The Candidates
From Senator McCain’s speech today in Columbus, Ohio:
The following are conditions I intend to achieve. And toward that end, I will focus all the powers of the office; every skill and strength I possess; and seize every opportunity to work with members of Congress who put the national interest ahead of partisanship, and any country in the world that shares our hopes for a more peaceful and prosperous world.
By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced. Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent; al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated; and the Government of Iraq is capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq and defending the integrity of its borders. The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role.
Senator McCain, there are nearly 160,000 U.S. troops currently serving in Iraq. You said this morning that, as president, it would be your intention to have “most of the servicemen and women” home by January 2013; the end of your first term.
If 100,000 troops, the majority of those stationed in Iraq, were to come home over the next four and a half years, leaving roughly 60,000 American forces in Iraq to help maintain stability and security, would that meet your definition of “most”?
Can you promise the American people that, regardless of your intentions, any significant drawdown of troops would be conditions-based?
During the recent hearings on Capitol Hill, in which General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker answered questions from members of Congress, Senator Obama suggested he would be satisfied if troop levels could be reduced to 30,000.
Specifically, how does this nuanced position of yours on Iraq diverge from that of Senator Obama or Clinton?
My concern stems from the characterizations coming from the media as they interpret/spin McCain’s comments to comport with their anti-war narrative.
To illustrate my point, here’s a selection of today’s headlines from the press:
…and one from late February while McCain was speaking candidly aboard the Straight Talk Express…
For the record, I do not read McCain’s words as a call for a firm timetable. Furthermore, a long-term presence of 60,000 troops (ala Germany, South Korea, Japan) would be satisfactory and consistent with previous comments made by McCain. It is essential, however, that he maintain separation between himself and the Democrats on Iraq, as the media will be more than happy to help blur the distinction.
Where’s the man who warranted my utmost respect by saying “I’d rather lose an election than lose a war”?
Inquiring minds want to know…
May 15th, 2008 at 10:51 am
2013 is awfully far away. And Obama and Clinton want to be gone in 16 months - regardless of conditions on the ground. That’s a big difference.
Sooner or later we are going to be gone. He’s just being pragmatic. I think he needs to. Otherwise the anti-war sentiment brings Obama into power and we’ll have a real mess on our hands when he wants to withdraw without any regard to conditions on the ground.
We need to cut McCain some slack with this. It really has been five years. Nation-building is a bad idea. The public doesn’t want to hear about never-ending commitments to this anymore.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Thank you Aron. I was beginning to wonder whether I was the only one understanding the significance of McCain’s breathtaking announcement today. McCain has just forfeited one of his strongest arguments in the Fall by moving so close to Sen. Obama’s position as to negate the difference.
Specifically, for McCain to have “most of the servicemen and women†home by January 2013, he would need to begin pulling troops out at least two years prior, sometime in 2010. It is inconceivable that conditions in 2010 will be appreciably different than in 2009 when the new president takes office! So now there is essentially no difference in McCain and Obama’s positions. I am frankly astounded.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Oh - and its a “timetable!”
May 15th, 2008 at 11:05 am
The goals he enunciated are already close to having been met. He needs to accelerate his timetable, because we’re going to need the troops in Iraq to either invade Iran or defend
Taiwan, or both. Iran can’t be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, and China can’t be allowed to take Taiwan. And if the public doesn’t want to hear this, the case must be made, and the necessary actions must be taken. The ongoing security needs of the American people have to come first.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:05 am
It’s not a timetable. It’s not a firm commitment. It’s what he “intends to achieve”. Do Democrats “intend to achieve success?” Or do they just want to leave now?
May 15th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Most of the troops out in four years is a timetable, even to hair-splitters. Indeed, he even gives a date, January 2013.
This is where we are now. McCain has staked out democratic positions on Iraq, global warming, and immigration. If he were to choose a pro-choice running mate he would effectively be running as a democrat.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I read it as a hoped-for prediction, not as a timetable.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Aron,
I am at a complete loss to understand your reaction to Sen. McCain’s speech.
McCain is simply asking voters to envision what the world would look like after 4 years of his competent leadership.
Do you actually expect John McCain to campaign for POTUS and not tell voters that he is the one to fix Iraq? Why should any American vote for John McCain if he is not willing to make the case that he has the experience and expertise to fix this mess while he sits in the Oval Office?
Frankly, it seems to me that you are letting your anger with Sen. McCain on Global Warming color your interpretation of his remarks.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Metro,
That’s how I read it too. I don’t see a firm commitment anywhere. You can’t get more clear than The following are conditions I intend to achieve… . Not come hell or high water.. .
May 15th, 2008 at 11:27 am
This is actually a good thing that McCain is showcasing what he hopes to have happen. It’s much better than the dick Dick Cheney “So????” approach.
And Pablo, if you believe that McCain is effectively a Democrat why not vote for him instead of continually trolling a Republican blog just to be a contrarian?
May 15th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Adam’s right, and Dave’s observation that this is within reach is also on point.
What McCain does here is advance the debate away from the Democratic demagoguery on “100 years’ war.”
Instead of spelling out a firm timetable, he spells out the objectives by pointing to what he wants to have achieved by 2013. In contrast, the Democrats see troop withdrawal as an end in itself, no matter what things look like on the ground.
Nothing annoys me more than the constant Dem rhetoric on “we gotta end this war!” In fact, the war has long been over, despite the intermittent clashes and violence. Occupation has never been our aim, it is not in our or Iraq’s interests, and continuing to occupy, or appear to occupy, the country only serves adversaries and rivals like Iran, Russia, NK, China, Syria, etc.
If he can succeed in changing the narrative with this, I also think it might serve to lower a more immediate risk: a massive attack on us there on the eve of our November elections. It’s not like our enemies are unaware of the Iraq war’s unpopularity here.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:32 am
I’m with Adam. Nowhere in McCain’s speech is he saying he intends to pull out 100,000 troops regardless of the conditions on the ground. He is promising to pull out troops when we have achieved success. What could possibly be objectionable about that?
May 15th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Exactly Mark! I could not agree with you more.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Even our current strategy, admittedly far from successful, calls for US troops to eventually draw down to where the Iraqis themselves are handling most of the security in their own country. McCain isn’t saying “I will pull troops out by January 2013.” As others have noted above, he’s putting forth goals which he “intends to achieve” and says he will focus his power on getting there. The rest of the statement explains that withdrawl is based on certain expected outcomes (the War has been won, Iraq is a functioning democracy, etc). Perhaps if Bush and Rumsfeld gave us reasonable goals and outcomes a few years ago instead of an empty, really non-existant exit strategy and an unforgettable “Mission Accomplished” banner we wouldn’t be looking at another potentially devastating election for the GOP.
McCain’s statement actually made me want to support him even more. It shows me he’s strong on the war but not irrational about it. Besides, nobody wants us there forever.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:41 am
#6:
Correct. And do you know what those pesky Democrats are doing right now? Kicking our A$$!
All of these panic in statements made by Bush, Mac, and others over the last 24 hours is in reaction to the Childers seat. That’s 3 in a row. We are losing. And politics is about winning. It’s a zero sum game. McCain wins we get 60% of what we want. Obama gets us zero.
#1 and #2:
And to expand on Adam’s point: we’ve been there 5 years now and we will have been there just short of TEN years in January 2013. A lot has already happened in 5 and more will happen in the next 5 so we don’t know what 2010 will look like which will be 18 months under a new Administration.
I supported going to Iraq in 2002 when it was floated around as an idea and no one knew what WMD stood for. I continue to support any measure that we take to win it. But there was never any indication that there would be this many troops still there and this much violence 5 years later. It’s been a disaster; it cost us in 2006 and 3 special elections since. Let’s not let that happen in 2008 when the most powerful position is up for grabs.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:45 am
If my reaction was wrong then apparently the press following McCain also got it wrong because afterwards they asked him why he is now for a timetable and how his position is different from the democrats.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:48 am
It’s the Newt Gingrich/Ronald Reagan approach: Be optimistic. What is Obama to say? “NO HE CAN’T!”?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DjjzWOYsios
May 15th, 2008 at 11:49 am
And this surprises you WHY??? Of course the media is going to twist McCain’s statements to his detriment. Why is this surprising to anyone?
May 15th, 2008 at 11:51 am
#17: Bingo.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:59 am
MarkG wrote: “If he can succeed in changing the narrative with this, I also think it might serve to lower a more immediate risk: a massive attack on us there on the eve of our November elections. It’s not like our enemies are unaware of the Iraq war’s unpopularity here.”
Perhaps. My concern, though, stems more from the characterizations coming from the media as they interpret/spin McCain’s comments to comport with their anti-war narrative.
To illustrate my point, here’s a selection of today’s headlines from the press:
“McCain: Troops May Be Home by 2013″ - New York Times
“McCain unveils plan for US troop withdrawal from Iraq” - The Guardian
“McCain Offers His Iraq Timetable” - Wall Street Journal
“Troops home from Iraq by 2013: McCain” - AFP
“McCain predicts troops will be out of Iraq by 2013″ - LA Times
“McCain: A date for withdrawal?” - MSNBC
For the record, I do not read McCain’s words as a call for a firm timetable. Furthermore, a long-term presence of 60,000 troops (ala Germany, South Korea, Japan) would be satisfactory and consistent with previous comments made by McCain. It is essential, however, that he maintain separation between himself and the Democrats on Iraq, and the media will be more than happy to help blur the distinction.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
The thing that really gets me is that McCain smeared Romney during the primaries as espousing a Democrat position with regards to benchmarks. But now that McCain has mentioned a date, how is that to the right of Romney’s secret timetables which would not be publicly disclosed? McCain’s trying real hard to lose my vote right now and I think he’s succeeding with his crooked talk.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
To take Aron’s point a step further, once the lines on Iraq are blurred the economy, where dems are heavily favored, remains as top issue. Furthermore, even the question of whether McCain is flip-flopping detracts from his straight-talk image.
Bush’s comments in Israel also don’t help because now McCain is defending Bush, creating that Bush-McCain alliance dems were hoping for. The underlying issue gets subsumed by the imagery.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Aron,
I understand your concern. Of course there could be an upside. There aren’t any You Tube videos of McCain calling for a withdrawal and if reporters bring this up all he has to say is “Look at what I said. I intend to achieve the following…”
That sort of undercuts Dean’s lie about McCain and 100 years.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
BarkTwiggs,
If Romney said “I hope to achieve X, Y and Z so that we can be out by 2013″ it’s a little different than “I know when I’ll be out regardless of what’s going but I just don’t want to say”
May 15th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Adam,
I support McCain’s idea on pulling out when the job is done but Romney was not saying “I know when I’ll be out regardless of what’s going but I just don’t want to sayâ€. His proposal was conditionally based on milestones, not arbitrary dates, which McCain seems to adopting now.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
On CNN reporter Tom Foreman just said, by proposing to have troops out of Iraq in four years, which the dems have not even guaranteed, “McCain is outflanking democrats on their left!”
Control of the message is being lost.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
#16, That sounds about right. Are you surprised that would be the case? The press thrives off faulty reporting of any and everything involving Iraq, and especially when it directly involves Republicans. It’s like 2 for the price of 1 to them.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
He said it was his intention. That’s way different from saying that he WILL do that. Don’t jump all over someone for saying what he hopes- appreciate that he gives insight into his desire to end this the right way.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Pablo,
Tom Foreman appears to be an idiot. Both Democrats have “proposed” to have troops out of Iraq within a year. They just haven’t promised to. Neither has McCain here. At the most liberal interpretation, he’s simply parroting Hillary and Obama’s plans, but moving the date back 3 years (a significant move to the right as is). I think this is a mistake for another reason; 2013 is too late for most Americans. They want troops home within a year. Within 6 months. Of course McCain can’t and shouldn’t promise anything like that. But, as long as he remained reasonably vague (”we’re making amazing progress, and I have no doubt that we’ll soon be able to begin drawdowns, consistent with the conditions on the ground of course”) moderates and independents who are bothered by his war position, might be willing to cut him some slack. But, while he isn’t promising 100 more years of war, he’s almost genuinely promising at least 4 more.
May 15th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
This is an abomination and a disappointment. I favor a firm open-ended commitment to Iraq and I think that we need to stay and build on our success.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
I’d rather McCain lose the election than lose the war. Anyone else?
May 15th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
“while [McCain] isn’t promising 100 more years of war, he’s almost genuinely promising at least 4 more.”
Very astute observation.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
McCain and competency? Psh I don’t trust the guy on that.Also im curious to know if McCain will sell American soverignty down the drain for the NAU?
May 15th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
A few more headlines from today to chew on…
McCain Sets a Date - New York Times
McCain vision statement offers timetable for withdrawal from Iraq - Canada.com
McCain, Obama Now Agree on Iraq! (Kinda, Sorta) - Wired News
…and one from late February while McCain was speaking candidly aboard the Straight Talk Express…
McCain: I’ll lose if I can’t persuade voters that the war in Iraq is succeeding
http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/americano/523001/mccain-ill-lose-if-i-cant-persuade-voters-that-the-war-in-iraq-is-succeeding.thtml
May 15th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Ok, with Aron’s help we can now say that despite whatever McCain meant to say it is being interpreted as a timetable for withdrawal. On Fox it was reported that on his bus McCain was asked 11 times! how he could say he was not setting a date for withdrawal (the report also said McCain got annoyed).
May 15th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
If the troops are not out by 2013 then the dems will have a field day (read my lips, no new taxes)
It appears than McCain will be a one term President.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:23 am
[...] usual, within mere days, my prediction turns out to be eerily prescient. The following are conditions I intend to achieve. And toward that end, I will focus all the [...]