Op-Ed Writing Tips For Senator McCain

Dear Senator,
I teach an op-ed writing seminar and heard about your troubles landing your Op-Ed at the rag of those liberal rascals, the New York Times. May I offer you some suggestions?

First, you need a better lede. Why are you quoting Petraeus up top when you are the one who is trying out for the part of commander in chief? Give us something punchy -- summon your inner Maureen Dowd. And tell us: What would you do differently in Iraq? Say it up top and be specific. Get readers and morning commuters to spill their coffee, what I call the "shock and awe" lede (ok, maybe a bad pun).

Second, you're too vague. "Considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains?" Come on, you can do better than that -- stop stating the obvious! Do you mean hard work by us or by the Iraqis? And is "hard work" a bad euphemism for blood and treasure? I'm confused.

Third, OK we get it, you support(ed) the surge; your opponent didn't. That's not news, senator. But your argument is not intellectually honest. You say the Iraqis have met all but three of their political benchmarks -- but you leave out the fact that an oil revenue-sharing law is one of those unmet benchmarks. That's a little like reconstituting 11 of the 12 players of last year's Los Angeles Lakers but leaving out Kobe Bryant. You also fail to recognize other factors, besides the surge of 20,000 troops, that may have contributed to the reduction in violence: Sadr's truce, ethnically cleansed neighborhoods, the Sunni Awakening, etc. Plus you say up top that the gains made have been "fragile," which implies that they have not been significant. Which is it? I'm confused.

Fourth, your attack of Senator Obama sounds petty. Phrases like "perhaps he is unaware" and "he mangles the evidence" sound like those of a first-year law student or a House of Commons rabble-rouser, not a serious candidate for president. It's also disingenuous. He does not, as you imply, say that the Iraqi prime minister endorsed his timetable.

Fifth, OK you finally start to make sense about 400 words into the piece, where you write:

I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

OK, but what are those conditions on the ground? If we've made real progress in Iraq, why not begin to pull out more brigades, as the Iraqis and Americans are pleading for us to do? Also this notion of "artificial timetable" is just ridiculous. If David Petraeus, who for all intents and purposes has become a divine-like figure, handed you an exit strategy, would that be an artificial timetable or a natural one? Or consider your own words: "I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013." Isn't that an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons? (after all, removing the troops would help you get reelected in 2013, wouldn't it?) I'm confused.

Sixth, your next two paragraphs contradict each other, you realize that don't you? (Also, can you get some new copy editors or proofreaders, senator? I counted more than a dozen typos on the foreign briefings on your campaign website). One minute Obama is raising the "mission accomplished" banner, which implies -- yup-victory. The next sentence you say "he never talks about winning the war -- only ending it." So is he a premature victory-monger or a defeatist? Again, I'm confused.

Finally, and here is where you sound like an over-the-hill out-of-touch curmudgeon. You call for basically a status quo posture in Iraq. You write: "I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies." But many military analysts, including Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations, say that Iraq no longer requires a counterinsurgency strategy so much as it does a peacekeeping operation ala the Balkans. What are your thoughts on that? Your lines look like they were lifted from a speech given in 2006 (we can only assume you didn't cut and paste them, given your lack of computer skills).

In sum, as the editors pointed out correctly, your piece lacks any sort of cohesion, clarity, and plan of action, like Obama's earlier op-ed. You say nothing of the status of forces debate, the refugee crisis, the threat of a military coup, the presence of Iran -- all you do is genuflect before the military brass. You might try submitting your op-ed somewhere else -- like one of those pro-military newsletters. I'm sure they would accept it.

Yours,
Lionel

Comments

[peterg76]

I can't decide: was it responsible journalism to reject campaign self-promotion that did not meet the criteria of an opposing editorial, or were they betraying their public duty by hiding McCain's incompetence?

[Krikkit]

USIP (US Institute of Peace) is the NGO that led peacebuilding operations in Bosnia, and they have had an ongoing operation in Iraq for years. Curious, isn't it, that the MSM never mentions their work or the impact it has on the ground, even though it has played and continues to play a pivotal role in ending conflict and building sustainable peace at all levels of society,...

From their website, since early 2004, in Iraq they have worked to:

~ Support mediation and dialogue at the local, provicial, and national levels

~ Strengthen cross-sectarian links

~ Strenghten civil society and the education sector

~ Promote tolerance and respect for human rights

~ Help create compacts based on equitable sharing of power and resources

So why is it that we're arguing whether or not the surge is what allowed the current slowdown of violence in Iraq?

Truth is that the surge was a political ploy that allowed Bush to run out the clock while seeming to ignore the Baker Commission recommendation (The Iraq Study Group Report), even though some of these recommendations were implemented. Incidently, a key member of USIP (Military and Security Secretariat) was one of many contributors to that report.

[Pulemerci]

The Times refusal to run Senator McCain's Op-Ed article reminds me of it's below market advertising rate for MoveOn.org's General Betray Us ad. I suppose it's like Wheel of Fortune to try to get advertising rates or getting an article published. Perhaps if McCain's piece had some classified National Security information it would have been published.
There really is no objective standard that is employed at the Gray Lady anymore. What a shame. The paper of record huh!

[BubbaC33]

The NYT had an obligation to publish the op-ed written by John McCain. I am not a supporter of McCain, but if the paper of record is going to publish something from Obama it needs to publish the response from McCain. Think of it this way, how would HuffPo react if the NYT printed the McCain op-ed and then refused to print the Obama response?
A large part of the voting public already believes the press is taking it easy on Obama, there is no need to prove that misguided idea to them. IN other words, give support to Obama, and demand that each side is given fair treatment by the MSM. That will differentiate Democrats from the GOP.

[LAB10]

It's really hard to write a message of victory and success. Especially when you don't have one!

[cabbile]

McCain is against the left in this country. The NYT did corrrectly by refusing to publish the words of the enemy. Obama must get into office before he can dismantle the military.

[JustMyWords]

No, no, NO! I have no problem with the NYT not publishing McCain's "op-ed" piece. It's poorly written and offers nothing new to the conversation, it's simply a political hack-piece rehashing old campaign talking points. Op-Ed page real estate is a small territory, and it doesn't benefit anyone to publish bad drivel - use those column inches for something done well.

But I WOULD have a problem with the NYT if the only reason they had chosen not to publish it was because it came from McCain's campaign. I do not want the media to pick and choose what I get to see or read based on their own political inclinations - even on the op-ed page. I want both viewpoints, so that I can read them and make up my own mind. It's no better for the NYT to play that game than it is for Fox News to peddle schlock.

[pakaal]

Actually, it's hard to figure out what McCain is for OR against. His positions - when they're not so vague as to be essentially meaningless - constantly change.

[uncleentropy]

Great job! Guess we should count ourselves lucky that McCain's prose is an ugly shade of lipstick smeared upon the pig of misguided Iraq policy (I can feel you marking me down a grade).

At any rate, where can we get a 100%, organic, gluten-free timetable anyway?

[karela]

ROTFLMAO That was such an astounding piece of work. I love it when someone who really knows how to write informatively takes apart one of these dumbed down tirades! Big surprise, the New York Times does not run lengthy, inaccurate, snarky smear campaigns for free----even if the author wants to claim that it's really an op-ed. Please, Please, Please Mr Beehner, stay continually at the ready and work over every one of these "statements" as they come out. You'll be doing your country, and me, a great service. Wonderful!!!

[BatedBreath]

Do you suppose McCain would study harder at Annapolis if he had it all to do over again?

[MrJoyboy]

I foresee the Obama-McCain debates as something like the debate between Spencer Tracy's Clarence Darrow character and Frederick March's William Jennings Bryan character in "Inherit the Wind", a film about the Scopes Monkey Trial, in which Darrow turns Bryan (McCain?) every way but loose until Bryan keels over from apoplexy. Should make for riveting TV.

[SenhorTambor]

Poor John. He's completely overmatched. I, too, am looking forward to the debates. It should be like Sao Paulo FC playing the University of Utah in soccer.
But I can see how it will shake out. Senator Obama arguing and winning every point, Senator McCain repeating talking points, almost as if he were in another room. MSM will score it as a near draw, with Fox giving McCain a TKO.

[southafrica4obama]

Hey Lionel, are you in the Obama camp? This is a priceless piece. Funny, yet rich in content.

[Coronadoman]

You're all just jealous of his rich wife and comprehensive geographic knowledge. When Senator McCain returned from his tour of the Iraq/Pakistan border, we saw true leadership and military savvy that will save us. From the threats that are apparent on the Iraq/Pakistan border. Just let Obama TRY to top Senator McCain's savvy about the Iraq/Pakistan border, mister!

You all think you're so smart, but believe me, once Senator McCain is elected, he'll stop the continuing terror on the Iraq/Pakistan border, by golly...

[Paul Peete - Huffpost Blogger]

See Paul Peete's Profile

Come on Lionel,

What do you expect from a man who finished 894th out of a class of 899. He isn't a writer he's an expert on military and foreign affairs. As such he only has to read the telepromters loaded with the speeches prepared for him by the Charlie Blacks of a potential McCain Administration. You know, the speeches that will rehabilitate former Serbian War Criminals, and convince us of the need for bombing Iran.

Oh, I forgot, maybe you have a telepropter reading class to help him there too!

Great Post, I probably need to take that op ed seminar too.

[feo]

Post a Comment button doesn't work. Testing, one, two, three.