The Belgravia Dispatch: The Sad State of McCain

January 23, 2007

The Sad State of McCain

Quick note on McCain, whom I caught on MTP this Sunday. It was a depressing performance. Various portions jumped out at me:

MR. RUSSERT: One of the things the American people do remember, September 11th, 2001, the Taliban had harbored al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and then they read this from the Baltimore Sun: “A U.S. Army infantry battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks in order to deploy to Iraq. According to Army Brigadier General Anthony Tata and other senior U.S. commanders [there], that will happen just as the Taliban is expected to unleash a major campaign to cut the vital road between Kabul and Kandahar.” Should we be moving troops from Afghanistan, at this delicate stage in that war, to Iraq?
SEN. McCAIN: I’m not aware of that, and on its face I would be very concerned. A recent trip that we made to Afghanistan, it’s clear to one and all that the Taliban has been reconstituted, particularly in safe area in Pakistan just across the Afghan border, and there will be increased attacks on U.S. and coalition forces. So, as I say, I’ve—had not seen the report, but I would be concerned about it.

With all due respect to this storied Senator--one who has proven his courage and patriotism during long, hellish years in Vietnam--as a leading proponent of the so-called "surge" who sits on the Armed Services Committee of the United States Senate, shouldn't he know exactly where the troops are coming from, and whether or not some forces are being diverted from Afghanistan or not?

I've seen conflicting reports, but I'm just a financial industry type who blogs in stolen hours late at night to scratch a foreign policy itch. Leading proponents of the policy, however, particularly those in positions of key authority, must be in better command of such details. Such ignorance smells too much of the casual swagger that has marked this Iraq fiasco from the get-go. Put simply, leading proponents of escalation need to have such data at their fingertips, especially if they mean to persuade us that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are both part and parcel of the very same global war on terror, one that is billed as being of such immense existential import.

Then there was this snippet:

Senator, welcome. I want to raise first The Economist magazine, this is The Economist’s intelligence unit. They say this: “Unless their mission is very well-defined, 20,000 troops are probably too few to make a significant difference - and may be too few under any circumstances. ... Adding around 20,000 to the 132,000 currently there will increase U.S. capabilities, but not enough to stabilize the country.” You agree with that?
SEN. McCAIN: I am concerned about it, whether it is sufficient numbers or not. I would have like to have seen more. I looked General Petraeus in the eye and said, “Is that sufficient for you to do the job?” He assured me that he thought it was and that he had been told that if he needed more he would receive them. I have great confidence in General Petraeus. I think he’s one of the finest generals that our military’s ever produced, and he has a proven record on that. He wrote the new Army counterinsurgency manual. But do I believe that if it had been up to me would there have been more? Yes, but one of the keys to this is get them over there quickly rather than feed them in piecemeal as some in the Pentagon would like to do today.

I don't know about you, but I'm sick of people looking at each other in the eyes for varied comfort and soul-bonding reverie. We're dealing with life and death decisions here. We need to do better, and deal in hard facts and empirical data. Petraeus "assured" McCain he'd get more troops if he needed them? Oh yeah? From where? When? How? After all, everyone serious knows we were barely able to cobble together the 21.5K getting sent into theatre. Meantime, we've got 3,050 dead Americans and $400B squandered in the sands of Mesopotamia to date. We have to better get on top of such pesky details when we're advocating throwing together a half-assed mini-surge hail-mary, I'm afraid.

And last, I heard McCain make some statement that only 15% of Americans supported ejecting Iraq from Kuwait during Gulf War I (his point was to hold tough in the face of capsizing support for a President whose Iraq policy has him reaching Nixonian levels of unpopularity). I smelled something fishy immediately, as I didn't recall the number being even remotely that low, and indeed Cunning has the goods here.

In short, McCain's performance was dismal. I say this w/ sadness, because I thought I'd be supporting him in '08. It's too early to make any definitive judgements, of course, but I have to mostly agree with Cunning when he writes:

I’ve been waiting to vote for McCain in a presidential election since the mid-90’s. But on the single issue (Iraq) one might have expected the perspective and wisdom of his formative life experience to matter, he’s been a reckless disaster. I’ve completely lost faith in his judgment, and the prospect of him sitting in the Oval Office gets more and more disturbing.

Indeed. A few years back, I would have bet you a decent chunk of change that--as between John McCain and Hillary Clinton--there wasn't the slightest chance I'd vote HRC. Hard to believe, perhaps, now I'm strongly leaning voting for her over McCain. The blunders have simply been too catastrophic, and I'm not persuaded McCain will repair, rather than intensify, them.

Posted by Gregory at January 23, 2007 04:13 AM

Comments

Greg,

It's not McCain.

He would not stand a chance in the primaries because of the Christian right. It's very sad that he has to capitulate on his principles, sacrifice them for political expediency, but this is the current plight of politics here in America.

A very sad era indeed.

Posted by: Dan at January 23, 2007 04:51 AM | Permalink to this comment

I am afraid that Mr. Djerejian is altogether accurate about the decline in Senator McCain's powers of perception as it relates to foreign policy. To explain it, merely in terms of political expediency is I believe inaccurate. Id est, if the Senator from Arizonia, were merely a political opportunist, `a la his Vietnam War
Senatorial colleague, Mr. Kerry, he could have stated quite sincerely to tutti quanti, that due to Bush, Cheney, et. al., errors in 2003-2004, the Iraq adventure, which made strategic sense in the Spring of 2003, was a game which was no longer worth the candle. Or words to that effect. And, of course this is exactly what he has chosen not do. Unlike many of the current candidates on the Democratic side for the Presidency in 2008.

My own surmise for what it is worth, is that McCain, notwithstanding is other positive points, is an ideologue, much closer, than many would think to the neo-conservatives both inside and outside the administration. If one looks at his various stands on a whole range of issues: the Iraq war, Persia, Syria, Russia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Israel, he stand quite close in fact to the the standard issue positions of the neo-conservatives around the Weekly Standard. Consequently, I think that McCain's own hard and fast position, on both 'staying the course', and, his misplaced
optimism about the 'surge' policy are part and parcel of his earlier
tendencies to take positions similar to the neo-conservatives. Again, one must of course salute his standing by his political convictions, but, of course one could have said much the same
of LBJ up to February of 1968, or for that matter Tsar Nicholas II or Charles I...

And, when I say 'ideologue', I mean that since McCain is a whole hearted believer in the whole Iraq adventure, from perhaps as early as 2001-2002, the mere fact that the policy has run into disaster, does not mean that he should (in his own mind) throw over, his prior convictions. In that respect he is not altogether different from ex-Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld: a previously brillant Washington player (on which see Kissinger's 1998 comments in Volume III of his Memoirs, when no one could imagine that Rumsfeld would be returning to the Pentagon), whose powers of imagination and tactical flexibility seems to have left him, when his apriori idee fixe about the Revolution in Military, ran headlong into the sands of Iraq.

To conclude, I suppose it is the ability of the politician or statesman, to exercise the needed art of flexibility at the right time and place (what the late 17th century English statesman the Earl of Halifax characterized as 'trimming'). Or as Furst von Bismarck, the 'greatest politician of the 19th century' (in the words of the British 20th century historian A. J. P. Taylor), aptly put it:
'politics is the art of the possible'. Something that the otherwise estimable Senator McCain has forgotten of late.

Posted by: Charles Coutinho, PH. D. at January 23, 2007 06:09 AM | Permalink to this comment

The following story which will be the leader in the first issue of the
newest newspaper on Capital Hill, the Politico (this comes from the
online journal 'Think Progress" (www.thinkprogress.org), is that in an interview to be published on the 23rd, Senator McCain, blasts Vice-President Cheney and former Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld for
making horrendous errors which have lead to the current debacle in Iraq. So, it would appear, that the Senator from Arizonia, is much more of flexible (or an opportunistic if you like) than either Mr. Djerejian, or myself gave him credit for. As per the interview, McCain also appears to be maneuvering away from his previous
support for the 'surge' policy of the Bush regime. So, by all means
please read and enjoy:

McCain Blasts Cheney Over Iraq Failures, Continues To Distance Himself From Escalation Plan

The new Capitol Hill newspaper, The Politico, launches tomorrow. In its lead story — an exclusive interview with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) — the senator lashes out against Vice President Dick Cheney. Roger Simon writes:

With his presidential hopes tied to an administration whose Iraq policy he supports but cannot control, John McCain for the first time blamed Vice President Cheney for what McCain calls the “witch’s brew” of a “terribly mishandled” war in which U.S. forces are on the verge of defeat.

[…]

Although McCain had once lavished praise on the vice president, he said in an interview in his Senate office: “The president listened too much to the Vice President … Of course, the president bears the ultimate responsibility, but he was very badly served by both the Vice President and, most of all, the Secretary of Defense.”

At a July 15, 2004 appearance in Michigan, McCain called Cheney “one of the most capable, experienced, intelligent and steady vice presidents this country has ever had.”

Also in the interview, McCain continued his back-pedaling from the escalation strategy that he first proposed. After offering a full-throated endorsement of the Bush plan just days ago, McCain opened the door to the redeployment of U.S. forces back to the borders of Iraq should the president’s plan fail. He added, “I don’t know if this is enough troops or not. I can’t guarantee success by doing this.”

Posted by: Charles Coutinho, PH. D. at January 23, 2007 06:53 AM | Permalink to this comment

Just stopping by to read more skepticism about the surge from Greg Djerjejian. Isn't it a little late in the day, Greg, to be so concerned with troop numbers? Perhaps a better time would have been sometime before March of 2003.

It seems like much of what Mickey Kaus wrote about Sen. Chuck Hagel could apply to Greg Djerjejian as well (save for the political ambition part):

"Hagel's Hyperbole: Like most people--including, perhaps, most supporters of the "surge"--I don't expect it to work. But (assuming we don't initiate a new war with Iran or Syria) I don't quite understand why, if it fails, the U.S. will be in all that much worse a strategic position than it is now in Iraq. This doesn't seem like a doubling down. It seems more like raising the bet 15%. So when Sen. Chuck Hagel calls Bush's latest plan

"the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out"

Posted by: Dave P. at January 23, 2007 07:03 AM | Permalink to this comment

Whoops, the last part of that Mickey Kaus quote got left out of my last post. Here it is:

"...that seems a bit odd. If the surge fails, surely the 'most dangerous foreign policy blunder' will be not the surge but the initial invasion of Iraq. Hagel voted for that, remember. ..."

Posted by: Dave P. at January 23, 2007 07:05 AM | Permalink to this comment

Since I know all of you are hoping for the best in Iraq, I thought I'd share this tentatively hopeful piece about the surge: Is the surge already producing results?

Posted by: Dave P. at January 23, 2007 07:07 AM | Permalink to this comment

Mickey Kaus (quoted by Dave P.):

I don't quite understand why, if it fails, the U.S. will be in all that much worse a strategic position than it is now in Iraq.

A crack-down on violence in Baghdad is likely to leave the U.S. in a worse strategic position even if it succeeds.

First, if the Sadrists are really going to be targeted, it means the U.S. will be fighting all-out against two sides of a multi-sided civil war.

Second, the U.S. might follow through on Kagan's threat to treat Baghdad, or large parts of it, like Tal Afar. It seems many still don't understand, or don't want to understand, that this means ethnically cleansing half or more of the population. Not only with this further enrage the Sunnis (and Shi'ites if they are also targeted) but it will be another blow to America's international reputation.

Posted by: David Tomlin at January 23, 2007 08:07 AM | Permalink to this comment

I don't quite understand why, if it fails, the U.S. will be in all that much worse a strategic position than it is now in Iraq.

We're extending and rearranging deployments for the escalation. That's deployments - and dead soldiers - that won't be available if needed later. The article you linked to pointed out that Sadr's decided to keep his head down. He knows we can't keep this up, and once the escalation's done, he can go right back to where he left off - so why risk an all-out confrontation now?

Bush doubled-down, and Sadr and the insurgents just went 'call'. If ourselvenothing's resolved and they raise the stakes again, will we have anything left to 'call'?

Posted by: Doug H. at January 23, 2007 10:30 AM | Permalink to this comment

'... If nothing's resolved ...'

Gah. Bad editor. No biscuit.

Posted by: Doug H. at January 23, 2007 10:39 AM | Permalink to this comment

Dave P.: "Is the surge already producing results?"

Yep. By RealClearPolitics' own description, the results it's producing are that (1) all the al-Qaida fighters are simply leaving Baghdad (for now) to start up operations in other parts of the country; and (2) al-Sadr (as Doug H. says) has decided to keep a low profile -- for now -- until we knock off the Surge, at which point he and his merry men will just resume what they've been doing (with the support both of al-Maliki and of a majority of the Iraqi National Assembly, as we found out yesterday when its Speaker officially agreed to back al-Sadr's demand that the US pull out of Iraq by August). I tell you, this is every bit as encouraging as that exciting moment Nixon won the Vietnam War for us by invading Cambodia to knock out that huge "COSVN" central control center the Viet Cong had there.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at January 23, 2007 12:15 PM | Permalink to this comment

Perplexed the way some choose to dismiss HRC outright or preface to a grudging acceptance of her legitimacy. Her willingness to remain reasonable on Iraq even though she knows it will hurt her in the primaries, this alone makes her worth considering - personally I like the combination of cunning, ambition and hard nosed realism, all of which she seems to have in spades.

And you people need to ease up on McCain - he's been making 2008 political calculations about the war for a long time now and nothing has changed there. He supported more troops when it actually would have made some sense to do it - but I believe he did so thinking that it would never happen thus allowing him to look strong while still putting distance between himself and the idiots running the war. That the surge may now actually happening [I maintain it's a feint] puts him in a difficult position requiring some tricky calculations - and so his seeming incoherence etc.

He's trying to leave as many doors open as possible not knowing yet which one he's gonna have to walk through. You might find it reprehensible - to me it's just smart politics.

Posted by: saintsimon at January 23, 2007 01:12 PM | Permalink to this comment

"Is the surge already producing results?"

70+ dead at predominantly Shi'ite university
75+ dead in car bomb attacks on marketplace in Baghdad
Mayor of Baquba kidnapped and office destroyed

Posted by: sfHeath at January 23, 2007 02:02 PM | Permalink to this comment

70+ dead at predominantly Shi'ite university

I wonder if the geniuses who run our government are even dimly aware of what these attacks on universities, and any kind of intellectual, presage for the future of Iraq? The apparent absence of even the most rudimentary imagination in the Beltway is one of the most disturbing lessons of these last six years.

Posted by: sglover at January 23, 2007 03:34 PM | Permalink to this comment

I cant support mccain...he is a flipflopper...He was against torture before he was for it.

Posted by: centrist at January 23, 2007 04:12 PM | Permalink to this comment

What do you want to hear McCain say Greg?

Because trust me, he'll happily say whatever you want to hear if you just clue him in.

And this isn't some new development, McCain has been this way since 2001.

Posted by: Davebo at January 23, 2007 05:24 PM | Permalink to this comment

Perplexed the way some choose to dismiss HRC outright or preface to a grudging acceptance of her legitimacy.

Hilary sounds like she's more interested in reforming health care than in cleaning up the Mesopotamian mess. An admirable goal, but I really have to wonder when a candidate ignores the 600-pound gorilla sitting in the room.

Posted by: Doug H. at January 23, 2007 05:53 PM | Permalink to this comment

Bruce M.,

It's not surprising that Al Queda and Al-Sadr types would want to get out of Baghdad before the surge (though in the case of Sadrists, they seem also to be responding to Maliki's recent crackdown). Still, those folks fleeing Baghdad can have the same result of lessening sectarian violence in Baghdad.

Of course, as you say, all the sectarian thugs could come back once U.S. troops leave, but in the time they are gone there may be a window for political progress.

That's the key point, and it stands more chance of succeeding than continuing to do what hasn't worked.

Posted by: Dave P. at January 23, 2007 06:17 PM | Permalink to this comment

Are we really going to get this surge wrapped up by August?

Posted by: J Thomas at January 23, 2007 07:59 PM | Permalink to this comment

Dave P.: "Of course, as you say, all the sectarian thugs could come back once U.S. troops leave, but in the time they are gone there may be a window for political progress."

Right. In Baghdad; certainly not in any of the rest of Iraq, where the departing al-Qaida troops will be free to romp even more. As for al-Sadr keeping low: exactly what kind of "political progress" is this likely to produce when al-Maliki's government and the National Assembly are already agreeing enthusiastically with his policies -- and when al-Maliki and the Assembly both say publicly that what they want the US to do is give them lots of weapons and then get the hell out fast, so they can resume doing what they were doing before but with greater efficiency (namely, slaughtering the Sunnis)?

Even Krauthammer isn't falling for these dolts any more ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801509.html ) Isn't it time you stopped doing so? (And his "Plan B" is pretty damn close to what I've favored all along: we DO badly need to keep a military presence nearby, both so that we can utilize it against Iran's nuclear program if necessary and so that we can bomb the shit out of any substantial al-Qaida bases that start to grow in the rest of Iraq. To say nothing of keeping the Kurds and the Turks from each other's throats.)

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at January 23, 2007 08:29 PM | Permalink to this comment

Bruce,

Baghdad is where Iraq's federal government is based so establishing security there is necessary to facilitate any political progress there. As for Al Queda "troops" moving to other parts of Iraq: I wouldn't be surprised to see some successful raids/strikes against them soon. Being on the move can increase their vulnerability.

Regarding Krauthammer's column, his disdain for Maliki is justified and his calls for a Plan B of redeployment inside Iraq make sense. I wouldn't be surprised if something like this Plan B has been communicated to key Iraqis on the QT. If so, then it will have served one of Krauthammer's purposes in putting heat under Maliki's government to stop shielding Sadr's and other death squad militias. One piece of recent news you and Krauthammer both ignore is the recent crackdown by Maliki's government on Sadr, i.e., arresting Sadr's chief aide and 400 other of his men. So maybe Maliki has gotten the message Krauthammer feels an announced Plan B would send.

Still, from a political standpoint, it's understandable how Maliki would feel pressure to let Sadr loose on the Sunnis when Sunni 'insurgents' continue to murder so many Shiites in Baghdad. If the surge can tamp that down for a while, it can give Maliki cover to crack down on Sadr, which might lessen support among Sunnis for terrorism against Shiites. That's the type of situation in which political progress toward reconciliation could be possible, and I don't see how Iraq gets there without our help pacifying Baghdad for a while.

If you're in favor of going directly to a Plan B redeployment within Iraq (mainly Kurdistan) without first trying to surge and stabilize the capital, what do you expect would then happen?

Posted by: Dave P at January 23, 2007 09:08 PM | Permalink to this comment

Baghdad is where Iraq's federal government is based so establishing security there is necessary to facilitate any political progress there.

Assuming this is so, so what? The main reason that the leaders of Iraq's factions haven't agreed to power sharing arrangement it that there are no terms acceptable to all of them. If security in Baghdad is a necessary condition, it's not a sufficient one.

Is it true? In WW2 lots of politics got done in various capital cities while bombs were falling on them.

Posted by: David Tomlin at January 23, 2007 10:40 PM | Permalink to this comment

I think Greg, like many commentators, misses the point somewhat in focusing on the reinforcement of American forces in the Baghdad area. What the administration really is betting on, much more than the "surge," is Gen. Petraeus: his tactics and command ability, and his approach to counter-insurgency generally. Whether he is worthy of the confidence being placed in him is certainly relevant, and McCain is better placed after a lifetime close to military affairs to judge this than, say, President Bush was to judge what was in Vladimir Putin's soul.

Now, personally I think Petraeus is an answer given in the winter of 2007 to the questions of autumn, 2003. Had he been jumped over his seniors at that time and been made ground commander for Iraq I'd most likely have viewed the matter with optimism. Enough water has passed under the bridge to make me doubt that there is a "correct" approach to an insurgency, let alone a sectarian civil war, as far advanced as Iraq's is. Petraeus' tactics could conceivably work very well in some parts of Baghdad while leading to substantially higher American casualties in others, as insurgents are tempted to try for a "big score" by concentrating their forces on one or two outposts. In short I do not think Petraeus is likely to succeed in Iraq, but based on what I know I do agree with McCain that he is our best shot right now.

Incidentally, I see that Greg has finally noticed how much this war has cost already. I had wondered whether this was something he ever thought about. Better late than never.

Posted by: Zathras at January 23, 2007 10:40 PM | Permalink to this comment

David Tomlin: "Is it true? In WW2 lots of politics got done in various capital cities while bombs were falling on them."

This is an in apt analogy in that the folks dropping bombs on the cities weren't parties to the politics getting done in those cities.

As for this part of your post: "The main reason that the leaders of Iraq's factions haven't agreed to power sharing arrangement it that there are no terms acceptable to all of them. If security in Baghdad is a necessary condition, it's not a sufficient one." There is some truth to that.

Nevertheless, I do think it is our responsibility at this point to try to help the Iraqis provide that necessary condition. Also, if stability is restored in Baghdad, the threat of sectarian violence being unleashed again there (by us leaving) could end up being the sufficient condition for the various Iraqi parties to come to a political settlement on the outstanding issues.

Posted by: Dave P. at January 23, 2007 11:01 PM | Permalink to this comment

McCain, Bush, Clinton, Barack, it does not matter. Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like "America Deceived' from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason. Look at the bright side, when we have to vote the Democrats out, we'll have no choice but to vote for a Third Party.
Support indy media.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)

Posted by: 5th of November at January 23, 2007 11:12 PM | Permalink to this comment

Just a note regarding the financial cost of the Iraq War so far. Relative to our GDP, it is tiny -- less than one percent of what our economy generates in a typical year. Much of this cost consists of extra wages and benefits paid to American servicemen.

Although the money spent on the Iraq War is tiny relative to us, it's huge relative to the Iraqis. I wonder if we couldn't have simply bought some of our policy objectives there with this much money.

Posted by: Dave P. at January 23, 2007 11:16 PM | Permalink to this comment

Dave P.: "If you're in favor of going directly to a Plan B redeployment within Iraq (mainly Kurdistan) without first trying to surge and stabilize the capital, what do you expect would then happen?"

Exactly what will happen if we DO first try to surge and stabilize the capital (or even if we succeed in doing so with only 20,000 more troops total, which is very, very unlikely) -- as soon as we leave. Let me quote from that RealClearPolitics article that you found so hopeful:

" 'Mookie,' as the troops call him, can only be relied upon to behave when he is terrified. So success hinges on the attitude of the Iraqi government."

And the Iraqi government, of course, is not composed entirely of Mookie -- it's composed overwhelmingly of Shiite supporters who feel exactly like Mookie (as we found out when the National Assembly officially agreed with al-Sadr two days that we should get lost by August). And so, whenever we pack up and leave and can no longer terrify them (not that we're doing it that much now), the Iraqi government will simply resume doing what they've started doing now, namely massacreing the Sunnis and ethnically cleansing as much of Iraq as they possibly can. This is a moment they've been waiting for for a very, very long time.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at January 24, 2007 02:53 AM | Permalink to this comment

Bruce,

So you think we should step aside and let Iraq's Shiites wipe out the Sunnis? I guess there would be some rough karmic justice in that, though it would be pretty ugly. And then the Saudis and Iranians would probably get stuck in a proxy war in the southern part of Iraq... maybe Hezbollah and Al Queda could get into the act too, slugging it out while we watch.

OK Bruce, you've sold me. Nice work.

Posted by: Dave P. at January 24, 2007 04:51 AM | Permalink to this comment

So you think we should step aside and let Iraq's Shiites wipe out the Sunnis?

OK, Dave P, what's your alternative? Maybe we could stop them by pinpoint airstrikes?

Or maybe we could keep enough US troops there to stop them from killing each other until they get tired of trying?

But they say the US troops are a big part of the problem.

They say they're going to solve their security problem because we're finally going to let them solve it.
http://english.daralhayat.com/Spec/01-2007/Article-20070122-491d86e7-c0a8-10ed-009d-421b8e6c550a/story.html

We're going to advise them instead of them advising us.

Also note that Satr's politicians claim they have a deal:
The Sadr bloc returned to the assembly after a parliamentary committee and the speaker, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, agreed to a series of demands, said Falah Hasan Shenshel, a member of the Sadr bloc.

The demands included establishing a timetable for the buildup of Iraqi troops and the withdrawal of U.S. troops, and a condition that the presence of foreign troops would not be extended without a vote by the assembly, said Shenshel. U.S. troops should retreat from Iraqi cities and return to their bases by the end of August, he said.
http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=10212

It's possible they don't have a deal, but only think they do. But if they do, we have only a limited time for our "surge" to take effect.

I think the iraqi government would welcome our troops indefinitely provided we placed them under iraqi control. What do you think?

Posted by: J Thomas at January 24, 2007 03:47 PM | Permalink to this comment

Back during the 2000 NH primary campaign, Andrew Ferguson wrote an article for the Weekly Standard called "The McCain Reggae" (it doesn't seem to be on the Web anymore, so I'll have to rummage through my library of CD-ROM file disks to quote from it) pointing out convincingly that -- when it comes to actual policy statements -- McCain was at least as fuzzy as Bush, if not more so. There's no evidence that he's changed since. President McCain might be less fond of torture, tyranny and economic corruption than President Bush, but he would be every bit as mentally lazy -- at a time when we can't afford mental laziness.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at January 24, 2007 09:30 PM | Permalink to this comment

"So you think we should step aside and let Iraq's Shiites wipe out the Sunnis? I guess there would be some rough karmic justice in that, though it would be pretty ugly. And then the Saudis and Iranians would probably get stuck in a proxy war in the southern part of Iraq... maybe Hezbollah and Al Queda could get into the act too, slugging it out while we watch.

"OK Bruce, you've sold me. Nice work."

Thank you. It is, after all, exactly what not only Sullivan but Krauthammer are also now saying. And the only alternative -- putting enough new US troops in there to actually make a difference -- would be totally impossible without a draft (which the Administration, at the same time that they've been yelling about the Apocalyptic Necessity of winning this war, has never even whispered about), and is now too late for a draft in any case. To say nothing of the fact that the most important focus for whatever military strength we have is elsewhere (as in fact we've known it was since we discovered that Saddam was in reality nowhere even close to restarting his nuclear program).

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at January 25, 2007 01:32 AM | Permalink to this comment