Why John McCain's "Surge" Success Story is a Lie

It really makes the Iraq debate easy for John McCain when he throws around words like "win" and "victory" and "prevail" and "success" without really defining what they mean. A short time ago he was calling for American troops to remain in Iraq forever and that Obama was "naive" for suggesting otherwise. Now that the Iraqi government has indicated its desire for the American troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2010, McCain has gone dovish crediting his own insight for the "surge" that "won" the war. He even hinted today that American troops might be able to come home after all.

But McCain's stance totally contradicts the substance of the "status of force" agreement the Bush administration has been trying to ram down the Iraqi government's throat, which would codify a permanent American military presence in Iraq. General David Petraeus told Barack Obama during his recent trip to Iraq that he opposes a "timetable" for the withdrawal of American troops because he wants to maintain "flexibility." I guess Petraeus didn't get the memo from the George W. Bush-John McCain camp.

The editors of the New York Times opinion page asked McCain to rework his most recent submission. They demanded that he at least define what he means by "winning" in Iraq and what such a "victory" would look like on the ground. It is a welcome, if belated, arrival into the "reality-based community" on the part of the Times. (Of course, they still have David Brooks, Thomas Friedman, and William Kristol).

McCain is going to have some major editing work to do. He must not only declare that the "surge" was a great success, but he has to argue that it was such a magnificent "victory" that an American troop reduction might be in order (this comes after McCain denounced Obama repeatedly for making this same argument).

When McCain isn't talking about non-existent countries like "Czechoslovakia," or non-existent frontiers, like the "Iraq-Pakistan border," he's smugly dressing down Obama on foreign relations. The right-wing is whining about the positive press coverage Obama is getting on his trip, but if Obama referred to "Czechoslovakia" or to the "Iraq-Pakistan border" the media would have plunged his campaign into deep doo-doo.

It is disingenuous and self-serving for McCain to begin all of his discussions about Iraq with the January 2007 "surge." In doing so, he is airbrushing out the inconvenient history of the war.

Let's review.

In January 2007, when George W. Bush decided to pour more American soldiers into Iraq and escalate the U.S. troop commitment there he was responding to domestic politics. The Democrats were about to take over both houses of Congress and the Baker-Hamilton Commission Report had issued an indictment of the administration's lack of a diplomatic track in ending the conflict. Defiant, petulant, and immature as ever, Bush launched what his handlers called a "surge" to lock in the policy as the Democrats took their places on Capitol Hill and to show his Uncle Jim and his Daddy that he didn't need or want their advice.

By January 2007, the occupation in Iraq had long been a strategic and humanitarian disaster. There was already widespread "low intensity" ethnic cleansing, and with the February 22, 2006 destruction of the Shia Al-Askari Mosque in Samarra there was unleashed a sectarian bloodbath that transformed the country. The Shia government, which controlled the Interior Ministry and much of the security apparatus, went on a rampage and shielded freelance death squads and militias that reaped their revenge on Sunni communities throughout the country. In a short period, the ancient city of Baghdad went from being mostly Sunni to being mostly Shia. There were 2 million people who fled the country and another 2 million internally displaced people. It wasn't very long ago Iraqis were torturing each other with Black & Decker power drills. I doubt if the underlying current of hate and the cycle of revenge have dissipated. But after the dust settled there was relative calm. It had nothing to do with the "surge."

Any "success" that McCain or Bush or Kenneth Pollack or Michael O'Hanlon or Michael Gordon or David Petraeus and all the rest of the war-hawks talk about is delusional because it is proclaimed by willfully ignoring the humanitarian costs; the price in blood and treasure the Iraqis have paid, and to a far lesser extent, the Americans too. McCain is celebrating a Pyrrhic victory. The United States destroyed Iraq in order to save it. Just take a look at Falluja, or Baghdad with its hideous blast walls and check points. That place will never be the same. In a just world the United States would pay reparations to Iraq for a hundred years. (Don't take my word for it, read Patrick Cockburn's "Muqtada," and Jonathan Steele's "Defeat.")

Let's review some more.

First, the Senate Intelligence Committee's "Phase II" investigation of the lead-up to the war confirms that the Bush Administration used deception, lies, and misleading statements to hoodwink the public and the Congress into buying the idea that attacking Iraq served American national security interests. The Bush Administration lied this nation into war. Its principal mouthpieces and behind-the-scenes operators should be held accountable for their crimes, which include perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. (In addition to the international war crimes of aggressive war and torture.) It was a disgrace that will forever besmirch the reputation of this nation. I don't see any "victory" there.

Second, this war has cost our nation at least $750 billion (and counting) and the entire financial burden has been thrown on to the national debt. We'll be paying this thing back, with interest, to the same Wall Street elites that we are currently bailing out as part of a "remedy" for the mortgage meltdown. The 30,000 maimed American soldiers must be taken care of, and their health costs will soar with the cost of everything else. The PTSD cases alone will cost this country dearly in ways that we cannot even anticipate at this time. No "victory" there.

Third, all this talk of "success" in Iraq masks what the original aim of the war was supposed to be: Disarming the regime of Saddam Hussein of its "weapons of mass destruction." There was nothing to "disarm" because the Iraqi government had no weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations weapons inspectors only cost about $50 million per annum and they should have been allowed to do their jobs. Even if they were still in Iraq hunting for WMD right now it would have cost only about $300 million and the U.S. would have partners sharing the financial burden. The things we could have done with all that money we've wasted in Iraq. Bush then changed the objective of the war to an elaborate nation building exercise, an endeavor we still have not accomplished and probably never will. Democracy does not come out of a barrel of a gun. I see nothing "victorious" here.

Fourth, about 1,200 private corporations have been shamelessly profiteering off the Iraq war from day one. Halliburton's graft crimes are legion, and we won't find out the extent of the shoddy services KBR provided our soldiers, or how many Iraqi civilians Blackwater killed, until a new Attorney General is sworn in, and maybe not even then. "Win?" I guess you could say the profiteers "won."

With tens of thousands of innocent civilians killed and maimed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere; and with commentators like John Bolton, Benny Morris, and Charles Krauthammer demanding the United States or Israel attack Iran, thereby expanding the killing fields; and with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) working hand-in-glove with resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda elements in the northwestern border region and in Kashmir; and with the Bush Administration's failed saber rattling, warmongering, and unilateralist bluster -- Can we now safely conclude, at this late date, that Bush's foreign policy has been a catastrophe for the world and the single biggest recruiting tool for international terrorists?

None of the above smells like "victory" to me.

Comments

[profounddogs]

Right on.

[RedKnuckles]

Excellent post. McCain would like us all to forget the horrible bungling, lies, and deception intricately woven into the entire Iraq war narrative. In spite of his protestations that he did not support Bush's bungled approach to Iraq, video evidence shows clearly he supported Bush at every turn and at every point in the war. His shameless repetition of "We're winning" and "The surge is working" and "The surge has worked" is designed to distract and oversimplify the important issues at hand.

[reason2008]

Not true. McCain spoke out several times against Rumsfeld and Bush that there weren't enough troops....­hence the surge. You're ideology is blinding your facts.

Conversely, the liberals have been crying the "war is lost" since we invaded.

By the way, Obama has run to the center since he wrapped up the nomination. How do you like them apples? It's called lack of integrity and conviction­.......and political expedience.

[cam]

By almost every definition of victory the war is long lost.

We are told that if we define victory then we will lose.

[laocoon]

Liberals have not (all or even most) been saying the war is lost. we have been saying the war/battle is counterproductive in regard to any legitimate strategy to reduce terrorism in the long run. Conservatives always misquote liberals. try to address our real arguments not the ones you want us to make.

[Grunty1]

[ I guess you could say the profiteers "won." ]

And frankly, that is the only victory that the Neo-Cons really care about it.

[ApolloSpeaks]

CHALLENGE TO ANTI-WAR CRITICS

Perhaps more disturbing than any of McCain's inaccuracies on the war was Barack Obama's opposition to it on the grounds that the very menacing Saddam Hussein was containable. As Clinton's containment regime-the Oil-for-Fo­od-Program­-completel­y collapsed by 1999 no anti-war critic leading up to the war was able to come forward with an alternate containment plan. Not Obama in his 2002 anti-war speech, not anyone. The question for Obama is what would he have done differently as President to contain Saddam and his massive covert terrorist activities which were sending out thousands of trained terrorists into the world? How would he have stopped it? Until Obama, or anyone against the war, can show us an alternate containment plan, to replace the one that failed, Operation Iraqi Freedom must stand as a WAR OF NECESSITY.

[bichn]

Colin Powell and Condi Rice both said early in 2001 that Saddam Hussein was contained. There were no massive terrorist activities under Saddam Hussein. Those activities were in Afghanistan and Pakistan..­.Taliban and Al Queada (sp?). The war of neccessity was prematurely cut short so we could invade Iraq for its oil.

I guess the truth does not fit your worldview.

[timm553]

B.S. There was no honorable or justified "necessity" for this undertaking, sir/madam.

[ApolloSpeaks]

In other words, you believe that Obama was right and that Saddam's terrorist activities could have been contained?

[Chrisle]

A war of necessity follows an attack on a country a war of choice follows an attack by a country. The attack on Iraq was a war of choice, we did not have to do it and we were not immediately threatened by Iraq. Deposing Saddam Hussein might have been a good idea and on those grounds which would just about invade the whole of Africa. We invaded Iraq because Bush 41 stopped and Bush 43 wanted to show that he was better than dad.

[ApolloSpeaks]

You didn't answer the question. Going to war in the post-9/11 era was seen as necessary by a majority of congressmen, senators and their constituents who rightly perceived the intransigent, menacing, murdering Saddam as a gathering terrorist threat that could not be stopped or contained by conventional means. Obama said in his 2002 anti-war speech that Saddam could be contained and that going to war with him was unnecessary. The question is what was Obama's plan?

As one who is aspiring to be Commander in Chief against a man of vastly greater experience going back 30 years Obama, who claims to be a foreign policy genius with more wisdom that McCain and Hillary combined, has an obligation to prove his worth and superior know how. He is obliged to show us his plan for containing Saddam's lethal, deadly terrorist activities, activities that were principally aimed at the US and its allies-the plan that would have boxed Saddam in, rendered him harmless and made war unnecessary.

As for "wars of choice," striking back after suffering a deadly attack is also a choice. We chose to attack Japan after Pearl Harbor. We chose to strike Afghanistan after 9/11. We chose in both cases to go to war because we were convinced it was necessary to do so.

[MajorKong]

Saddam's "massive covert terrorist activities" were mostly in the fevered mind of Laurie Mylroie.

[ApolloSpeaks]

So in other words there was nothing to contain? Saddam was perfectly harmless and Obama had him all wrong when he said along with Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Jay Rockefella, etc., etc., that he was an immensely dangerous man? In other words, when Bill Clinton's state dept. listed Saddam as "one of the world's major funding sources of international terrorism," they weren't in their right minds? That they were suffering from over heated brains? Or when his Sec.of State in a 2000 NPR interview faulted Bush 41 for not finishing the job in Iraq and deposing Saddam on the charge that he was "the world's most dangerous man," her head was also burning up?

[VoteYOURSelfInterset]

"...Saddam and his massive covert terrorist activities which were sending out thousands of trained terrorists into the world..."
There has never been any evidence for the statement above. And yes Saddam was contained. You should endeaver to research the history of the relationship of the U.S. and Saddams Iraq and stop relying on the NeoCons revision of it.

[ApolloSpeaks]

No evidence? What do you call 1,000,000 captured Iraqi intell docs and recordings, 600,000 of which have been translated, documenting Saddam's funding, training and arming of terrorists on a large and growing scale? No evidence? The evidence is overwhelming and proves that our intell agencies underestimated the extent of Saddam's terrorist ties, programs and activities.

[JimR]

Great post.

[judyc]

Really, good post?????

None of the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq. Al Queda wasn't there until we destabilized the country.

There were also no WMD's. So why did we go there?

Saddam was indeed a dictator and tortured his people--however, there are numerous dictators around the world of that capacity. Do we illegally invade all of those countries, too?

[eden4barack08]

Excellent post Palermo.
Thanks.

[eden4barack08]

- " Can we now safely conclude, at this late date, that Bush's foreign policy has been a catastrophe for the world and the single biggest recruiting tool for international terrorists?

YES WE CAN!!!

Obama 08!

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

Yes, like Giuliani had "9" and "11" and then some adverbs and adjectives, McCain has the "surge."

[reason2008]

Oh, like Obama had "hope" and "change" and then some adverbs and adjectives?

[repearwo]

If that is what you think you are not paying attention. Obama is doing what he says, everyday. He is changing the way we finance elections, he is going outside the traditional sources of support. He is commincating directly with voters. He is planning in ways no campaign this year has planned.

Obama has both the Words and the Actions to back it up. Don't take my word, check it out. Go to his web site his positions are all there. Videos and speeches. YOu do not have to rely onm the media, he has it there. Then look to see how he reaches out to involve those that the Party Structure has left out.

Thw missing comment about the sucesful trip to Europe is that it was planned and co-ordianted by the Obama people. Such an undertaking requires the skill that is needed to run a government.

Do not let is oratory fool you, behind it is a man who knows how to organize.

[FullChat]

John McCain sentence:
Surge

[eden4barack08]

Alternated with 'Win'

[geg6]

Alternated with "Victory"

[rvn1965]

Obama....t­rust me, the check is in the mail, and I promise...­...