A Couple of Critical Clarifications on McCain's Iraq Platform

During the debate tonight, John McCain continued to pedal a couple of misguided, highly irritating stances regarding Iraq that I feel require critical clarification.

1. The Surge

McCain continues to applaud his support of the surge, boasting about how well the surge has worked, how he supported it, and how Barack Obama didn't. There a a few rather important points underlying this idea that McCain does not mention (and wisely so--it cripples his entire argument).

First, the surge has not "worked," insomuch as what the Bush administration itself said was the intention of the surge. Violence was never the goal of the surge. The point was to decrease insurgent conflict in order to further political reconciliation among the Iraqi government. Currently, we've gone full-circle, as the government is still nowhere near complete, universal agreement.

Second, a distinction must be made on the decreasing violence. While pouring more troops into a war zone will obviously lead to a reduction in violence, there are two non-related developments in Iraq that contributed more to the decrease in violence than the surge itself. First is the Sunni Awakening, an event where Sunni tribes agreed to aid the mostly Shia Iraqis government in fighting insurgents.* Second is bribery, as the US has literally paid off many insurgents to stop their assaults, while Muqtada al-Sadr, the powerful Shia cleric, has ordered a cease-fire for his troops.

So, McCain can wax faux-poetry all he wants on the success of the surge, but we should keep in mind that there is far more than meets the eye regarding the topic.

2. The Future in Iraq

McCain has wisely decided to ignore his support for the invasion of Iraq and instead focus on the future of the country, emphasizing the long-term goals of our occupation of the country and demanding that we do not leave until we can "leave with honor." A nice slogan, but absolute bullshit if you understand a tiny portion of what makes that region tick.

Leaving Iraq with honor is impossible. The circumstances surrounding our illegal invasion of the country and our embarrassing war-time decisions will haunt this country for the next half-century, and no matter how honorable our discharge, the first thought on America's mind regarding Iraq will still be WMDs and post-invasion blunders.

And beyond pre-war planning, we need to remind ourselves of how damaging Iraq has been on an international scale. Invading Iraq has effectively empowered Iran and dealt damaging blows to American credibility involving foreign countries, agency intelligence, and executive judgment. Based on what McCain is suggesting, it is not possible to leave Iraq with enough honor to replace the international pessimism the invasion has brewed.

Finally, one last note on the Iraqis: they want us OUT of their country. A point that Obama should have made in the debate was that Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq's Prime Minister, publicly endorsed Obama's plan for a phased withdrawal of US troops! And beyond that, a recent poll of Iraqi citizens found that over 80% support an immediate withdrawal.

To conclude, John McCain is using his alleged expertise in foreign affairs to sell a highly misleading and potentially devastating foreign policy to American voters, and it is critical that we pay more attention to his statements and scrutinize the true facts behind his claims, because as I have demonstrated, something smells.



*This bottom-up approach to ending the sectarian violence was suggested by Barack Obama--two years ago. The Bush administration finally administers the strategy, and guess what? It exceeded beyond our wildest dreams. And Obama is supposed to be the one lacking foreign policy judgment?