McCain Says Escalate in Iraq Or Lose

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 08:30:01 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Will Leiberman agree? Cuz the McCain Independent Centrist platform seems to call for it:

We must be honest about the war in Iraq. Without additional combat forces we will not win. We must clear and hold insurgent strongholds, provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies, arrest sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias, train the Iraqi army, and embed American personnel in weak and often corrupt Iraqi police units. We need to do all these things if we are to succeed. And we will need more troops to do them.
They will not be easy to find. We should have begun to increase significantly the size of the Army and Marine Corps the day after 9/11. But we did not. So we must turn again to those Americans and their families who have already sacrificed so much in this cause. That is a very hard thing to do. But if we intend to win, then we must.
It is not fair or easy to look a soldier in the eye and tell him he must shoulder a rifle again and risk his life in a third tour in Iraq. As troubling as it is, I can ask a young Marine to go back to Iraq. And he will go, not happily perhaps, but he will go because he and his comrades are the first patriots among us. But I can only ask him if I share his commitment to victory.

Believe it or not, I respect this position more than the Bush fake vctory speeches that we hear now.

< My Day of Agreement: This Time With Kevin Drum | Big Crime Drop in New York With Fewer Incarcerations >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

McCain Says Escalate in Iraq Or Lose | 11 comments (11 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

More gasoline? (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by squeaky on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 08:53:00 PM EST

We lost Iraq before we started there because you can't win hearts and minds with black intentions, intentions that are not remotely in the interests of the people you are "liberating". All you can achieve is rule by fear like mobsters do.

So adding more troops to the mix is like pouring more gasoline on the fire. The false logic suggesting equating loss with not sending more troops portends to be a trap constructed to blame the democrats for losing the war in Iraq.

Not buying it. Bring the troops home now. No more wasted blood and treasure in my name thank-you.

: To be clear (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 10:01:45 PM EST

me either.
We lost period. Nothing will change that.

So the plan is to hunt down and kill the bad guys. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by JSN on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 09:24:34 PM EST

That is what we have been trying to do and once we have pacified a city or region we move to the next and more bad guys move back in to the pacified area.

As John says we need more troops but we did nothing to increase the number after 9/11 so we have to destroy the army, marines and national guard by sending them back again and again.

John says he can ask them to to make that sacrifice. What sacrifices is he asking of us? Will he ask us to pay higher taxes so we can provide the supplies and equipment they need? Will he ask us to submit to a draft so we have more troops to hunt down and kill the bad guys?

I am sick of buying oil with blood of our children.

How to win: (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Pneumatikon on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 10:09:43 PM EST

First you pull out.

Then you let the chips fall where they may.

Then you pay a couple of hundred billion dollars in reparations. Don't. Make. A. Single. Efin'. Demand.

Grab some scapegoats. Strap them down and shoot them up after a fair and transparent trial. Turn a blind eye to the rest.

Then you get some prized possessions out of the Smithsonian, like maybe Lindbergh's airplane or some Gutenberg Bibles. Lots of stuff. Make it hurt. Build a museum in Baghdad, put it all there, and promise to pay for maintenance for the next hundred years.

Think the price is too high? Tough. We'll pay it one way or another.

Great Plan (4.00 / 1) (#7)
by squeaky on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 11:36:09 PM EST

First you pull out....

Wouldn't that be nice Pnuematikon. That amount of money will seem small in hindsight. That is to those of us who want peace.

Ultimately that money gets spent, and more. The real generals are not even in the military. Like a machine, one corporate hand voraciously sucks up contracts while the other eagerly grabs all the loose cash and stuffs into its already bulging coffers (war is a cyclical business they will unembarrassedly say) .....

The cut and run, but pay (big time) at the door solution is clearly the only realistic option we have for a face saving win, win outcome. Anyone who would disagree must be for enabling war rather than seeking peace.

Unfortunately the Iraqi people's hands are tied at the moment. They are getting raped and pillaged modern style. Since they have no lobby power except for those like Chalabi who have already sold them out, I do not expect the cut and run, pay at the door solution will ever be implemented.


Who's wrong? (none / 0) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 08:25:49 AM EST

Bug Tent - First you tell us McCain is running for Pres...Then he tells he'd ramp troop numbers in Iraq...Then you tell us the Demos retook the House and Senate because Americans hate the war.

Hmmm. One of you two guys is wrong.


: Apology (none / 0) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 08:27:07 AM EST

BT - I apologize for the typo. That U is right next to that I.
Sorry

: Heh. (none / 0) (#10)
by Edger on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 08:46:04 AM EST

Ummmmm, Jim.......?
Aw, jeez....never mind. Heh.

Spin, rinse, repeat. (4.00 / 1) (#2)
by Edger on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 09:05:15 PM EST

I see that "win" is as finely defined as it ever was.

Of all people you'd think McCain would be the last guy with historical amnesia.

Wingnuts? Give it your best shot. It's the last roll of the dice:

Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make "a last big push" to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources familiar with the administration's internal deliberations.
...
This figure is far fewer than that called for by the Republican presidential hopeful, John McCain. But by raising troop levels, Mr Bush will draw a line in the sand and defy Democratic pressure for a swift drawdown.

I guess we'll need at least two straitjackets, huh Nancy?

What winning? (4.00 / 1) (#4)
by aw on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 09:31:00 PM EST

The voters said we want out. Is he deaf? Or is he just giving us the finger? Same with the soldiers. How many have you heard talking about victory?

Lunacy.

This advice appears to be about 4 years... (none / 0) (#11)
by Bill Arnett on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 02:52:15 PM EST

...too late, and I believe St. John knows this.

"We must clear and hold insurgent strongholds, provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies, arrest sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias, train the Iraqi army, and embed American personnel in weak and often corrupt Iraqi police units. We need to do all these things if we are to succeed."

These are all things included in the twelve years of war-gaming done by the Pentagon that bush/cheney/rummy, et al, DELIBERATELY discarded for their own plan.

As late as 1999 Clinton had regime change in Iraq war-gamed, and that plan included 400,000 troops and STILL offered no guarantee Iraq would not devolve into civil war.

Thank goodness President Clinton had the wisdom to not attack.

It's a crying shame that bush was so stupid as to ignore all that good advice and attack anyway. Presidentially speaking, bush is not fit to carry Clinton's briefcase.