Surging To Success

Victory is breaking out all over.  A few days back Michael Yon declared that

barring any major and unexpected developments (like an Israeli air strike on Iran and the retaliations that would follow), a fair-minded person could say with reasonable certainty that the war has ended. A new and better nation is growing legs. What's left is messy politics that likely will be punctuated by low-level violence and the occasional spectacular attack. Yet, the will of the Iraqi people has changed, and the Iraqi military has dramatically improved, so those spectacular attacks are diminishing along with the regular violence.

Now John McCain has modified the tense on his "we are succeeding" claim:

“And we have succeeded. … I hope [Barack Obama] gets the message this time that we have succeeded and we need to continue the strategy.”

By using the word “succeeded,” McCain was making somewhat of a rhetorical shift. The presumptive GOP nominee usually couches his language and argues the troop surge is “succeeding.”

On Thursday he emphasized that strategic success already has been achieved.

“I am happy to stand in front of you to tell you that this strategy has succeeded. It has succeeded. It has succeeded,” McCain said first at a Kansas City, Mo., town hall meeting.

He then reiterated the line for reporters aboard his campaign bus.

“I repeat my statement that we have succeeded in Iraq — not we are succeeding — we have succeeded in Iraq,” he said. “The strategy has worked and we now have the Iraqi government and military in charge in the major cities in Iraq. Al Qaeda is on their heels and on the run.”

George Bush, in conjunction with the Iraqi government, has endorsed the notion of some sort of hazy timeline for US troop withdrawals.

The Weekly Standard argues that this is all bad for Barack:

Obama, in typical fashion, is trying to use the success of the surge he opposed to justify his long-held commitment to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq as quickly as possible. But turning Iraq into a winning political issue won't be nearly as easy as Obama once thought. He has stepped into a trap of his own making.

The trap was set when Obama repeatedly insisted that his superior "judgment" on Iraq is more important than experience in national security affairs. Judgment, according to Obama, is what qualifies him to be commander in chief. So what can we discern about Obama's judgment on the surge, easily the most important national security decision since the Iraq war began in March 2003?

Well, yes.  Obama opposed the war in Iraq and the surge.  McCain supported the concept of the liberation of Iraq but was an early critic of the troop levels and tactics adopted by Bush and Rumsfeld and an early proponent of the surge.  On that scorecard, McCain is an easy winner.

But will voters care?  A segment of the far left will never abandon their notion that Iraq is Bush's lost war and will continue to insist that US troops be brought home post-haste, thereby "ending" the war (as if "no US involvement" equals "no war"; how is that working in Darfur?).

But if the current greatly reduced level of casualties can be sustained and the Iraqi government continues to show signs of credibility, most people will shift their attention elsewhere.  And if the emerging Washington consensus is that US troops should remain in Iraq to preserve the fragile progress, well, I have no doubt Barack will get behind that conventional wisdom. 

Which means voters will not be presented with a clear choice between a candidate committed to achieving victory in Iraq and a candidate committed to declaring Bush's war to be a defeat.  Instead, we will have a choice between a candidate who would have avoided Bush's mess and a candidate who would have been better at cleaning it up.  That debate will fascinate historians and pundits but no one else.  [Liz Sidoti of the AP has more on this blurriness].

If Democrats are going to take office in January 2009 with a commitment to victory in Iraq and without the intention of cutting, running, and blaming Bush, that (somewhat) neutralizes one of the few issues where righties feel comfortable with McCain.  In brief, this much good news from Iraq is bad news for McCain, and good news for the country.

MORE:  The Economist offered another reason to think that Obama will re-consider his plans for a precipitate withdrawal from Iraq - it makes no sense:

In fact, Mr Obama’s plan to shift America’s priorities towards Afghanistan probably depends on winning in Iraq if it is to succeed. He would find it much harder to repair America’s alliances while clamping down on Iran and putting pressure on Pakistan if he were to let Iraq lapse into chaos by withdrawing the bulk of America’s force there precipitately. Mr Obama still hints that he understands that. He spoke this week of making “tactical adjustments” to his plans as conditions in Iraq change. That leaves him a little room to keep troops in a bit longer.

SIDEBAR:  Maybe Laura is going to have to hit the bookstores.  This was from an old post:

I assume people can find defenders of Bush here in the wide, wild and glorious web.  But if you coming looking here, it will have to be among the commenters, bless them.  For myself, I would put disappointment in his handling of Iraq at number one - the failure to develop a well-thought through post-liberation administration plan for Iraq is inexplicable; the fact that major decisions, such as disbanding the Iraq army, were made seemingly on the fly is inexcusable.

Well, Bush is not on the ticket in 2008.  My suggested punishment of Bush - deny him access to Harry Truman biographies; I just know "W" is sustaining himself with the notion that Harry was booed out of office after the debacle in Korea but eventually staged a huge comeback in popular and historical opinion.

If that happens with Bush, well, bully for him - it would be great for America if the Bush-instigated surge has created an opportunity for something like a non-defeat in Iraq, and if Bush gets some credit for grit and resolution down the road, well, fine.  But he has squandered America's good will around the world, divided our nation, and strained our military to the breaking point fighting a war which never should have been this difficult (or, if it was always going to be this difficult, should never have been fought).

I stand by my derogation.  But maybe in ten years I will always have been a Bush stalwart.  Here's hoping!

STILL MORE:  Cecil Turner delivers a helpful spine-stiffener.  His intro:

I don't care for the partisan politicization of ongoing wars, regardless of direction. Speaking from a former front-line combat perspective, nothing matters more than the perception that the citizens at home are committed to the cause for which they sent troops into harm's way. Once we decide as a nation to send troops into war, we all have a duty to support them (unless and until we actually decide to pull the plug). The moral dimension of war is the most important one; it's far more important than minor winges about less-than-optimal operational decisions.

Comments

[PaulL]

The simplified version of the difference between the candidates is that Obama would have lost the war, while McCain won it.

Obama couldn't vote for the war or against the war in the beginning because he wasn't a Senator. But there was a couple-year period when Obama essentially said that we should carry on doing what we were doing. It was only when things went bad with the insurgency that Obama became particularly negative.

[Ranger]

Hopefully this is part of a longer range campaign plan to solidify victory in the minds of the electorate, then run spots after Labor Day about Obama with the tag line "Obama: Judgement to Lead or Judgement that Failed?"

[hit and run]

McCain, "I would rather lose an election than lose a war".

Obama, in McCain's telling anyway, "would rather lose a war that we are winning than lose an election by alienating his base".

The success, not just the actual success which has been steadily building for months, but the recognition of it back here in the US which has been building much more slowly in the media and the minds of the voters, sharpens those lines to the point that voters should care.

McCain took whatever position he felt would help win the war, election be damned.

Obama took whatever position he felt would help win the nomination, war be damned.

Will voters care? I don't know.

But they should.

[kim]

This is not the Dubya that I knew.
=====================

[SD]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/18/173744/732

http://www.one.org/blog/category/countries/rwanda/

http://www.one.org/blog/category/countries/rwanda/

This all happened yesterday. Obama looks a little bad because he's really Tony Blair(ONE) and legislating a global tax, which is why london had the Live8G8 thing.

The insurgency went bad because Obama's pals at Harvard had their money cut off. Obama is all Kennedyu, Harvard and PC. That is where he hides because that is how he made his money.

[SD]

http://allafrica.com/stories/200807181012.html

[rkroof]

You expect war to be free of mistakes? Perhaps you could inform us of a President who ran a war (deferring to his commanders in the field) who was able to prosecute a war error-free.

I have a lot of criticisms of Bush, but the war is not one of them. Remember, he had to engineer a whole new set of General officers in Iraq to get ones who supported the Surge.

[clarice]

All right--assume Iraq's off the table--that leaves as No 1 the US economy. The NY Sun just informed its readers that under O's plan they'd pay 60% of their incomes in taxes.
When was the last time a Dem ran for Pres on the promise to raise our taxes? What happened to him?

[Don]

Guess who said this:

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

[Cecil Turner]

But maybe in ten years I will always have been a Bush stalwart.

I don't care for the partisan politicization of ongoing wars, regardless of direction. Speaking from a former front-line combat perspective, nothing matters more than the perception that the citizens at home are committed to the cause for which they sent troops into harm's way. Once we decide as a nation to send troops into war, we all have a duty to support them (unless and until we actually decide to pull the plug). The moral dimension of war is the most important one; it's far more important than minor winges about less-than-optimal operational decisions.

AS for the specific claims . . . "too few troops" (as a pure numbers game) is nonsensical. Troop numbers support missions, and the surge mission change is what drove troop requirements. To argue that it was past due seems supportable to me . . . but few on the side of the defeatists make that argument. They were mostly looking for a way out (with ignomy). As they didn't want to actually win, a strategy to do so wasn't attractive, and they recognize they'd look ridiculous by claiming today we should've implemented the COIN strategy earlier. Disbanding the army is similarly unpersuasive, unless one can make the claim that that organization would've evolved into a force with similar capabilities and loyalties to the one in place today. I don't think that's very plausible. The "keep the lid on" strategy pursued in the Abizaid years was clearly flawed in hindsight . . . but that's not really a Bushism, and again it's not a criticism most of the detractors want to make (probably because they were mostly arguing for the same thing, only even less engaged).

For the boys at the front, nothing is more disheartening than to loose the hounds of war . . . and then hand-wring about withdrawing them. Using political arguments about Bush to undermine support for the war is the worst sort of defeatist (enemy) propaganda, and ought to be grounds for public horsewhipping. And I suspect the preponderance of those who search for faults in the conduct of the war are engaged in precisely that exercise. Hence I won't provide the least bit of support for their positions, and if it irritates them to say "yay Bush" then I'll be shouting it from the rooftops . . . even though I don't think it terribly germane.

[Soylent Red]

Guess who said this

Barack Obamah. Right before he claimed he didn't. Right before he claimed it was one of his staffers.

[GMax]

When was the last time a Dem ran for Pres on the promise to raise our taxes? What happened to him?

George McGovern.

And when George H W Bush said read my lips and then sign new taxes into law? Same result, he got turned out.

[Tonio k]

America had decided to pull the plug by Fall 2006, and pulling the plug thereafter had (and still has) majority support in both houses of Congress. The majority now has to wait until January 09 to finish the task.

[JB]

"You expect war to be free of mistakes?"

That appears to be the post-modern standard.

Doug Feith had a good rejoinder: history is not a controlled experiment. Given you don't get a do-over of the last 5 years with a different decision, criticism of W. seems to have more of an emotional and philosophical rather than rational basis.

[hit and run]

Guess who said this

Whoever is was, was he saying it in Feb 2007?

And March and April and May and June and...

It's the same as those who perpetually are calling for a recession. They'll be right one day -- and then they'll try and tell us they should be viewed as having superior judgment for calling it.

Some day, hopefully sooner rather than later, the conditions on the ground will be such that we can remove troops to the extent and at a pace that Obama can say he is vindicated.

Even if it is bullshit.

Were that that were possible tomorrow.

[JB]

"America had decided to pull the plug by Fall 2006, and pulling the plug thereafter had (and still has) majority support in both houses of Congress. The majority now has to wait until January 09 to finish the task."

This proves that Bush is a goddamn genius. Defying the will of America since 2006!

[Cecil Turner]

"That's the most outstanding answer I've ever heard."

[Bill in AZ]

Cecil, your 10:24 is an outstanding response.

[Bill in AZ]

But he has squandered America's good will around the world, divided our nation, and strained our military to the breaking point

Pure NYTimes manufactured drivel...

[Danube of Thought]

I agree with TM's assessment of the political impact. If it comes down to, "If you'd had your way we'd have lost," to which the response is "if I'd had my way we never would have been there in the first place," the issue of the war is substantially neutralized for both men. Thinking people may see McCain as the clear winner, but remember what Adlai Stevenson said about thinking people, and remember what happened to Adlai.

I'd like to see McCain, in ads and debates, remind the electorate that, while Obama gave a speech opposing the war in 2002, in 2004 he told the NYTimes that at the time of the speech he hadn't seen the intelligence reports, and that he didn't know how he would have voted if he had seen them.

[clarice]

Very well put, Cecil.

[hit and run]

DoT:
in 2004 he told the NYTimes that at the time of the speech he hadn't seen the intelligence reports, and that he didn't know how he would have voted if he had seen them.

In 2004, Obama also said...

"There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." [...]

Obama, a state senator from Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, opposed the Iraq invasion before the war. But he now believes U.S. forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation -- a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.

[Danube of Thought]

Cecil T's 10:24 is absolutely spot on, and beautifully expressed. There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that a substantial bloc of Obama's support comes from people who fervently wished for an outcome in which the US would be perceived to have been defeated, thus lessening the likelihood of further US military interventions, and at the same time inflicting the final measure of humiliation on Bushitler. I don't attribute these motives to Obama himself, but I do believe that he fully understands that they are held by many of his supporters.

The answer to Don's question above is Prime Minister Maliki, quoted currently in an interview in Der Spiegel. The fine distinction between Maliki's position and Obama's is that the former is simply specualting that in sixteen months there will be no need for US forces, whereas the latter is setting the timetable now without regard to how conditions on the ground may change. But that is a fine distinction indeed, and not readily reducible to campaign sound bites. I think Maliki seriously undercuts McCain.

[bio mom]

Why are Democrats so insecure that they need reassurance that they are liked by the other countries? Those other countries will be the first to come running here for help when they feel they need it. Who cares if they "like" us or not! That is the kind of thing adolescents worry about.

[MikeS]

Obama was completely wrong about the surge, as the McCain Campaign video makes embarrassingly clear. It is not unusual for Obama to be wrong. He was wrong about school reform and public housing in Chicago. In fact he seems to have a reverse Midas Touch. Everything he touches turns to carp.
My concern is about the poor decisions he may make in the future.

Troop increases in Afghanistan sound like a good idea, but isn't that likely to push jihadists out of Afghanistan and back toward Iraq as it did in the past?

Can international terrorism best be addressed as a law enforcement problem?

Can we stimulate our economy by raising taxes and increasing regulation?

Is embargoing our own oil reserves the best way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?

Should we be kinder to our adversaries, criminals, and unrepentant bombers?

[clarice]

Actually, Maliki is simply playing to HIS crowd..His position is fairly meaningless as the BBC noted--the problem is all the rest of the media are playing off a mis-translation which suggests he wants to kick us out. In any event the UN Resolution dealing with our presence there expires on Sept 30 and a new agreement must be entered into before then.

[Ranger]

All right--assume Iraq's off the table--that leaves as No 1 the US economy. The NY Sun just informed its readers that under O's plan they'd pay 60% of their incomes in taxes.
When was the last time a Dem ran for Pres on the promise to raise our taxes? What happened to him?

Posted by: clarice | July 19, 2008 at 10:18 AM

Add to that gas prices, which should be a killer for McCain because he is of the same party as the current president, but, given the Dems reluctance to drill...

BTW, The Volokh Conspiracy has a post up on what Obama's CNSF would cost if he really wants to fund it up to the level of the DoD.

Funding Barack Obama's "civilian national security force."

[JB]

"BTW, The Volokh Conspiracy has a post up on what Obama's CNSF would cost if he really wants to fund it up to the level of the DoD."

Is it obvious yet that Obama has the mathematical grasp of a bright toddler at best?

[PeterUK]

"Why are Democrats so insecure that they need reassurance that they are liked by the other countries?"

Because leftism is infantilism,they always want to apply playground rules to life.Everything has to be certainty,that is why leftists endeavour every aspect of life.
Sad bastards really.

[Ranger]

In the Army we used to say "Mission First, Men Always" to balance the two priorities a leader has. WRT to Iraq, this means I want to bring as many soldiers how as possible, but only to the degree that it does not put the mission in jepardy. Obama's attitude is (at least as publicly stated) "Men First, Mission Maybe." The use of concern for the troops to subvert the mission is really... well, words fail me to describe my anger at it.

I wish there were some way of driving that home to people becuase it is important to understand why shifting focust to Afghanistan is a shell game. As soon as we send more troops there, the drumbeat will start, just as with the surge, that "more troops won't solve anything,and the real problem is in Pakistan and we need to just bring them all home."

[BobS]

One of the few Dem hacks on TV that I can stomach is Bob Beckel. I started becoming this way when he went on TV and was quite candid about his own steroid use as a college football player. At any rate, he said something that I've been saying for awhile about polls. He said that both sides learned during the primaries that the polls are beginning to be wrong. I believe they are wrong on damn near everything. Apply this to the war, too.

But I have to admit that I find Nancy Pelosi's approval # at 9% to be kind of fun.

[Neo]

disbanding the Iraq army

Was there an Iraqi Army to disband ?

[BobS]

From Michael Barone's blog thsi week:

If one assumes McCain is running a little stronger now, in which states would he be overtaking Obama, assuming a uniform rise across the country? In the South, Virginia (13 electoral votes). In the West, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, and Oregon (24 electoral votes). In the Midwest, Indiana and Ohio (31 electoral votes). In the East, probably nowhere: He trails in June-July polls by 8 percent in Pennsylvania and 9 percent in New Jersey (36 electoral votes). Leaving aside the East, these 68 electoral votes added to his current 218 would give him 286 electoral votes, the number George W. Bush won in 2004.

Conclusion: This has the potential to be a furiously contested race. And on unfamiliar turf. The only 2000 and 2004 target states in the list above were New Mexico and Ohio. The others—Virginia, Colorado, Montana, Oregon, and Indiana—either were not on anybody's target list in 2004 or dropped off one candidate's target list pretty early in the season.

[PeterUK]

"But I have to admit that I find Nancy Pelosi's approval # at 9% to be kind of fun."

Amd that is just with the Family.

[RichatUF]

Here is a write up on the Obamareuters press release based on the Spiegel interview. I also saw someone comment yesterday that some BHO footwashers were claiming credit re: Iraq. I'll go with Maliki is posturing to get a better deal from the US re: a Status of Forces Agreement, while not antagonizing too many in the neighborhood.

As to the recent developments being a negative or positive, I'll crawl ever so slightly out on a limb and say that it is a minor negative for BHO because those who were passionate for a US defeat in Iraq will be discouraged and withdraw from the 2008 campaign.

[BobS]

Peter: That 9% from might be just northern California.

[Rick Ballard]

"Was there an Iraqi Army to disband?"

A decent question. If you subtract the Sunni Baathist officer and noncom cadre (which had to be purged), could the uniformed mob which dissolved into thin air in April '03 legitimately be called an army?

Sure - the same way that "lack of a plan" can be used to describe a plan which did not adequately address all possible contingencies, based upon the fact that "resistance" was encountered. A truly "effective" plan would have addressed the fact that the Tikriti clan had assets and deadend supporters tucked away all over the place by... well, anyone can fill in the blanks.

Although they never, ever, do.

[Danube of Thought]

RichardUF's conclusion seems plausible to me. And I think it's probably true that Maliki is just maneuvering for a stronger position on status-of-forces, but that doesn't cut much ice as far as the election goes.

Meantime, I see that Pelosi will not even allow a vote on offshore drilling.

I became an admirer of Beckel when, during the Libby goings-on, someone raised the likelihood that Rove would be indicted. Beckel said "I sure hope not. A federal indictment destroys a man's life, and this is really just a political dispute. It's a damn shame when politics is waged by grand jury indictment." Or words to that effect.

[GMax]

Well Bob Beckel was front and center with Gore on every talking head show in 2000 with the ridiculous count every vote meme, except for the military ballots except except.

He was an absolute horse's patootie, and I generally change the channel even today when that moron comes on.

[Ranger]

One thing that is important to remember is that it wasn't just the Iraqi Army that evaporated over night but the entire Iraqi state, including the entire police force. The US plan from both the DoD and State imagined a decapitation of the Iraqi government, not an anihilation of it. They only war the US has ever fought that had the specific goal of state anihilation was WWII in Germany (ok, the Civil War too, but that was a rebelion, not an international war and it was well before the full development of the modern state, which is a much larger animal than the models of government in place in the 1860s).

No one aniticipated the complete vacume of a state in Iraq after the war. No one exspected the US Army would have to do the double duty of military security and civil policing until an entirely new police force was establised. No one exspected to have to build a judicial system from the ground up.

Maybe they should have, but some smart political scientists would have had to have writen some papers and books about elaborate, modern states can just evaporate over night and what it takes to rapidly replace them. Perhapse, in the future, any post war plan should include a "worse case" scenario of what to do if the state you are fighting simply and completely disapears at the end of the war, but no one has done that kind of planning since the 1940s.

[BobS]

GMax: Its hard not to remeber the near-anarchy that was Florida 2000. I'm afraid even a decent fellow as Beckel got caught up in that as well. Dem reality at the time was that a tresure trove of uncounted votes existed in Dade County. They didn't and Gore never was ahead of Bush in actual vote counts. And independent study by news organizations found that Bush had indeed won, although it got little coverage (surprise) in MSM.
Still the hatred remains from the left. I've attempted to discuss these facts with them and their hysterical refusal to accept these facts on this and other issues (Say Iraq or maybe Plame-Wilson) still startles me.

[BobS]

Greg Norman is tied for the lead at the British Open.

[Barney Frank]

The left is infantile but the worst of them are infantile in a psychopathological way, which means they will say ANYTHING to accomplish their goals.
Be prepared for an army of increasingly vocal marching morons like Don declaring that 'we' have won the war and it is in some inexplicable way due to their efforts to lose it.

[Danube of Thought]

Paul Bremer makes the case that there simply was no Iraqi army to disband--that it simply dissolved of its own accord in the face of the invasion, and any decision to maintain it for post-invasion purposes would have been futile anyway.

In the long view, the process of starting a new army from the ground up may be viewed as the most appropriate course to have taken. Of course, if your position going in is that any war that has not been fought to a perfectly successful conclusion in four years must necessarily have been bungled, there'll be no persuading you.

[BobS]

I wonder if history will prove that one of the key reasons AQ and militant Islam was defeated is because they chose enter the vacuum of post-war Iraq to take on the American military.

[hit and run]

Barney:
Be prepared for an army of increasingly vocal marching morons like Don declaring that 'we' have won the war and it is in some inexplicable way due to their efforts to lose it.

Kinda like the abusive parent of a star athlete coming foward after his son has reached the pinnacle of success and fame and fortune and telling him, "Just think, if I hadn't beat you so much as a kid, you might have stuck around and had me influence your life ... you probably would have ended up like me. You really owe me, son."

[Jane]

I'm busy enjoying Greg Norman's comeback in The Open, but I flipped to Fox briefly to hear: "Maliki agrees with Obama's timetable".

Is anyone watching. I thought the Messiah was in Afghanistan not Iraq. Did that happen?

[BobS]

sorry, Peter.....and the Brits.

[BobS]

The Fox talking head must have been reading the Obama campaign's....oops...the AP's headline.

[centralcal]

Supposedly Maliki said this in an interview with Der Spiegel.