My Friend Dr. Jerry Newmark has written many books and his most recent one How To Raise Emotionally Healthy Children has sold hundreds of thousands of copies. He sent me this and I would like to see it widely circulated.
--Norman Horowitz
A Suggestion to Barack Obama on McCain's Use of the Word Victory (October 6, 2008)
Aggressively challenge McCain on using terms such as "victory," and winning the war:
Ask how can McCain ignore his mentor's statement below? Is it to maintain his "maverick" image or is it rather the selective action of a politician to use the big boss whenever it seems politically desirable. Or, is it because McCain doesn't comprehend the meaning of Petraeus's words.
As ThinkProgress has frequently noted, the "great general" to whom McCain referred -- David Petraeus -- has explicitly suggested not using the language McCain seems so fond of. "This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not war with a simple slogan," Petraeus said. He added that he doesn't think he'll ever use the word, citing the "need for real restraint" in public pronouncements.
Yes, perhaps McCain doesn't, or doesn't want to, understand his hero.Petraeus has expressed numerous times the fragility of the situation in Iraq. If "victory " is defined (and McCain has yet to define it) as a stabilized Iraq government, with regularly functioning free elections, and supported by all segments of the diverse population--and equally important, creating a stabilized Middle East with minimal threats from Iran and Syria, and at the same time solving the Arab-Israeli problem--no wonder Petreaus stays clear of all that. On the contrary, Syria and Iran are stronger than before our invasion of Iraq, with Iraq having closer ties with Iran and many believe closer than with us, and settling the Arab-Israeli dispute nowhere in sight; who would be bold enough to predict that all or any of the above could occur within 5,10, 20, 50 or more years, if ever.
So, what the surge has given us is a "fragile" success in lowering the violence, with the right to occupy Iraq for an indefinite period, perhaps 100 years. We continue to add to the 200 million dollars spent on arming the former Sunni insurgents, and the more than 700 billion dollars (greater than the present "bailout") already spent on the war. It is no wonder McCain does not define what he means by "victory," and never mentions what the Iraq war has cost us, and continues to, in American and Iraqi lives, in money, and in the loss of prestige, respect, and influence with former allies worldwide, plus the increase in al-Qaeda terrorist recruitment around the world.
Instead McCain raises the specter of fear in terms of civil war and chaos in Iraq, invasion by Iran, Syria, and Turkey -- all taking over pieces of the country--and ending with our having to fight these terrorists in the streets of U.S. cities -- and he states these as facts.
Other scenarios include the Iraq government -- once they are certain of our leaving -- taking the necessary steps to bring the country together by sharing wealth, power, etc. Also, the US could leave a small peacemaking force to protect the borders, with the air force and navy available for support, if necessary.
Finally, when a candidate with the mantra "country first" discounts or ignores the words about "victory" of General Petraeus, upon whose accomplishments, he McCain, has based his Iraq position, is it self-deception, a misunderstanding or simply a case of self-serving hypocrisy by a "maverick" who would do anything to get elected.
A new administration with a new view towards international cooperation, pre-emptive war and who listened to and treated its friends as equals, could begin intensive negotiations with these former allies and the United Nations about gradually replacing our troops with an international force.
Dr. Jerry Newmark, Author