Strategery

With all due respect, I think Ross's notion that "the only sure way for McCain to make the Iraq issue work for him is to make the debate about the recent past rather than the future, and to use the experience of the last two years - where (at least for the moment) he looks good, and Obama looks bad" is a little bit crazy. Once the past is allowed into the debate, the fact that McCain was a strident advocate for this costly fiasco and that -- remarkably -- he continues to think it was a good idea in retrospect will bury him.

The smart Iraq strategy for McCain is the one he was using before the current "Obama's a flip-flopper" tactic came into vogue, namely one that's less focused on lying about Obama and more focused on telling big lies rather than small ones. It's absolutely vital for McCain to repeat, loudly and falsely, that there's a very good chance of al-Qaeda taking over Iraq and using it as a base from which to attack the American homeland and that Obama believes he can appease al-Qaeda by giving them Iraq. He needs to say lots of stuff about how "unlike my opponent, I don't think al-Qaeda will be satisfied with Iraq; unlike him I remember what happened the last time we allowed them to take over a country."

The lie on which the war was initially sold, and the lie on which it retained its popularity, was that the war was directly necessary for U.S. national security in a very simple and straightforward sense. That required, yes, some whoppers but they were whoppers about the sort of thing (preventing a WMD terrorist attack on American soil) that would constitute a good reason for starting a war. All this "success of the surge" business is incredibly abstract and totally disconnect from anything real people care about -- I can tell you which Americans have died because of the surge, but I have no idea which Americans are supposed to have benefited from it.

Comments

Ross is in the unfortunate position of believing that there exists a reality in which the ponies of Iraq are alive and well.

Therefore, he is unable to recognize that running on the war requires an ambitious surge of falsehoods. This same fact is what will keep McCain from ever getting his story straight on that whole mess as it appears he will continue to fail to grasp that the story he is telling is a web of mendacity.

Posted by hoi polloi | July 7, 2008 3:32 PM

Ross is due respect?
When did this change occur?

Posted by gonzone | July 7, 2008 3:33 PM

The "success" of the surge means that we can start the 100 years of peaceful occupation when ?

Posted by H-Bob | July 7, 2008 3:36 PM

And by all means, McCain has to avoid the fact that the war Iraq, and the surge even more so, has allowed the situation in Afghanistan to crumble. Can't let people understand that your signature issue has caused the deaths of multiple U.S. soldiers.

But hey, depending upon which day he's talking, help will be on the way either by 2013 or 100 years from now.

Posted by LFC | July 7, 2008 3:40 PM

Once the past is allowed into the debate, the fact that McCain was a strident advocate for this costly fiasco and that -- remarkably -- he continues to think it was a good idea in retrospect will bury him.

You may be right, and I certainly hope you are. But I'm not so sure most voting Americans realize exactly how disastrous the war has been, and how catastrophically costly it has been -- and continues to be, in terms of finances. A little bit of good news (and let's face it, things look remarkably good in Iraq in comparison with most of its post-invasion history) could go a long way toward helping McCain spin this thing as a success.

I continue to believe it's the economy and $4.11 gas -- much more than foreign policy -- that will deliver victory to Obama.

Posted by Jasper | July 7, 2008 3:43 PM

Jasper: $4.11? I want to be where you are. I paid $4.58 in Orange County just today.

Posted by tomemos | July 7, 2008 3:51 PM

McCain could energize his base by declaring that if elected President he will be bold enough to send the military in a Surge after the real enemies of America, the Democratic Party. And also hip hop music. And bloggers. And people who keep the Bible out of the schools. And the New Deal. Scratch that -- the whole 20th Century. That should do it.

Posted by El Cid | July 7, 2008 3:52 PM

Ross is due respect? When did this change occur?

Don't think the phrase "with all due respect" imports any normative notions of how much respect actually is due. It simply means "the proper amount of respect, if any, having been given, [here's what I have to say]."

That said, I like Ross okay. He can have some respect.

Posted by southpaw | July 7, 2008 3:57 PM

I like this post because it's funny and evil. But I love this post because it's right.

Posted by Noah | July 7, 2008 3:58 PM

Why are we wondering what strategy McCain and the RNC will use to deal with the Iraq war issue? Are we Dems. like Charlie Brown who figures this year it'll be different and he'll kick the football?

The modern GOP always runs a campaign based on attacking their opponants on the GOP candidate's weakness. And they always project as obsessively as Mary Worth meddles.

GOP candidate, though billed as a bipartisan maverick turns out to have an "exemplary" record of voting the party line? Well, attack the Dem. candidate for towing the party line (see MY's post below and the comments). GOP candidate has been a full blown supporter of a disastrous war who has shown interest in staying in Iraq for 100 years? Attack the Dem. candidate for supporting the war (will be harder than it was when the GOP used this strategy in 2004, but they'll find a way ... and people's heads will be spun so fast, they'll think right is left and left is right and that the Dems. are doing the spinning besides) while promising a secret plan to get us out of Iraq.

If the Dems. are as unprepared for this as Charlie Brown always was for Lucy yanking the football, then perhaps the Dems. deserve to fall like Charlie Brown always did.

Posted by DAS | July 7, 2008 4:14 PM

I can tell you which Americans have died because of the surge, but I have no idea which Americans are supposed to have benefited from it.

Anybody facing the twin specters of gay marriage and slightly higher marginal rates of income tax, that's who. Because that's what the 'surge' was intended to forestall.

Iraq -- not so much a war as the world's most expensive campaign commercial. And in the case of the 'surge', transparently so.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | July 7, 2008 4:29 PM

The "success" of the surge means that we can start the 100 years of peaceful occupation when?

As soon as the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc has been eliminated from the universe of logic. That, of course, is when the surge will be a legitimate success.

The surge is defended on the basis of a reduction in violence occurring after the surge began that, at best, is little connected to the surge itself. The completion of ethnic cleansing and the decision of insurgents to regroup and wait out the surge they know to be unsustainable are the primary causes of any reduction in violence, and the latter cause points to the surge being a tactical and strategic success for the insurgents, not for the U.S. Unlike the U.S., the insurgents really can stay in Iraq indefinitely, and any waiting game imposed by the U.S. is to their advantage. In any event, the reduction in violence itself was only a tactical goal designed to bring about strategic goals that haven't happened.

Posted by R Johnston | July 7, 2008 4:45 PM

Jasper: $4.11? I want to be where you are. I paid $4.58 in Orange County just today.

I think I read on the internets that's the national average, and that does seem to be a fairly common price here in Boston. I paid $4.28 the other day when I was too pressed for time to shop I (which is pretty much always). I only go through a tank or so a month, so I'm no expert.

Posted by Jasper | July 7, 2008 5:06 PM

You vastly overestimate the extent of the average voter’s knowledge. The average voter doesn’t know much of anything about anything.

Posted by ostap | July 7, 2008 5:17 PM

"...they were whoppers about the sort of thing (preventing a WMD terrorist attack on American soil) that would constitute a good reason for starting a war."

Are you serious?

On what basis do you determine that some element in Iraq is willing to give WMD (assuming they had any) to anti-American terrorists as opposed to, say, Israel? Russia? China? France? The U.K.? Pakistan? Libya?

Other than pre-empting an OBVIOUSLY IMMINENT attack, WMD or otherwise, present just one non-propagandistic criterion that would "constitute a good reason for starting a war."

Posted by Steve S. | July 7, 2008 9:45 PM

The only way for McCain to make Iraq work for him - other than to his base of the thirty percent of morons like Powell and Ford who still worship George Bush, anyway - is for Bush to start an Iran war.

Then McCain can blame it all on Iran. And at least fifty percent of the electorate will believe him, while noting that Obama believes the same thing but he's not a "war hero".

This IS the plan, guys. Josh Bolton, the President's Chief of Staff, said so in 2006.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 7, 2008 11:19 PM

Hack I'm a bit tempted to believe that the US will attack Iran in the next few months, however, I strongly disagree with the political result.

If Bush attacks Iran, it will end the McCain candidacy.

Posted by mike | July 7, 2008 11:25 PM

Well, I'm not saying it's impossible that it would end his candidacy.

I'm saying it's possible that it won't. In fact, it's a damn good possibility and it's one the Republicans believe in.

And it's one the Democrats have done NOTHING to address. Instead they've supported Bush's expanding of covert operations in Iran and now they're going to pass a bill which explicitly enables Bush to establish a BLOCKADE - a direct act of WAR - against Iran.

And Obama has said exactly squat about that. We know where McCain is going to stand on it. Where's Obama?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 8, 2008 12:15 AM

Obama said he would glass Iran but the press was too busy sucking down McCaine's summer sausage

Posted by DBT | July 8, 2008 2:12 AM

Maliki may well make McCain's "hundred years" idea obsolete before the conventions with a short-term memo of understanding that replaces the UN authorization and specifies US withdrawals. The oil deal that's in the works will remove the last major issue blocking "reconciliation", which is a term of art for "splitting up the spoils", allowing us to get on with our likely future role as Iraq's airforce, way in the background.

For those who have been paying attention to nutbag propaganda on the net instead of actual facts, as usual, the surge is already over. Having gone through a period of chaos not altogether unlike many other post-totalitarian states right round the former Soviet empire from Tajikistan to Moldova, Iraq is settling down. Unlike most of the others though, it's settling down with a genuinely democratic system that's likely to become one of the most stable in the region.

Some housekeeping: No one is going to attack Iran; McCain is going to lose; anyone who recognizes that a BLOCKADE (like the one we maintained for a decade against Iraq) is "a direct act of WAR" should certainly recognize that the near-unanimous bi-partisan decision to invade Iraq was an effort to END a war that had been going on since 1991.

Posted by robert powell | July 8, 2008 2:49 AM

Powell, you have to be THE dumbest motherfucker on the Net (next to Chris Ford and Mixner - even SLC seems to have more smarts than you) - OR you have to be the biggest liar on the Net (there you ARE in competition with SLC, since he's a Zionist freak and we all know Zionist freaks can't open their mouth without lying).

I opt for the latter, since nobody could be as dumb as you in regards to Iraq and Iran - not even Bush.

For those who are new here and who think this response to Powell is excessively abusive, be advised that this right wing troll comes in here every single day with the same song and dance: that Iraq was a just war, that everything is going swimmingly, and that there will be ponies as well.

It's all bullshit.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 8, 2008 3:38 AM

That's right, don't be alarmed kids! The Fearless Hack is here to protect you against ideas that fly in the face of nutroots dogma!

It's just hilarious that the mouth-breathing knuckle-dragger who is to my knowledge the only person identified by name as a troll by Our Host is now the new sheriff in town, on the lookout for people with Bad Ideas, ready to shoot from the lip at the drop of an ad hominem.

Posted by robert powell | July 8, 2008 11:47 AM

I can tell you which Americans have died because of the surge, but I have no idea which Americans are supposed to have benefited from it.

George W. Bush
Dick Cheney
Karl Rove

Who else matters?

Posted by Gregory | July 8, 2008 12:03 PM

To quote Mal from "Serenity", Powell, "I haven't made you angry, have I?"

By the way, I believe Matt referred to Petey as a troll before he called me one. And I think Matt's referred to someone else as a troll, as well.

Your turn will come.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 8, 2008 8:12 PM