Mccain on Victory in Iraq

McCain on Victory in Iraq

            In 2002 Senator John McCain told us that the impending Iraq invasion was a “well-planned effort. . .not very difficult. . . fairly easy. . .[with] victory in a short period of time.”

            “Well planned”?  “Not very difficult?”

            It was somewhere between the invasion, the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue and his capture that the insurgency became a real problem and some like Senator McCain began to say we didn’t have enough troops and listed all of the mistakes made in the prosecution of this war.  Would that some had listened to Colin Powell and General Shinseki earlier!

            Now, at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention this past Monday Senator McCain described the Iraq operation as similar to driving a bus into a ditch, “and then after five years and a trillion dollars and 4,000 lives lost, you are getting the bus halfway out of the ditch. . .” 

He went on to note that both he and Senator Obama want to bring troops home from this war.  “The great difference,” he told the veterans, “is that I intend to win it.”

            Senator McCain is often claiming that he will never put politics and voting for him ahead of winning this war. Indeed, he often claims that those who disagree with this stance on winning in Iraq are placing personal ambition ahead of doing what’s right or best for America.  He and his surrogates are often heard saying “We will put America first.”

            It seems as if those who disagree with him are un-American, unpatriotic.

            But, just two days prior to this Florida address on Saturday evening Senator McCain told Rick Warren at the Saddleback Civil Forum that  General David Petraeus is “one of the great military leaders in American history, who took us from  defeat to victory in Iraq.”

            Now, Senator McCain did not say, General Petraeus is in the process of taking us to victory.”  Nor did he claim that Petraeus “is taking us toward victory.”

            No, the claim was that Petraeus “took us from defeat to victory in Iraq.” 

            We’ve won!  We’ve achieved his goal of winning, defeating al Qaeda, and stabilizing Iraq!

            Maybe the Senator mis-spoke.  Perhaps he confused his verb tenses and meant to use the so-called “present continuous” (“is taking us”) rather than the simple past (“took”).

            This is an understandable mix-up in a complex language like English.

            So, what if he meant that Petraeus has indeed achieved victory?  What do we do now?  What is our strategy?  To continue the draw-down of Surge forces, those 30,000 troops that have helped stabilize the country—together with the Sunni Awakening and the standing down of the Shia militias controlled by Muqtada al-Sadr?  Accelerate our withdrawal along a time-table approved by Prime Minister Maliki?

            But what if Senator McCain did in fact get his verb tenses confused? What if he meant Petraeus is taking us toward victory?

            What is our definition of this term victory?  Some have said, “A stable Iraq that can defend itself.”  But what does this look like?

 What would be the conditions on the ground that would indicate such a status? 

                        Reduction in violence for all.

                        Sustainable political agreements amongst the Sunni, Shia and Kurds about elections, oil revenues and who serves in the government.

                        The full “standing up” of the Iraqi forces to defend their country and its borders.

                        Functioning civic processes and organizations: a free press; an equitable legal system; schools open continuously.

                        Resources available to all citizens; fuel oil, electricity, sewage, goods and services in open, risk-free markets.

                        Support from neighbors in the region

            And a government that supports the United States?

            Victory involves some or all of these, but if we never define our goal, we will work toward it indefinitely.

And if we are still striving toward victory, what is our strategy for achieving it? 

Just doing more of the same is an unreflective way of never achieving our goals.

            Any strategy should keep in mind that General Petraeus has also told members of Congress earlier this year that our success in Iraq will not be primarily military.  We will have to use a combination of military force and skilled diplomacy—more the latter than the former.

            Let’s hear more straight talk about how to achieve stability amongst all the factions in Iraq and with neighbors in the region , not just about “winning.”

            In an era of terrorism the terms “victory” and “defeat” are  outdated and mislead  us toward over-reliance on military means of attaining our goals. There will be no surrender ceremony on the decks of the USS Missouri or anywhere in this world.

We need other ways of achieving the desired goal of stability, and new concepts of what security means and looks like within an age of constant threats to our safety.

We are in  a continuous, arduous struggle to maintain our freedom, one requiring that we maintain a vigilant inquisitiveness about all policies, performances and philosophies.

John Barell

Author of Quest for Antarctica—A Journey of Wonder and Discovery (2007)

www.morecuriousminds.com