Posted on 11/10/2005 2:36:58 PM PST by jmc1969
Senator John McCain on Thursday called for an immediate increase of 10,000 troops in Iraq, and said the “stakes are higher than they were in Vietnam” for US foreign policy.
Conceding that there was an “undeniable sense that things are slipping” in Iraq, Mr McCain said “we need a renewed effort to win the home front. Without it we will lose this war as soundly as if we had lost on the battlefield...We must get Iraq right, as American stakes in the conflict are enormous”.
Senator John Kerry has laid out an alternative strategy that would enable the US to bring home 20,000 troops.
But Mr McCain called that plan “a major step on the road to disaster. If we leave now the most likely result would be full-scale civil war. No American leader would want our nation to suffer that moral stain. Instability in Iraq would invite further Syrian and Iranian influence.”
Instead, he called for a military counter-insurgency strategy to create permanent safe areas in the country, rather than focus on short-term seasonal offences across different parts of the country. “Sweeping and leaving is not working. We need to clear and stay.”
The rival policies come amid a stream of visits from Iraqi officials in the run-up to elections on December 15. Adil Abdul Mahdi, the deputy president, on Thursday met administration officials who see him as a contender for prime minister.
A leading figure in the ruling Shia alliance, Abdul Mahdi said the alliance sought consensus politics and would not impose an Islamist vision on Iraq. Sale of alcohol would not be banned, for example, he said. He stressed that the new constitution was a “marriage” of Islamic and secular and democratic ideas.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.ft.com ...
Well, there is a fundamental problem. We are not fighting the war to win it. It is being fought to keep the MSM trash minimized, to keep the public negative opinion minimized, to keep political fallout on Capitol Hill minimized...but not to flat-out fight it, and win it -- whatever the short-term costs.
McCain is too g-d old to be running for president.
I call for one good senator from Arizona too but look what that gets ya........
Only a liberal democrat would use the term "maverick" to describe John McCain.
I think John has issues.
His assertion is that the generals over there need more troops but are afraid to ask. He believes the Administration doesn't want to send troops because it will make their critics (Zinni) look like they were right.
Against this you have two elections where the number of troops was raised. So McPanic is arguing the Administration is afraid to do something it's already done twice.
Would someone, anyone, stick a microphone in his face and ask him if he believes the generals would risk defeat and the loss of their men because they're afraid to ask for more troops? Then ask if he really believes the Administration's true position is: "It's OK if Iraq fails, as long as Zinni is validated".
If he were a Republican instead of a media whore, a reporter would ask how rotting in a POW prison qualifies him to determine troop levels in Iraq.
What a, well, the keywords speak for me....
Friggin squid
yes....I know...but at least he backed the war whole heartedly unlike those other weasals...he is just not consistent....I mean, if you look at his voting record he actually does vote with the party 75% of the time unlike Spector, Collins etc who are only about 45%....the really true RINO's.....but then he does just what you say...he goes on the media and blasts his own party just to hear himself talk....I just don't hate him as much as some do here since his voting record is still primarily Repub, but his love of the media do not endear him to many....that is for sure.....
Good grief man, at least hire decent staff to keep you up to date on things.
John McCain has spent five years being a pain in GWB's side, with the exception of campaign 2004, why should anything he does suprise us.
well I don't take that bait....I see a maverick as going against the grain...or the mainstream...whatever....but that back handed attempt to label me is just a poor strategy....
There is no such thing as a "permanent safe area" when your dealing with the type of enemy we are against in Iraq. They will kill themselves to get on the evening news cycles or into one of mclame's pontifications.
The answer is to sweep out the terrorists and establish Iraqi security units. Now since the Iraqi's have never had a security force which was really aimed at protecting its citizens it may take a few trys at it. But the absolutely wrong thing to do is setup the American Military as the local security in every town.
McCain is wrong on every major issue except that we need to stay in Iraq. IMO the man is a threat to this countries best interest........
I call for McCain to quit.
you are right in that analysis.....but his voting record would not dictate he is left wing....hell, his lifetime voting record is mor conservative then Zell Miller, and I thought we all loved Zell......don't get me wrong...when McCain opens his mouth...half the time I shudder....but my main point was that some here would rather Hitlery be Pres then vote for McCain....that is ludicrous
Well, sir, I seem to recall you have done everything in your power to lose this war at home by undermining Rummy.
I have a question.
Is the President planning to up troops 10,000 for the next vote? Is McCain trying to get ahead and claim credit?
I'd also like to know if a Republican leaked to the Post, what connection McCain has to the person or event?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.