GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
My favorite analysis of McCain’s statements on Iraq today come courtesy of The Patriot Room via Redstate:
Nice move Mac. In one fell swoop, he exposes the anti-war left for what they are: Pacifist appeasers who don’t believe troops should be sent anywhere, anytime, for any reason. They will be left bleating on deaf ears about bringing troops home now.
Normal Americans support military action against America’s enemies as long as the cause is just and the exit strategy is known. They are patient and they can live with a date, even if it is 5 years down the road. Before today, McCain was saddled with the perception of a perpetual war combined with the scurrilous 100-years-in-Iraq lie by the left. Unaddressed, that is a deal breaker for McCain at the ballot box. No longer.
The nice part is that he can assess as he goes and decide in 2013, if he wins a second term, whether that is the prudent course at that time.
In the meantime, he has just grabbed a pile of moderate, war-weary Democrats right out of the D column.
J-Mac needed to diffuse the “100 years in Iraq” crap. He did so in a confident, positive, and optimistic manner where he laid out a vision for the American people of our drawing down troops by them coming home victorious.
I would be interested in hearing Dave’s thoughts, as he has written about how Sen. McCain should handle Iraq in the general. In my humble opinion, he absolutely defused the issue in the best way possible.
The bottom line for me is this… McCain essentially said that no matter who wins in November, American troops are coming home. On one hand, you have Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who will declare defeat, surrender to al-Qaeda in Iraq, and withdraw troops as soon as possible leading to Sunni genocide and general chaos.
On the other hand, Americans can choose a CiC who will win the war in his first-term and have the troops return in victory. By stressing the year 2013, McCain’s implicit message is that he is betting his Presidency on the fact that he will accomplish this. It’s a pretty ballsy gambit, but McCain is the ballsy presidential nominee since TR.
I know this much… If Americans are given the choice between two candidates that are promising that the troops will come home in their first-term, they will choose the one who promises that they return as victors.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
“Pacifist appeasers who don’t believe troops should be sent anywhere, anytime, for any reason. ”
Not entirely true - many support a mission to Darfur.
—-
But can anyone confirm that McCain said that he has no interest in gaining an advantage over the Democrats?
May 15th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
[...] Minister Gordon Brown’s grilling by senior MPs on the Commons liaison committee. (128 clicks) Good Analysis on McCain’s Ohio SpeechMy favorite analysis of McCain’s statements on Iraq today c… Red-tailed Hawk updateI’ve learned over the last 5 years that it’s very difficult to detect chicks [...]
May 15th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
I totally disagree. We need to build on our success in Iraq by staying and investing in the people and the infrastructure. We need a robust commitment to our mission there and to the people that we liberated. As for diffusing the so-called “issue” of Iraq, what we need to do is start talking about Iran and getting the American people on a war footing to defeat this looming and threatening enemy, topple it’s government and install a representative Democracy. McCain wins when he forcefully confronts Iran and the need for regime change there.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
I have added to the original post to add more breadth.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
This and judges is what will win McCain my vote and my money. Any other conservative causes he advances will be bonuses.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Kavon, I love the last sentence in your original post.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Kavon,
If the troops are coming home within a couple years no matter who is president, how is it that they come home under one guy in victory but under another in defeat? That makes no sense.
Also, the efficacy a political message is not determined by what is said but by what is heard and what the media heard was McCain flip-flopping on a timetable for withdrawal. CNN called it a “stunning reversal.” Aron Goldman posted a list of similar headlines.
When you couple this with the storyline that the GOP considers itself in real peril its easy to conclude McCain made a political rather than a military assessment.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
[...] Kavon suggests that McCain has made a smart move in suggesting that troops will probably be home by 2013 if he’s elected. I’m not so sure. It seems to me that when you accept, even implicitly, the idea of a timeline, you’re essentially surrendering half of the issue. Americans may or may not want victory. But, I think that give them the choice of two timetables to end a war they no longer believe in, and they’ll choose the sooner. That’s not to say McCain actually CALLED for a timetable, but as Aron has noted, this is the way it’s been played in every media outlet. McCain’s essentially saying, as far as the public is concerned, “I know you dislike this war. I’ll have us out of there in 4-5 years”. Obama’s saying “I know you dislike this war. I’ll have us out of there in 1 year”. McCain should have said, implicitly, something like “I know you dislike this war, but if we’re on the verge of success, and whatever the Democrats tell you, we’ll be forced to go back to the region after it descends into chaos if we rashly withdraw”. [...]
May 15th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
PabloZed,
There is a huge difference between demanding a troop withdrawal to start no matter what within what, 60 days, than to say that one hopes to achieve a situation within Iraq by the end of their term such that a large troop presence is no longer warranted. No one is for an infinite war within Iraq, we just don’t support precipitious withdrawal without conditions allowing such a withdrawal to proceed. At the moment, the Iraqi government is not quite stable enough to support itself alone completely, nor is the insurgency finished, and won’t be no matter what, but within 4 or 5 years the government may very well be quite stable, and the insurgency reduced extensively.
Also, the press always hears whatever they want to, how is that a suprise? The only reversal which McCain committed was one against the Dnc’s “100 year war” distortion.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:03 am
The Republicans who are arguing that McCain is appeasing the left, or caving, or flip-flopping, are missing the point. McCain picked an arbitrary date way off in the future. But he picked a date, which he can choose to COMPLETELY IGNORE in 5 years. But voters first, as you say, want to win. Second, they want to get out. McCain is trusted by the voters to win, and what he is telling them is we will win AND be out by 2013. The left just robotically repeats Get Out Now. They never, ever mention victory. That is because they don’t care about victory. They think it is an ill-gotten war that represents all that is bad about America. We don’t deserve to win, because we should not have been there in the first place. McCain has left himself plenty of time to win his way.
Thanks for the link.