McCain's Iraqi Island

On the question of Iraq, John McCain is now a ridiculous figure, as this CNN interview paraphrased by Josh Marshall makes clear.

First, apparently Maliki didn't really mean what he said. Second, Wolf Blitzer read back to McCain his repeated claim that Obama would rather lose a war if it helped him win a political campaign. This is close to an accusation of treason. So Blitzer asked him whether this wasn't an attack on Obama's patriotism. McCain said 'no' that he was only questioning Obama's judgment. In any rational world the maverick label wouldn't survive a fib of that magnitude.

Perhaps best of all McCain appeared to embrace Maliki's timeline for withdrawal, but said there was no conflict with that also being Obama's timeline for withdrawal, because Maliki's was based on conditions and Obama's wasn't.

Last but not least, Blitzer asked McCain if it didn't make sense to scrutinize McCain's judgment in going to war in the first place if he's placing so much emphasis on scrutinizing Obama's judgment on the surge. McCain's answer, in so many words, that's old news.

Just wow, on so many levels. First of all, as Chuck Hagel noted, continuing to try and figure out who was right or wrong about the surge and what the meaning of "conditions on the ground" is completely obscures the key point at this stage, which is "How are we going to project forward ... What are we going to do for the next four years to protect the interest of America and our allies and restructure a new order in the world?" Bob Kerrey echoed this sentiment today.

And making the determination on how we move forward requires assessing the situation as it is, and making the best judgment of how to proceed. Now the situation currently is simply not as rosy as everyone suggests. Violent events that would be unthinkable in a country at peace still happen every day. The political situation is still a mess, and with the delay in provincial elections, it's only getting worse. Juan Cole notes that it's fairly impossible to pin down the exact cause-and-effect of the surge (though the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad and bribing the Sunnis in Anbar is certainly a major facet, as well as the increase in Iraqi oil revenues which has strengthened the central government), but it's also impossible to suggest this is an unquestionably safe and peaceful nation:

I'd suggest some comparisons. The Sri Lankan civil war between Sinhalese and Tamils has killed an average of 233 persons a month since 1983 and is considered one of the world's major ongoing trouble spots. That is half the average monthly casualties in Iraq recently. In 2007, the conflict in Afghanistan killed an average of 550 persons a month. That is about the rate recently according to official statistics for Iraq. The death rate in 2006-2007 in Somalia was probably about 300 a month, or about half this year's average monthsly rate in Iraq. Does anybody think Afghanistan or Somalia is calm? Thirty years of North Ireland troubles left about 3,000 dead, a toll still racked up in Iraq every five months on average.

All the talk of casualty rates, of course, is to some extent beside the point. The announced purpose of the troop escalation was to create secure conditions in which political compromises could be achieved [...]

There has been very little reconciliation between Sunni and Shiite. The new de-Baathification law which ostensibly aimed at improving the condition of Sunnis who had worked in the former regime was loudly denounced by the very ex-Baathists who would be affected by it. In any case, the measure has languished in oblivion and no effort has been made to implement it. Depending on how it is implemented it could easily lead to large numbers of Sunnis being fired from government ministries, and so might make things worse.

So that's where we are. But again, what this proves is that the political situation cannot be managed by increases in American troops on the ground. Now that the country is a bit more stable and the Maliki government on surer footing, only they can make those necessary decisions, and our presence or absence is not really a factor. And the biggest point is that, if the Iraqis want us out, how can we deny them the freedom to have that choice?



McCain ought to embrace withdrawal as the validation of his strategy. That wouldn't be entirely true, of course, but if he's so keen on a counter-insurgency strategy, the first rule would be to listen to the local leaders about their needs and desires. Maliki is asking for withdrawal for nakedly political reasons, but if McCain rebuffs his wishes, he renders illegitimate the elected Iraqi government and threatens to have the entire population turn on us.

Petraeus's counterinsurgency manual also makes clear the Iraqi Government's desire for a timeline should be seen as an important step forward: "The long-term goal is to leave a government able to stand by itself. In the end, the host nation has to win on its own. ... Eventually all foreign armies are seen as interlopers or occupiers; the sooner the main effort can transition to Host Nation institutions, without unacceptable degradation, the better." Of course, it is quite likely that, buoyed by its recent successes, the Maliki Government is overestimating its own capabilities and the U.S. should take care to withdraw carefully in a way that minimizes the likelihood of the situation deteriorating. But with that caveat in place, counterinsurgency doctrine dictates that this assertion of independence is an important step. It should be welcomed -- not derided as political posturing or suppressed by a White House seeking a permanent presence in Iraq.

In the end, COIN doctrine tells us that Prime Minister Maliki's recent assertions are a crucial turning point as Iraqis being to declare their own independence. This moment should be seized on to begin transitioning to a more limited mission that acts to support the Iraqis instead of taking the lead, and which requires a much smaller U.S. force presence. This is the position that Barack Obama has had all along. John McCain would be wise to accept this new reality and move to Obama's position, instead of continuing to reject the major breakthrough that has occurred.

He won't, of course, because he's stubborn, and his strategy - indeed the neocon strategy from the beginning of this war - was far more about staying permanently than building a democratic society. This suggests that McCain doesn't know a lot about foreign policy and certainly nothing about counter-insurgency. And the policies he does articulate - remaining in Iraq, kicking Russia out of the G8, rogue state rollback - really threaten global stability. It's actually dangerous at this point not to leave Iraq. And that's why the best bet for our continued security and the lives of our soldiers is Barack Obama.

UPDATE: This is fucking weird.



What is he talking about? If Maliki says it, then the timetable is based on conditions on the ground, but if Obama says ithe doesn't? This doesn't make any sense. I guess he's trying to blur the lines here, but he's just confusing everyone.