The Surge or the Surge?

John McCain's latest argument is to somehow try to retroactively argue that by "surge" he meant "counterinsurgency strategy" and that the counterinsurgency strategy and thus the surge actually went back to 2006. Here is the video:   

One problem.  Just two months ago McCain came under attack for saying this:

"I can tell you that it is succeeding. I can look you in the eye and tell you it's succeeding. We have drawn down to pre-surge levels." 

Of course, U.S. forces hadn't drawn down to "pre-surge" levels.  They are only now just getting back to 140,000, which is still above pre-surge levels.  But that's besides the point.  What was McCain referring in that moment?  Was he saying "We are drawing back down to where we were before Colonel McFarland started using counterinsurgency tactics in Anbar as part of the Anbar Awakening."  No, that is completely and patently absurd.  He meant that we are coming back down to pre-January 2007 numbers when the "surge" actually began.

In fact, he added later:

"The surge, we have drawn down from the surge and we will complete that drawdown to the end -- at the end of July. That's just a factual statement."

According to this statement John McCain is basically asserting that the surge is over.  But based on his own definition today the "surge" actually equals the counterinsurgency strategy.  So, is the counterinsurgency strategy over?  I think that might be news to General Petraeus.

Basically this is one of the most pathetic attempts of political spin that I have seen in quite a while.  Let's face it.  When John McCain went on CBS he completely bungled the facts and demonstrated that he had no idea of how the surge and Anbar Awakening played out.  His attempted explanation today by somehow claiming that by "surge" he actually meant the counterinsurgency strategy that was going on months before the troop increase, might make sense if he hadn't spent the past few months defining and referring to the surge as the troop increase that began in early 2007.

Comments

[thedirtman]

When McCain says the Iraq conflict he really means the Afghanistan conflict.

[Bernique]

All day, today, July 24th, Fox/Faux/Fixxed News, and other TV sources have been hyperventilating about Obama not acknowledging that the "surge" has been "a success". So, my advice to the Obama camp is to defang them and declare "the surge has been a success", end of discussion. It worked with the "lapel pin" kerfuffle.

[Zelda01]

Very little McCain says holds water any more. Blaming Obama for gas prices was kinda the last straw for me. However, regardless of McCain's drivel, I would implore Obama not to give in to fear and politics as usual. The surge DID help things significantly in Iraq and he should say exactly that instead of dancing around it. I am an Obama supporter and will vote for him, but this thing of not admitting it when you are wrong smacks too much of W. We don't need any more of that. The war in Iraq never should have happened and the Bush administration made every mistake you could make in its execution. But the surge was a good idea, and to say he still would not have voted for it knowing what he knows now is not good. He needs to CHANGE THE CONVERSATION!! DON'T GIVE IN TO FEAR AND POLITICS AS USUAL! DON'T BE AFRAID OF THE USUAL ACCUSATIONS (flip-flopper, etc.). CHANGE THE CONVERSATION! RECOGNIZING WHEN ONE IS WRONG IS A GOOD THING!!!

[DRaymond]

It is really quite simple. If it is working, then it is part of 'the surge' and always has been and McCain was behind it before it ever happened. If it is not working then it is not part of 'the surge', never was part of the surge, and McCain was against it all along..

By applying these simple rules anybody can clearly tell what is part of 'the surge' and what is not. Also using these rules it is impossible, I tell you, to deny that the surge is working.

[ndolomar]

I now get it. He was just abbreviating:

counterinSURGEncy strategy

Ahhh, of course. ; )

[demfriend]

McCain has very definite problems with his timeline and his version of the surge and what he declares to be "victory and winning" but the general ignorance level of the people in the US continues to help get by with all of his gaffes and wrong time lines etc. The MSM isn't helping get and keep the word out when they won't even bring it up or put in out as MSNBC has a few times in the past few days.

[IRepTheKing]

Poor fella....

[RedKnuckles]

Stumbin' and Bumblin' in front of the cheese case. An absolutely pathetic display showing how poorly he grasps the facts of the war, rather occupation, that he has made the centerpiece of his campaign.

[bronceye]

MinBush is using "The Surge" in the same way that Rudy used 9/11. How could he claim glory from the surge as a Senator that supported it? Was he alone in his support? Anyway-the surge is over. Now what????????? No plans, Sir???

[RedKnuckles]

Good point.....A noun, a verb, and "the surge."

[Rog49Thomas]

The past seven years have been ones of great imagining.

What's a few more delusions?

Especially among Republicans.

[Nonamnesiac]

To the American people the surge was a success. Prior to the surge there were upwards of 20 Americans being killed each week. Once the surge was operational there were between 5 and ten Americans being killed each week, and even fewer now.

That is how the American people define success -- not by how the pundits and pols define it.

Therefore McCain will win this debate even though he's wrong on all of the details and even on the strategy.

But the American people, while happy over declining US deaths, don't support the surge if it means remaining in Iraq. The American people also believe that we should get out of Iraq rapidly and safely and there is no outcome in Iraq worth another US life, limb or nickel. And they don't believe a calamity of biblical proportions will befall us if we leave rapidly or that there will be a Saigon-type exit, as the Iraqi insurgents are not being armed and do not have the military prowess of the Warsaw Pact, the North Vietnamese army or the Vietcong.

The only way Obama loses this debate is by insisting on keeping US troops in Iraq, because fewer troops, in McCain speak, mean more US deaths, maimings and treasure against the interests of the US.

The only way for Obama to win this debate is to call for immediate, safe withdrawal of all US troops and contractors. Othewise McCain wins the debate, despite the facts.

[PuppaX]

It seemed like he thinks that "surge" is an abbreviation of "counterinSURGEncy strategy."

[PuppaX]

Err...it "seems."

[Rescisco]

As wrong as he is, as totally confused as he is, and as much as he spins, he's still close in the tracking polls and people still think he would be the better CIC. More proof that reality (facts and other liberal stuff like knowledge and genuine strategic insight) does not matter to the electorate. The fact that (with only 13% thinking the country is on the "right track") he remains competitive is enough to scare me. Sometimes I think it is more difficult to win if your smart and incredibly easy to win if you are clueless. Now who do we blame for that?

[Cyclone]

I think a lot of blame goes to the media. They should be ashamed. A perfect example is the CBS gaffe where they deliberately tried to cover up McCaine's clearly confused responses. How many other gaffes have they covered up? They just got caught this time. The media ignores McCaine's negatives and play up Obama's. It's getting so bad even they can't help him but that doesn't stop them from tryng. Suddenly they have adopted his talking points. Every idiot pundit can't stop asking "why doesn't Obama admit the surge worked?" This means it goes to Obama's character for not admitting he's wrong. He's suppose to admit he's wrong about something John McCaine can't even explain.
They insisted on how "risky" this trip was. Americans might not like him if he's too popular in Europe. What if he makes a mistake? OMG.
It goes on and on. Then they ask "why isn't this guy higher in the poles?"

[CharlesJ]

Again this only shows that McCain has no idea as to what he is talking about. McCain has the habit of opening his mouth and letting words flow, with out first engaging his brain. Of course this also shows that McCain believes Americans as a whole have no clue and are basically ignorant of the facts as well as unable to define words. Counterinsurgency vs Surge are two different words and the fact that you can find the word surge in counterinsurgency does not mean they are related.

[peterg76]

The Bush Surge was not a counter-insurgency strategy. McCain got something right!