Posted on 05/15/2008 1:13:57 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Republican John McCain declared for the first time Thursday he believes the Iraq war can be won by 2013, although he rejected suggestions that his talk of a timetable put him on the same side as Democrats clamoring for full-scale troop withdrawals.
The Republican presidential contender, in a mystical speech that also envisioned Osama bin Laden dead or captured, and Americans with the choice of paying a simple flat tax or following their standard 1040 form, said only a small number of troops would remain in Iraq by the end of a prospective first term because al-Qaida will have been defeated and Iraq's government will be functioning on its own.
"By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won," McCain told an audience of several hundred here in the capital city of a general election battleground state.
Later, as the Arizona senator drove to the airport on his "Straight Talk Express" campaign bus, McCain was peppered by reporters with questions about the timetable. He and his aides insisted there was a difference between ending the war and bringing troops home and, as they criticize the Democrats, announcing a withdrawal upfront without regard for the military endgame.
"It's not a timetable; it's victory. It's victory, which I have always predicted. I didn't know when we were going to win World War II; I just knew we were going to win," McCain said.
The Vietnam veteran added: "I know from experience, you set a day for surrender — which is basically what you do when you say you are withdrawing — and you will pay a much a heavier price later on."
In the primary campaign, McCain had criticized former Republican rival Mitt Romney for hinting at a timetable.
Democrats challenged McCain's comments, led by presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton.
In a statement, the New York senator dismissed McCain and said he "promises more of the same Bush policies that have weakened our military, our national security and our standing in the world." The Barack Obama campaign said that while the candidate agrees with some of McCain's sentiments, "you cannot embrace the destructive policies and divisive political tactics of George Bush and still offer yourself as a candidate of healing and change."
Other Democrats equated McCain's comment with President Bush's May 1, 2003, speech on the deck of an aircraft carrier displaying a "Mission Accomplished" banner.
In his remarks, McCain peered through a crystal ball to 2013 and envisioned an era of bipartisanship driven by weekly news conferences and British-style question periods with joint meetings of Congress.
The senator conceded he cannot make the changes alone, but said he wanted to outline a specific governing style to show the accomplishments it can achieve. He backed up his remarks with a Web ad featuring similar content.
"I'm not interested in partisanship that serves no other purpose than to gain a temporary advantage over our opponents. This mindless, paralyzing rancor must come to an end. We belong to different parties, not different countries," McCain said. "There is a time to campaign, and a time to govern. If I'm elected president, the era of the permanent campaign will end; the era of problem-solving will begin."
To the disdain of some fellow Republicans, the likely GOP nominee has worked with Democrats on legislation aimed at overhauling campaign finance regulations, redrafting immigration rules and regulations and implementing government spending controls.
While that has cultivated a maverick image for McCain, the Arizona senator has also been accused of exhibiting a nasty temper — swearing even at fellow lawmakers from his own party — and unabashed partisanship.
In particular, McCain has clashed with the leading Democratic presidential contender, Barack Obama. After tangling with the Illinois senator on lobbying reforms, McCain questioned Obama's integrity in a publicly released 2006 letter.
McCain wrote he had thought Obama's interest in ethics legislation "was genuine and admirable," before adding: "Thank you for disabusing me of such notions." He accused Obama of "partisan posturing."
In outlining other potential achievements of a first term in his speech, the 71-year-old McCain implicitly was suggesting he would seek a second term, an attempt to mute suggestions he would serve only four years after being the oldest president elected.
In particular, he sees a world in which the Taliban threat in Afghanistan has been greatly reduced.
He added: "The increase in actionable intelligence that the counterinsurgency produced led to the capture or death of Osama bin Laden, and his chief lieutenants. ... There still has not been a major terrorist attack in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001."
McCain also pledged to halt a Bush administration practice of enacting laws with accompanying signing statements that exempt the president from having to enforce parts he finds objectionable.
No, he was not wrong.
An entrenched enemy can sit underground as thousands of tons of ordnance are hurled at him all over the countryside and do quite well. World War One barrages would last for days.
In the end, you need infantry to flush the fox out of the hole.
In Kosovo, the role of that infantry fell upon the Kosovo Liberation Army as Clinton wanted to keep U.S. boots out of Kosovo.
Whether or not having that Muslim infantry (which had been classified as "terrorist") replace U.S. ground troops is a good thing is debatable.
The air campaign undoubtedly pinned down the Serbian Army making it operationally useless. However, without the KLA infantry moving in for the clean up, the Serbs could have stayed hunkered down indefinately.
Once the Serbs had to react to KLA infantry, they either had to sit in their holes and die at the hands of KLA infantry or move to meet the KLA infantry and die at the hands of U.S. air power.
The actual damage inflicted on the hidden and entrenched Serb forces by air power was not very significant.
Air power is fantastic against armies on the move and infrastructure that can't go anywhere but relatively ineffectual against dispersed, hidden and entrenched forces without out infantry to pin point targets and do the final clean up.
The old claim that "air power can win a war all by itself" has been around since the days of Billy Mitchell and the claim has yet to be vindicated except for the "war" of the conquest of the Japanese home islands after the nuclear attacks.
Before that, even raids such as the Tokyo Fire Raids that killed over 100,000 Japanese in a single night did little to bring about a Japanese surrender thereby necessitating the planned infantry invasion of Japan that was canceled only after the nuclear strikes.
Maliki seems to be “cleaning house” already.
The pieces seem to have just fallen into place in Iraq, and as usual with these situations the business was just the result of gradual development, in this case that of the Iraqi army, which was what everyone was saying from 2004 on. It just takes time.
Now, with an effective army, the Iraqi government (Maliki) has the acknowledged greatest native power in the land, and so all nearly all the major factions fall behind the “strong horse”. That is the key right there. Thats why Maliki has been doing all the high profile “independent” military PR he has been doing. Over there, if you have it you have to flaunt it.
2013 is pessimistic, I think by the end of this year it will become obvious even to our MSM that the Iraqi state is on a strong footing, and things will become even quieter there than they are already. Not that it will be totally so, as every country in the area has an insurgency problem of some sort, but it will be impossible to say that the Iraqi state is weaker than the Iranian or the Syrian or the Saudi.
It seems to be doing so right now. The key is the army, and Maliki has been showing it off. “Power comes from the barrel of a gun”, and it is so. The Maliki government now clearly has the most and best guns, nearly all the money, and all the factions are coming together. Those that don’t are being or will be exterminated.
On the contrary - the US is the world champion “nation builder”, the only other real contenders are the British. Its just that this business is very difficult, and in the ME, very difficult.
Its not likely in hindsight that the thing could have been won earlier, as the real problem there was not war as such, it was building Iraqi institutions, in particular the army. No army = no state.
Remind me, Why are we still there?
You would think someone as prominent as McCain would have been forcefully arguing for pulling out what forces we have there, it’s a quagmire other wise.
I guess Clinton should have listened to McCain and not Weasley Clark, the bomb the snot out of e’m from 15,ooo feet General and the “leader” of the free world forces who got us suckered into that whole mess to start with.
I’m sure McCain would have been glad to render what technical insight he had to offer to get the job done either way, even if he was an naval aviator and not a ground pounder.
At the rate things are going and that area long being a hot bed for world wars starting over events there .. he may get a chance yet.
Its a political prediction. War is just politics by other means. The key here is not the particulars of movement of armies or the use of firepower but the establishment of political power.
“Remind me, Why are we still there?”
In the narrow view, to create a friendly Iraqi state.
As in Korea, where the proximate objective was to preserve a friendly South Korean state.
In a larger view, to preserve a host of US allies, in the 1950’s, pretty much all of East Asia, here a slew of characters across the ME. A lot of these 1950’s allies were lousy allies and poor specimens, as are our present allies of the 2000’s, but even so.
In a much larger view, to keep a system of alliances and the general balance of power such that the world doesn’t collapse back into the situation of 1914 or 1939.
Because, before the U.S. got there and stayed there, that region was a bloodbath for all sides be they Serb, Croat, Bosnian or Kosovan.
After the U.S. got there and stayed there, the Pax America has broken out and the killing pales in comparison to what it was before.
You know, sort of like all of Western Europe.
I was referring to the Kosovo affair in response to another poster, I should have phrased the question specifically to Kosovo, my mistake.
But thanks for the input. Unfortunately, conflict is unavoidable in the future in many of those same areas we have ‘pacified’ for so many years. Perhaps better we had done what MacArthur and Patton recommended, but hindsight is 20/20. ;-)
Not trying to make light of it, but what do we get out of playing the globe’s police force? (/devil’s advocate)
Seems like we get more repudiation and slurs than Thanks from many of those who we keep alive so they can get the political thing mastered eventually and stow the daggers and ammo .. or is that just the media covering and reporting only what it wants to?
“McCain believes Iraq war can be won by 2013”
Doubtful. That would leave the Repubes with absolutely NOTHING to run on in that years’ elections.
“We all want to “win””
I agree
“and as soon as possible”
Not so much. I believe that there are those that wish to prolong the war in order to have it as an issue.
We have already been in Iraq longer then we spent fighting WWII, the country does not have the same resolve for IRAQ as it did for WWII and the and predictably the results will be similar to previous conflicts we did not have the resolve for.
The way I see it is the sooner we cut our loses the sooner we cut our loses.
McCain also promised to have Democrats in his administration. Hillary & Bill? Lieberman? Kerry? Ted Kennedy?
Well, actually, although it might not seem that way, the U.S. is relatively selective as to where it plays Policeman of the World.
In some places, such as the Persian Gulf, strategic vital interests are dominant. The combination of the fact that the Persian Gulf region contains 70% of the World's known oil reserves and the fact that radical Islamist mullahs who believe that suicide martyrdom gains you Eternity in Paradise are actively seeking nuclear weapons and military hegemony over those oil reserves necessitates our presence there for pure self interest.
If the Persian Gulf lands contained nothing but sand fleas, we would still need to defend access to the oil reserves and, if there was no oil there, we would have that area on "Ignore" as long as Iran was not a nuclear threat.
In Europe, we do notice because we are a product of Western Civilization and, in the future centuries, Western Civilization will need every body it can muster merely to survive.
In Japan, we notice because Japan has become an honorary member of Western Civilization and loss of Japan would entail loss of the Western Pacific which would be a threat to our West Coast and trade and sea lanes.
Whether or not the U.S. had any vital strategic interest in South Vietnam is open to debate. Geographically, South Vietnam was a horrible place to draw the line as it was not only in direct contact with Red China but also bordered along its entire long axis by enemy sanctuary territory. South Korea, by contrast, could be defended much more easily by holding the relatively narrow waist of the peninsula as the remainder of the peninsula was protected by sea power.
In some areas such as Rwanda, mass genocide occurs and we hardly notice.
In the Persian Gulf, when our enemies were killing each other by the hundreds of thousands such as in the Iraq-Iran War where Iran lost 1 million and Iraq lost around half a million, we also hardly noticed as long as the balance of power was maintained and neither Iran nor Iraq threatened our vital interests of maintaining the oil supplies of Western Civilization flowing.
The Spanish-American War was won in a few months. The resulting Philippine Insurgency lasted until 1902.
The fighting in the World War II European Theater lasted less than four years. The Eighth Air Force alone lost over 50,000 men killed. The resulting American military occupation of Western Europe resulting from that war which was necessary to avoid losing Western Europe to the Soviet Union lasted over half a century.
The way I see it is the sooner we cut our loses the sooner we cut our loses.
You have something in common with Obama in that you both do not seem to realize what, exactly, you would be "losing".
You would be creating a power vacuum in Iraq that would be filled by the fanatical Islamist mullahs of Iran.
The fanatical Islamist mullahs of Iran would then have military hegemony of the Persian Gulf region that contains 70% of the World's know oil reserves.
You think that $4 per gallon gas is devastating Western economies? Think what no gas at any price will do when the mullahs want to flex their muscles.
With that economic power, the mullahs will soon buy or blackmail the necessary resources to finish their nuclear weapons program and missile programs.
You will then have the nearest U.S. major city near you surviving at the wish of radical Islamist Iranian mullahs who believe that die in a U.S. nuclear counter-strike will earn them Eternity in Paradise as long as they take you and one or two or ten or twenty million of your fellow Americans with them when they die.
America will not die because it is too weak. It will die because it will become too naive to survive.
Take your time, we'll wait...
If thats your problem, that horse has left the barn long ago. You can blame President McKinley I suppose, and Teddy Roosevelt after him, as they between them created Cuba, the Philippines, Panama, etc.
Seems self destructive to me. How about we turn around, keep our horses in the barn, and not follow the liberals into oblivion.
Or is that too damn much to ask?
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.