Posted on 07/23/2008 5:08:13 AM PDT by Kaslin
id that it would fail. I supported it when it was the toughest thing to do. I believe that my record on national security and keeping this country safe is there. And the American people will examine our records, and I will win."
That's John McCain explaining why he'll win.
He's wrong.
He's leading a loud chorus of conservatives and Republicans desperate to make the surge the defining issue of the campaign.
In an editorial for the conservative Weekly Standard, Fred Kagan (the primary intellectual author of the surge strategy) wrote: "It would be hard to design a better test for the job of commander in chief than the real-life test senators John McCain and Barack Obama have undergone in the last two years."
It's understandable why so many Republicans see the surge as an ideal political battleground. Outside foreign policy, McCain's standing with the GOP base is shaky. The party doesn't have many policy wins to brag about. And Obama doesn't have much of a record to attack. Also, many hawks - often called neoconservatives - see the surge as vindication that they were right about the feasibility of the Iraq invasion from the beginning. It was President Bush's bungling that was wrong, they say, not the war itself.
Whatever the merits of all that, there's a problem. As political analysis, it's nonsense.
Yes, McCain heroically pushed for the surge when the war was at its most unpopular point. Even more impressive, he favored a change in strategy back when the war was popular.
Within months of the invasion, McCain was calling for more troops and the head of then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Later, when the Iraqi civil war erupted, al-Qaida in Iraq metastasized and Iran mounted a clandestine surge of its own, McCain doubled down; he argued that we couldn't afford to lose and proposed a revised counterinsurgency strategy for victory. That was the same month that Obama introduced the "Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007."
That's great stuff for McCain's biographers. But the catch-22 is that the more the surge succeeds, the more advantageous it is for Obama.
Voters don't care about the surge; they care about the war. Americans want it to be over - and in a way they can be proud of.
Richard Nixon didn't win in 1968 by second-guessing LBJ about the mess in Vietnam; he ran on getting us out with honor. McCain is great when talking about honor, but the getting-us-out part is where he gets tongue-tied. Obama, meanwhile, talks about leaving Iraq as though Americans don't care about honor. That may have worked in the early primaries, but it won't in the general election. Americans don't like to lose wars.
Politically, the surge is a bit like the Supreme Court's recent decision affirming the constitutional right to own a gun. Obama's position on gun rights, a miasma of murky equivocation, would hurt him if gun control were a big issue this year. It isn't, thanks to the high court's ruling. That's a huge boon.
The surge has done likewise with the war. If it were going worse, McCain's Churchillian rhetoric would match reality better. But with sectarian violence nearly gone, al-Qaida in Iraq almost totally routed and even Sadrist militias seemingly neutralized, the stakes of withdrawal seem low enough for Americans to feel comfortable voting for Obama. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's support for an American troop drawdown pushes the perceived stakes even lower.
Recall that Bill Clinton, with his dovish record and roster of "character issues," would never have been elected if the Soviet Union hadn't collapsed in 1991. With the Cold War over, the successful Reagan surge (and Bush pere's cleanup efforts) made rolling the dice on Clinton tolerable. The McCain surge (and Bush fils' success at averting another 9/11) produces the same effect for Obama.
A silver lining for McCain is that Obama's arrogance and sense of indebtedness to his party's antiwar base have elicited a series of credibility-damaging zigzags on Iraq. Obama would do better to promise peace with honor as soon as possible, then quickly move on to economy talk. The subsequent bleating from the bug-out lefties would be useful testament to Obama's rumored centrism.
Although the economy will dominate this election, McCain can still press his advantage on foreign policy. But not with I-told-you-sos. Re-arguing the surge is almost as counterproductive as re-arguing the war itself. Elections are about the future.
McCain doesn't need to explain why he'd be a better commander in chief. Voters already acknowledge his superior judgment on foreign policy by huge margins. He needs to explain why, going forward, we'll need that judgment.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
so if we win before obama has a chance to demand we surrender, that helps obama
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
man the media is is going into defcon 5 spin control....
Jonah taking the Drudge route hoping for an Obama win to help inflate his sagging career.
Did you actually read the article?
McCain needs to jump on the energy band wagon. He should appear in every oil state and demand more drilling = more jobs. He could do the same with nuclear power plants. We voters are being hit hard on energy right now. Expose the no drill dims, McCain!
9/11 is still fresh in the minds of voters and McCain holds a strong lead in who makes a better CIC. The WOT is still a hot war and is not a "cold war" and for Jonah to make a comparision between the two is disingenuous and smacks of despeartion and ill-equipped intellect.
I disagree with the article. The casualties and chaos in Iraq have been an overwhelming weight around the GOP’s neck for the last four years. It’s become common wisdom that Bush and the Republicans shamed and damaged the country by dragging us into an “unnecessary, unwinnable war”. McCain needs to change that narrative and has been very successful, especially in the past few days, of doing so. Already, it has become more accepted that the surge was a great success and that we are capable, if we haven’t already, of winning the war. McCain should keep reiterating how wrong Obama has been about Iraq and needs to make the country feel proud about our efforts there and help the people understand how crucial our victory is.
You’re right about the dumbed down masses.
Polls show most Americans believe the Republicans control congress. It’s going to be an uphill fight.
Agree with you 100%. Foreign policy is McCains strong suit and the WoT is one of the most pressing issues. It’s only reasonable he centres on it.
Actually Goldberg is right. Wake up McCain, start asking Barry what he will do after the troops leave on his watch. What will happen if there is a bloodbath, if Iran takes over. What will Barry do? Have tea and talk?
McCain always gets stuck trying to prove he WAS right, rather than pressing on.
McCain has. Have you seen this ad that is running in PA and OH.
I think Rush made a great point yesterday (maybe he wasn’t the first one to say it, but he’s the first I heard).
Obama’s over there feigning all kinds of concern for the Iraqi people - they need jobs, infrastructure, education, health care, etc. Yet Obama and Democrats did not care a whit about the Iraqi people before the invasion and if not for the invasion, Iraqis would still be living under a murderous dictatorship.
Rush asked, “Obamessiah, where was your concern for the Iraqi people prior to 2003?”
I remember the 'honorable' way the Huey's flew off the embassy roof with people desperately trying to get on.
There is truth to what he says because like Bush SR he is seen as a single issue candidate, although I did like his commercial blaming Obama for gas prices. bush SR lost because the public felt we were safe (which we werent) and wanted to move on to domestic spending and issues. Obama is like 1992 Clinton, and the media is doing the same.
As much as I dislike McCain, I like this weeks attacks on Obama. I really enjoyed them and was surprised.
maybe so, but Clinton only got 43% of the vote that year and Bob Barr or Ron Paul are not going to get 19% of the vote like Ross Perot did...
A platform that highlights our success in Iraq instead of addressing the above is doomed.
9/11 has been pushed to the back of the American consciousness, no more immediate than the battleship Maine.
Voters are anyone who will get on the bus for $20 and punch one hole.
That was the irony of Clinton attacking Obama, he was attacking him 1992 self .
I think the best thing would be if Obama wins by the slimmest amount possible, getting beat up badly in the process(as many people realize he is a disaster) , then tries to pass some huge sweeping liberal ideas. He already promised open homosexual behaviour in the military, all while making the female western press reporters in Jorden dress like Muslims to not offend.
You see the press built Clinton up 92, then tore him down. Now who walks on liberal water 2008 ???
Stinky pile of bovine poop!
LLS
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.