McCain Backs Obama's Iraq War Plan

Had history turned out otherwise on November 4, 2008, the approach to the economic recovery might be radically different.

But, in an indication of how drastically the debate has shifted in the last few years, Iraq war policy would be roughly the same.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), President Obama's campaign opponent, went to the White House Thursday for a briefing on the president's plan for a timetable for a troop drawdown in Iraq. Before heading down Pennsylvania Avenue, he said he was already largely on board.

McCain said he would not be advising the White House as to what he thought was the best plan, but rather hearing them out.

"They're going to present us their recommendations. It's their plan," he said. "From what I know about it, I agree with it."

For McCain, the plan has virtue because it is backed by the generals and the ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. "I like it best because it's what Ambassador Crocker and General [Raymond] Odierno and General [David] Petraeus also felt was a suitable strategy," said McCain.

That puts Obama and McCain in one camp and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who supports a smaller residual force, in another. Obama has suggested some 50,000 troops might remain in Iraq; Pelosi has said she hopes to see something in the range of 15,000.

The Huffington Post asked McCain, if he had been elected president, whether he would have implemented roughly the same plan that Obama intends to carry out in Iraq.

"Oh, I'm sure," he said, "because that's what our military and civilian leadership has recommended. I can't say exactly, but certainly it seems to me it's a viable strategy."

Comments

[jbwhite]

07:00 PM on 02/27/2009

I think we need to get out of Iraq sooner, and I'm disappointed in Obama's decision. I do, however, feel he is doing what he said he was going to do. You have to listen to every word and read every sentence when you listen to campaign promises. I just have to laugh at McCain's comment about not "advising" on the plan. What a joke - that's because he really has no plan - he's clueless. I am SOOO happy that he didn't win the election. I will remain firmly in Obama's corner.

[talkobama]

05:12 PM on 02/27/2009

President Obama just set the timetable for Iraqi withdrawal, and it’s significantly longer than the one he was promising on the campaign trail. Nonetheless, the President stated that by August 31, 2010, U.S. forces will withdraw from their combat role in Iraq.

Now my first reaction to this was negative – why set a timetable when you’re in the middle of a war? Why give the other side that kind of information?

But, it’s his post-withdrawal plan that makes the whole thing work. Obama will be keeping 50,000 troops on the ground in Iraq to train the Iraqi military, protect civilians and conduct anti-terror missions. In fact, this post-withdrawal plan even earned Obama the support of his old rival, John McCain.

For more check out : http://www.TalkObama.info

[dianhow]

08:39 PM on 02/27/2009

Obama said 16 months, this is slightly more. Sure- we all want the troops home now. But he must do it as carefully as Bush did it recklessly. Many considerations have to be taken into account. Once a Nation is at war- it becomes very difficult to leave in a safe responsible way.
The lesson here- don't go in the first place. Muslims do not want us on their holy land ! I think we need to get out of AFghanistatin as well. Russia and others could not beat them. Neither can the USA. Get out and go home. The GOP is just waiting to crucify Obama for any small misstep and missteps are unavoidable. ITs all a sick game of GOTCHA.

[cheesymacaroni]

04:57 PM on 02/27/2009

Next time Obama sends another email to me asking for financial support, I'll refer him to his Republican fans who love his Iraq plans and let him see how that works out for him.

[ndnndpendent]

05:45 AM on 02/28/2009

Me too. His Middle East approach so far has been disastrous. Sos Clinton---disaster. I hope her peacemaking trip includes a tour of Gaza and a meeting with Hamas.

[hernan1333]

03:08 PM on 02/27/2009

At this point who cares what McCain thinks. Seeking his support only lends credibility to McCain when he has none. It also sounds like a good plan which is supported by almost all democrats...this administration is moving in the right direction even though there may be some slight variations from his initial plans...

[GoogleMaster]

03:03 PM on 02/27/2009

I can't say that Iran would be running the country today but I also seem to recall Obama disagreeing with McCain's stragegy during the primaries. McCain wanted to keep the troops there longer. Obama wanted all of them out. Either way, Obama seems to now be listening to his advisors and adjusting his plans according to their recommendations and his knowledge of the situation. Bipartisanship has to start somewhere, otherwise this eternal flame war of words between the left and the right will never end - a war where the very mention of the name McCain or Obama or Bush or Pelosi triggers a thermonuclear meltdown depending upon the "side" we're on.

[reelcobra]

04:01 PM on 02/27/2009

Obama didn't just disagree. he called for us to abandon the country. He opposed the surge. And he even wrote an OP ED in the NYT's before going on his "fact finding mission" (PR Trip) repeating what a mistake getting rid of Saddam was.

That being said, he made those arguments to get to the left of Hillary with the Peace at any Price crowd, and now that he's in, he doesn't want to be the guy who lost Iraq to Al Qaeda and Iran.

[greenmonk]

04:59 PM on 02/27/2009

How pray tell could Obama ever be the guy who lost a war he never started and was opposed to from the start? And how does he lose to Iran? As far as I know we have never been at war with Iran. Now Bush you could say lost Iraq to Iran, because of the invasion and taking out the strong man Saddam who kept the Iranian influenced Shia's at bay.

And BTW Obama was correct in opposing the surge. It was a publicity stunt by Bushco. The so-called "Awakening" happened months before the surge. It was all about dumping your tax dollars in the laps of Islamic rival groups to pay them for NOT fighting. It works yes, but it's damn expensive.

[JustAThought56]

05:15 PM on 02/27/2009

Would you please get your facts straight, reelcobra? It is not that hard to check. There is plenty to debate - what was actually stated should not be one of them. How can there be an intellectually honest discussion if you are intent on distortion because of your personal political bias?

The NY Times OpEd piece you reference (June 14, 2008) simply does not say anything of the kind.

It says:

"As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal."

Both McCain and Bush decided they did not want to set a timetable for withdrawal or openly plan for a transition. That was the actual policy difference. President Obama believed, and stated in the OpEd, that this "was a strategy for staying."

[greenmonk]

04:51 PM on 02/27/2009

"June 26, 2008 · Republican Sen. John McCain will not put a timetable on withdrawing troops from Iraq because that would "send the wrong signal to our enemies," says the Arizona senator's senior foreign policy adviser."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91940482

Pu-lease. Its more about McCain flip flopping than Obama. The President has always stated that 16 months was what he would like to see as a time table, but it would depend on what his generals said.

McCain also if you remember spouted out about how he would be fine with the troops being there 100 or even 1000 years. Now a time table is fine with him.

[reelcobra]

02:51 PM on 02/27/2009

If this writer were interested in accuracy he would have written, "Obama backs McCain's war plans".

Remember, Obama ran to the left of Hillary by arguing against the surge and for a cut and run defeat in Iraq. That made him an instant hero here in the "progressive" movement.

If we had listened to him - Iran would be running the country today!

[sticksnstones]

03:10 PM on 02/27/2009

McCain's " war plans " included the direct invasion of no less than six additional countries besides the two we are already bogged down in.

Nice try, my little keyboard commando ....

[reelcobra]

03:37 PM on 02/27/2009

So you are calling for surrender in Afghanistan also ("bogged down")?

Wow.

Break my bones indeed!

[KatDawgATL]

03:47 PM on 02/27/2009

Who's running it now , cause WE aren't.

If Iran ends up running the country (Iraq) , it will be because we invaded Iraq to begin with.

Bush HAD NO PLAN, and when you fail to plan, ...- YOU PLAN TO FAIL.

[reelcobra]

03:54 PM on 02/27/2009

You're implying that we should be running it?

FYI - We want Iraq to run their own country which they finally are.

Nice bumper sticker argument though!

Keep on truckin!

[Berry Ives]

02:36 PM on 02/27/2009

Of course McCain backs Obama's Iraq strategy. It's probably the same strategy he would have used himself had he been elected. It is a terrible strategy, and one that will cost another gob of money, down the drain, and at a time when we simply cannot afford it.

[Berry Ives]

02:32 PM on 02/27/2009

Of course McCain backs Obama's strategy. It's probably the same strategy he would have used himself had he been elected. It is a terrible strategy, and one that will cost another gob of money, down the drain, and at a time when we simply cannot afford it.

[sababa]

02:22 PM on 02/27/2009

Obama should adopt Pelosi's estimate for troops that remain in Iraq. But at least his strategy includes the word "withdrawal"!!!!
http://www.governmentalityblog.com/my_weblog/2009/02/obamas-iraq-strategy-announcement-bev-purdue.html

[SailFree]

02:08 PM on 02/27/2009

Pelosi, the great and famous military strategist...THIS IS HILARIOUS!

[ediva75]

01:56 PM on 02/27/2009

Has Hell Frozen over?? WOW. Well I give McCain credit for being open to seeing the needed change in the war plan.

[goldfangaz49]

01:47 PM on 02/27/2009

I'm cross eyed at this point, maybe some of the opposition is coming to terms with the idea of , Change?

[SailFree]

02:09 PM on 02/27/2009

Or maybe this isn't change, since it is almost identical to the plans of George W. Bush and the Iraqi government already put forth months ago! Maybe they are comfortable with stability!

[reelcobra]

02:52 PM on 02/27/2009

I wish we had just surrendered before the surge like Obama urged.

[sticksnstones]

03:04 PM on 02/27/2009

Let's discuss the " Change " your boy, John McCain was shooting for, shall we ???

Between January 1 and November 4, 2008, McCain advocated the US invasion of no less than SIX countries, excluding the two, Afghanistan and Iraq, which we were already bogged down in.

Isw THAT the change your party is all about ???

[DHC]

01:40 PM on 02/27/2009

Where the hell was Pelosi during the last 2 years of the Bush Administration? She and her useless cohort in the Senate, Reid, are getting on my last nerve. As a good friend of mine says, it will be the Dems who destroy Obama's Presidency before the Repubs. Get rid of Pelosi and Reid. Now.

[yhgtup]

01:35 PM on 02/27/2009

Who cares about what McGrumpy thinks. He's smart. He realizes he's been getting that "'angry John McCain" press, & decided he needed to calm that, for political reasons ONLY. My problem is Pelosi. When's the last time she visited Iraq? Does she think she knows better than the military generals who are on the ground there? Some of her moves really bothers me. She needs to take her "Oh I'm So Glad To See You" eyes and find a clue.

[lwilkerson50]

01:49 PM on 02/27/2009

I like your comment about the "angry" man.

[legalclubs]

01:34 PM on 02/27/2009

Shocker. Obama is simply following through with the Bush plan. You can just look back a HuffPo articles prior to the election where Bush sets a timetable fo leave with a plan to leave a residual force in place which can be used if needed. Keep in mind that both Bush and Obama are being advised by the same "commanders on the ground" so its not surprising that now that Obama actually gets to make policy, not just critique others, he has come to the exact same solution.

By the way, anybody find today's speech a bit sureal. Obama basically says that Bush's war in Iraq is a dramatic success with the ousting of Saddam and transitioning a middle east democracy. Amazing. Wonder why he didn't say this prior to the election?

[ndnndpendent]

05:51 AM on 02/28/2009

Well, Dems---start looking for an 0-12 challenger. I will not vote for baby Bush again.