I guess I’ll have to research the quotes now, but I could swear I remember him taking hit on the GOP side for talking about the need for more troops. I suppose it could be my brain retconning, but I don’t think so.
The technical invasion of Iraq WAS “easy” relatively speaking. It was the aftermath that wasn’t easy.
I agree that there is the issue of the initial campaign and the follow-up. What credibility does anyone have saying the campaign would be easy, ignoring what the possible follow-up would be. I’m sorry. Either the guy was a military sage or he wasn’t. He wasn’t.
As for him suggesting a surge in troops strength, John had held an opposing opinion on just about every Bush policy since 2000. Okay, he was right about the surge, perhaps. I’m not convinced that putting new leadership in wasn’t the real factor for positive change. Yes the surge did help. Perhaps the biggest help was the psychological effect it had on the terrorists and the Iraqi populace.
It said the U.S. wasn’t going to back down. That turned the tide IMO. So yes, the surge may have been the straw that broke the terrorists back.
Bush gets that credit. McCain was just a bitter blow-hard IMO. When he’s CIC and everyone is trashing his polices and taking credit for victory, we’ll see who buys into it.
“I guess I’ll have to research the quotes now, but I could swear I remember him taking hit on the GOP side for talking about the need for more troops. “
He did, and you’ll find the quote you’re looking for here.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/mccain_10-19.html
McCain was highly critical of Rumsfeld’s plan and agreed with General Shinseki that some 300,000 troops were needed for the Iraq invasion.