Conventional Wisdom Surging
Two highly suspect yet seemingly unkillable narratives continue to swirl through the presidential election largely unchallenged: The supposedly undeniable success of "The Surge" in Iraq as touted by Senator John McCain, and the related matter of McCain's reputation as a proven military leader who, in his running mate Sarah Palin's words, "knows how to win a war."
In both cases, this conventional wisdom, echoed in the press and on the campaign trail, are contradicted by actual evidence -- readily available but almost never discussed. We should all be asking how that can be.
So let's compare image with reality, beginning with the surge. The surge in troops that brought an extra 20,000 soldiers to Iraq last year did indeed coincide with a decrease of violence there. But how do we know there is a real cause and effect relationship? One key factor is almost always omitted in discussions of the surge's presumed effects: At the same time the violence declined, the U.S. started paying $30 million in bribes every month to the terrorists.
We are, in short, paying the bad guys not to kill us, as New York Times war correspondent Dexter Filkins' recently explained to a shocked audience during a stop in Los Angeles to discuss his new book, The Forever War.
That's right, our tax dollars have been used to give $300 monthly bribes -- a fortune in Iraq -- to each of more than 100,000 insurgents and militiamen. That's the other surge: a surge in the terrorists' bank accounts. For obvious reasons, McCain and Palin never mention this costly ransom written into the fine print of the surge, although its hard to fathom why Barrack Obama isn't shouting about it every day of the week.
Then there is the matter of McCain's military leadership qualities. I earlier documented how his claimed support for the troops was not born out by his actual votes in the Senate, where he has consistently failed to back legislation and funding for servicemen that veterans groups consider vital, most recently Senator Jim Webb's much-needed revamping of the GI Bill.
Now, given the claim by Palin during the vice presidential debate that McCain knows how to win wars, why isn't the media demanding some evidence to support this crucial claim? What war has he won? It was McCain, after all, who predicted the Iraq war would be over in a matter of months, that American troops would be greeted as liberators, and that he was "right" about the surge (in troops, that is, not bribes).
What does McCain's military career tell us in support of this claim? It begins as George W. Bush's career began at Yale University -- as a silver-spoon legacy admission, thanks to the fact that McCain's father and grandfather were highly respected admirals. John McCain's career, however, was undistinguished at best, marred by three peacetime aircraft crashes that suggest he was either a very unlucky pilot, or a very ungifted one: He lost one plane in training, one by colliding with power lines during a peacetime deployment to Spain, and one while flying to an Army-Navy football game in Philadelphia. McCain went on to fly 23 missions over Vietnam, about twenty hours of combat, before his A-4 Skyhawk fighter-bomber was shot down and he was captured.
He served with honor and courage in the years that followed while facing detention and torture as a prisoner of war - the defining time of his military career if not his entire life. But with all due respect: Being shot down and captured by an inferior enemy force is not evidence that McCain knows how to win wars or how to lead the entire U.S. military. Yet his status as POW hero seems to be the main basis for this conventional wisdom both he and Palin constantly promote.
The major media organizations have been busily fact-checking all sorts of minutiae during the campaign (and, embarrassingly for a few of them, mocking Joe Biden for correctly using the word, "Bosniak" during his debate with Palin), yet these two central claims of the McCain candidacy, about his skills as a war leader and the effects of the surge -- matters on which he has staked his bid for president -- have gone unchallenged until now. I'd like to know why.
Follow Edward Humes on Twitter: www.twitter.com/edhumes
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Whenever I hear McCain or Palin say that McCain knows how to win wars I wonder too. What war has he actually won? What war has he been instrumental in that was victorious? Vietnam?.
Iraq
The original time frame for "The Surge" expired many months ago. At that point, since it had failed to produce any positive results, it became "The Stall".
correction it is now called "The MCCain ding dong"
McCains experience might have prepared him to be a warden not a president.
The statement "McCain knows how to win a war" is easily debunked. So easy a Third Grader could do it.
"What war did McCain win, mommy and daddy?"
"Uh, well, uh, he, a . . . well, ya see, he uh . . ."
McCain has never won a war. Period. He still thinks we were right to invade Vietnam and that we should have stayed there even longer. To me, anyone who thinks the invasion of Vietnam was worth one single life is not fit to be president. It was an even more absurd and insane invasion than our current debacle in Iraq, and that's saying a lot.
McCain has never won a war and he's been wrong about every war he pushed for or supported.
Beyond that, even Petraeus said "the surge" might not have been necessary for the overall reduction in violence. Obama and Biden make a huge mistake by conceding the effectiveness of additional troops. The major reason for reduction in violence was the obscenely successful ethnic cleansing, which reduced the numbers of available targets. They were either murdered, left the country (two million Iraqis), or left the area in question (two million more Iraqis). Add to that, Sadr deciding to remain on the sidelines . . . and the "Sunni Awaking" happening due to the money and Al Queda's relentless slaughter of innocent Iraqi civilians--prior to "the surge".
Thank you for raising the issue of McCain 's "record" of winning wars. That's just a misconception. Serving in the the military is not mutually exclusive to knowing how to win wars. The media is afraid to bring attention to this which is a disservice to all us.
McCain often describes leadership using images of war or battle. He claims he will fight for and not leave Iraq in defeat yet he can't really define victory. He uses the troops as a reason to stay in Iraq, "the troops don't want to leave in defeat..." and he claims to know how they feel because he knows what defeat is like - I'm not buying this. Also, he often uses aggressive "battle" language when discussing foreign policy, This is practically like asking for a war.
McCain's idea of leadership is a military terms as if we're ready and willingly follow him onto the battlefield ("meet ya there!") This country does not have the will to fight. .
McCain's concept of true leadership is victory in battle which is based on military teaching leftover from WWII which he learned in the Navel Academy and ultimately failed in Vietnam. Voters should take McCain at his word - McCain is willing to fight - period.
McCain's campaign should explain his extensive war winning knowledge.
Before the war started General Eric Shinseki testified before Congress a force of 400,000 U.S. military men and women would be needed to enter Iraq and defeat Saddam Hussin. That was the surge the military wanted. Where was John McCain then? The surge he is taking credit for came years late and at the cost of thousands of American lives. And the real question John McCain has not answered is NOW WHAT!!!!!
My response when Palin said McCain knows how to win a war was, "What war, Vietnam?" What a joke. He not only didn't win it, but didn't learn anything from it either. In fact, McCain's military career provides us with some fairly strong evidence that he is not qualified to win a war or even to assume a leadership position in an organization whether that organization wins anything or not. Despite the distinguished heritage mentioned in this article, captain is the highest rank McCain ever reached, and it took him 22 years to get there.
They keep on touting his capture as though it makes him a hero. My grand uncle was captured during some war and when he came back, no one called him a hero for being captured. They called him a hero for fighting for our country.
McCain is a war monger because that is all he can run on.
I am afraid, and have been so for some time at the prospect of a McCain presidency.
Pss: There is no yellow dog in the midst of the names and things said and done. Even if under the radar beauty still shines forth forever.
Other factors coinciding with the surge: sectarian violence had largely played out by then. Sunni in Shia neighborhoods had moved out or been murdered, and the same was true for Shia in Sunni neighborhoods. We also built tall concrete barriers between those neighborhoods, restricting movement around Baghdad - also restricting intra-neighborhood violence.
And yes, we were paying everyone not to shoot at us.
But the correct response to "the surge worked" is as follows. Sure. In 2003, many generals warned that we weren't putting enough boots on the ground to get the job done. In 2007, the administration had the brainstorm, "hey, let's put more boots on the ground!" Congratulations for figuring that out, Einstein. But maybe we shouldn't have put ANY boots in Iraq based on a lie. There were no WMD's. There was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Given those facts, the correct number of boots on the ground in Iraq is zero.
As for "he knows how to win a war," that's so blatantly transparently wrong - even people who like him have got to wonder, "How? What war?" that it rings false. If she'd said "he knows how to fight a war" that would be one thing. But win? Even the most partisan right-wingers have got to scratch their heads, wonder what she's talking about and hope nobody notices she ever said that.
Thank you! He has NEVER won a war so on what experience does he base his claim that he can win one? Why is he not called out on that blatant and oft-repeated falsehood?
Do we dare do that with W & Cheney too?
Can someone explain? 23 missions - Does that mean he served in harm's way in actuality, before being shot down, at the longest, 23 days? Did he fly off an aircraft carrier? So his actual fighting for our country consisted of 23 days, while the remainder was as a prisoner? I am remembering a Marine I knew back in 1969 and the stories he told me of Da Nang ... if I remember right.
Give him credit at face value, assume he flew 23 times over hostile territory. The expectation would be several missions a week. A complete tour would be something like 200 missions. As commented below - Johnny McSame ain't much of an ace, although to his credit he didn't dodge out (like #42 and #43), and he kept flying against challenging targets as ordered (as evidenced by his being shot down over Hanoi) despite surely knowing he was out of his depth.
The only thing most Americans care about Iraq (and Afghanistan to a degree) is when we are pulling our troops out and bringing them home. It really chaps most Americans that we are sinking 10 billion a month into a country that is sitting on a budget surplus and making oil deals with China.
Obama/Biden might not be screaming because McCain might accuse them of hating our troops. Something like, "Our brave troops have quelled the surge, all while Barack Hussein Obama and Biden ridicule their efforts and voted 2,200 times to cut their funding."
Or, they could've just dropped the ball.
I agree, they would turn that around. You cant really say anything that will seem as though its anything but the excellent work of our troops. Its just to dangerous for Obama to go there. Look what they did to Kerry.
See Bruce Tenenbaum's Profile
Excellent points.
The problem is that the Democrats have failed at attacking The Surge argument. The real answer to it was somewhat attempted by Obama during the first debate. "John likes to act like the war began in 2007." This is the correct approach and needs to be hammered home. The Surge is besides the point. We shouldn't have been there in the first place.
As to the war hero bit, there is, unfortunately, no way to go about that. It's impossible to attack a former prisoner of war. But you have it right. Getting shot down is not proof of military genius.
It is true that there is no way for the Obama campaign to go after McCain on these points, but the media should still be all over it. It seems at times that the media only covers what is coming out of the campaign press rooms. The media should be going deep, and not just covering the surface stories.
He knows how to win a war
He knows how to find bin Ladin
He knows how to reverse the deficit
He knows how to solve America's energy crisis
I would add that what he knows best is how to keep secret all the things he knows
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
