since I haven't served in one of the armed forces, I'm not patriotic),I think his subjectivity in this regard makes him less qualified to be President during the execution of a war, not more so.

It's not as though he was some kind of troop commander in Vietnam. He was a prisoner of war. Think about it.

Disclosure: A family friend was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for a number of years. The guy is a sweetheart, but he's is loopy as all get out. He's not qualified to babysit my kid let alone run a country that's engaged in war. while I don't think McCain's loopy, I do question his objectivity, and therefore judgment, on this issue. And I'd bet my beautiful eyeteeth that his temper wasn't helped by his experience.

Posted by maria | July 21, 2008 3:35 PM

dan kervick @3:13,

i would be thrilled to see obama kick that much ass.

Posted by haymaker | July 21, 2008 4:04 PM

He also knows what women want.
See that's why insurance should cover Viagra, not contraception.
But Obama does need to be careful on this trip. A US leader who actually listens to people & who's intelligent. He could give people the bends

Posted by Miriam | July 21, 2008 6:44 PM

He also knows what women want.
See that's why insurance should cover Viagra, not contraception.
But Obama does need to be careful on this trip. A US leader who actually listens to people & who's intelligent. He could give people the bends

Posted by Miriam | July 21, 2008 6:53 PM