Maliki Asks Iran to Get al-Sadr to Ceasefire -- And John McCain Declares "Victory!"

The entire rationale for McCain's run for president is that he was for the surge before there was a surge, and, now, that surge is "a success." This is supposed to show that McCain is experienced in defense and foreign policy.

In the last two weeks we have witnessed this depth of knowledge and experience in action. First, while in Iraq, McCain mistook al-Qaeda, a Sunni organization, with fighters being trained in Shia Iran. Not once, but three times. Joe Lieberman kissed George Bush, but with McCain, he has limited himself, at least in public, to whispering sweet-nothings into his ear, such as the correct identities of the different groups.

Several theories were advanced to explain away the McCain gaffes. Brit Hume offered it as a "senior moment." Now, that's comforting.

McCain aspires to be our president on the basis of his claimed strong foreign policy and defense credentials. He has visited Iraq officially many times, and spoken to the leaders of various factions. Yet, he still does not know the major factions and their relationships, but wants to be our next "decider" on matters of war and peace. A third Bush term, in more ways than one.

Oh yes, McCain did not read the NIE prior to the vote on the War Resolution either.

Yesterday, McCain outdid even himself. First, he expressed surprise that the al-Maliki government launched its offensive against the Shia militia in Basra, despite having been with al-Maliki the prior day. [n.b. the British had reduced their forces from 40,000 in the city to 4000 at the airport (a "de-surge"), leaving Basra under the control of competing Shia militias but relatively non-violent]. Now, there's a potential president we can depend upon to get good information -- can't wait, can you?

But, even more foreboding, McCain then asserted that al-Maliki had "won" the battle with al-Sadr. Why? Well, said McCain, the side that sues for a ceasefire is usually not winning. Yet, it was al-Maliki who asked the Iranian government to intercede with al-Sadr to ask al-Sadr for a ceasefire. As Keith Olbermann said, by McCain's own metric, al-Sadr was the winner. Or, as a President McCain is likely to tell us, "Mission Accomplished."

And, of course, that is the sad, tragic truth of this entire debacle. People who have no idea what they are talking about making policy. People with such a vested interest in proving their idiotic theories correct holding the reins of power. A media so pathetic that they carry the stories fed them by the White House and now an eager White House aspirant.

Here are some bitter truths: to date, the major winner in the war has been Iran. The Iraqi Army, and, to an even greater extent, police, are split along ethnic and factional lines. Muqtada al-Sadr is just waiting his turn to take over the country. Although al-Maliki is clearly pro-Iran (and that's OUR GUY!), al-Sadr is generally considered not to be. Nonetheless, in the infinite stupidity of Bush/McCainaanite policy, the longer we persist, the more we may push al-Sadr further into the protective arms of Iran. Our other "war of the big lie", Vietnam, was similar: we drove the Vietnamese into an alliance with China, their historical foe.

Some more bitter truths: 80% of Iraq's oil is in the South, i.e., Shia. The closer the southern Shia are to Iran politically, the more control over the oil market they will have. Iran + 80% of Iraq is as large as the Saudi oil reserves, perhaps more. Despite this, the British are not going to re-up their troop levels in Basra -- should this be telling us something?

A final bitter truth: despite all this potential and turmoil on its border, and despite $100+ oil, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and the other Gulf States have contributed no money to the U.S. war effort. Recall that they underwrote virtually the entire First Gulf War, but nary a dollar for this one -- should this be telling us something?

The bitterest truth of all: John McCain as president will deepen the debacle Bush started.