Not a Gaffe: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of Iraq
 

by Ilan Goldenberg

John McCain made a mistake this evening, which as far as I'm concerned, disqualifies him from being president. It is so appalling and so factually wrong that I'm actually sitting here wondering who McCain's advisers are. This isn't some gaffe where he talks about the Iraq-Pakistan border. It's a real misunderstanding of what has happened in Iraq over the past year. It is even more disturbing because according to John McCain, Iraq is the central front in the "war on terror." If we are going to have an Iraq-centric policy, he should at least understand what he is talking about. But anyway, what happened.

On Katie Couric tonight McCain says:

Kate Couric: Senator McCain, Senator Obama says, while the increased number of US troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?

McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is as -- such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane [phonetic] was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn't make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.

One problem. The surge wasn't even announced until a few months after the Anbar Awakening. Via Spencer Ackerman, here is Colonel MacFarland explaining the Anbar Awakening to Pam Hass of UPI, on September 29, 2006. That would be almost four months before the President even announced the surge. Petraeus wasn't even in Iraq yet.

With respect to the violence between the Sunnis and the al Qaeda -- actually, I would disagree with the assessment that the al Qaeda have the upper hand. That was true earlier this year when some of the sheikhs began to step forward and some of the insurgent groups began to fight against al Qaeda. The insurgent groups, the nationalist groups, were pretty well beaten by al Qaeda.

This is a different phenomena that's going on right now. I think that it's not so much the insurgent groups that are fighting al Qaeda, it's the -- well, it used to be the fence-sitters, the tribal leaders, are stepping forward and cooperating with the Iraqi security forces against al Qaeda, and it's had a very different result. I think al Qaeda has been pushed up against the ropes by this, and now they're finding themselves trapped between the coalition and ISF on the one side, and the people on the other.





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ilan-g..._b_114394.html

I'm not sure how important knowing when the Anbar Awakening is, seriously, I don't have any idea, but it seems to me that McCain is responding to the the sense of the question diminishing the role of US forces and instead crediting Sunnis and Iraqi Security forces.

I tend to agree with McCain that it's the presence of more US forces rather than domestic improvements that's gotten the results that Couric mentions, but certainly both together have proven more effective that what preceded them. Interestingly, the Iraqi government is apparently moving against the groups involved with the Anbar Awakening, according to my wikipedia search of 10 minutes ago, so perhaps there's a flaw with assuming that the things would have worked out okay had they alone been given more time to work.

Sure, it's an error to suggest that the surge happened first, but I'm not sure why it's a disqualifying error, unless you're kind of desperately looking for a reason to claim that McCain is the guy who didn't know what he was doing in terms of predicting what would happen with the surge.

When you're running as the foreign policy/military candidate, you need to have your facts straight.

I'm with you. I don't see how it's disqualifying. But, it does shake up his campaign's foundation a bit.

I don't think that too many people who are thinking of McCain as their guy are going to be bothered by him getting the sequence wrong because they will agree with his overall point: don't take away from the accomplishments of the US military by attributing something that is primarily a result of their efforts to other groups, especially in an attempt to make Obama look insightful.

Here's the thing: if one is prepared to accept that Obama's present and emerging positions are the ones we can expect him to act on, then he seems reasonable and might attracted people who are satisfied with what he's saying today and tomorrow on foreign policy and the military. But if you look at the record of what people actually voted on and supported, it's going to be really hard to beat McCain on Iraq and the war on terror.

The press can keep hammering away on stuff like this and errors in what he says about causation, but they will always have to deal with the things McCain has actually done for the military, and when those things are contrasted with what Obama has actually done, versus what he says, it may be harder to make McCain come out the loser.

. . . and when you're the "Change" candidate, you need to stick to your promise to rely on public funding (and spending limits) like you promised you would.

See how easy this is? How inane. It won't "shake up" anything, just like Obama's insipid reasoning for strategically sticking to private funds didn't "shake up" his campaign.

Oh, but it did.

OK - explain how . . . since his polling numbers weren't affected, it made few if any national headlines, and it is all but forgotten in the minds of 90+% of voters.

Bump for Jeni - seriously, I'm curious about this, since I feel like it is exactly the same thing.

Woops! Sorry about that. Obama's numbers have been declining a bit and he has been receiving more and more negative publicity. His misstatements are not going unnoticed.

Correlation does not equal causation, and this still does not explain the specific link I questioned earlier, although I see what you're saying - this seems a bit dismissive, to be honest.

Besides this, I think there is a sea of difference between "declining a bit" and "shake up his campaign's foundation" (which is how you described it). Negative publicity could be purely based on the natural publicity (or smear) push by the opposition at this point in the election cycle, and I see no evidence that his recanting on his promise to participate in the publicly-funded campaign finance program has had any effect whatsoever or that the average person even a.) knows it happened or b.) what it means as far as credibility or strategy.

I said shake up his campaign's foundation "a bit." McCain has been hitting Obama harder than ever to illustrate the differences between their military/foreign relations experience. There wouldn't be as great a need to do so if he'd had a clean run on his military/foreign relations experience. He has had to overcompensate for the blunders he's made in speaking on issues he should know about.

As I mentioned, I don't see his blunders disqualifying him or changing the way his supporters view him, but they do cause problems for the campaign and the way he markets himself.

Obama is no longer that far ahead of McCain in the polls despite a healthy headstart. You don't think that has anything to do with the things Obama has said and done?

You say this like it is fact, when it's actually opinion. Can you back this up with specific instances? I understand that's kind of a tall order, but I just don't see it, and I'd love to know where you're coming from.

Actually, let me rephrase - I can see what you're saying here, and I think it's certainly possible. I just don't share your opinion that it is actually happening in the court of public opinion.

There is a massive difference in saying "the things Obama has said and done" and noting a specific issue such as his campaign finance 180 - that's my point: it's platitudes at this point, not specific issues or feelings.

Because of that, unless there is a pattern of mistakes like this for McCain, I highly doubt the instance noted in the article will really matter in a substantive fashion (or represent a "shake up").

PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama's lead over John McCain, having reached a nine percentage point margin a few days ago, has been reduced for the second Gallup report in a row, and is now at a 6-point, 47% to 41%, margin among registered voters in Gallup Poll Daily tracking conducted July 26-28.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109138/Ga...McCain-41.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- Since Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination and moved into a front-running position for the general presidential election in early June, he has seen his standing versus John McCain improve among voters in red states, blue states, and competitive (or purple) states. Obama has gained at least 3 points in the Obama-McCain gap in all three state groupings compared with voter sentiments in March through May.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109036/Ob...ince-June.aspx

It's possible that I completely misread the original article, but it seemed like it was saying that this IS a pattern for McCain. And, it's a pattern that is backed up elsewhere.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11939.html

I'm sorry - I was unclear when I used the term "pattern."

My point is that, regardless of whether there is a pattern, the more important issue is whether the average American perceives that there is a pattern. I don't see evidence of this, and in fact your point about Obama's shrinking lead seems contrary to your main point.

Perhaps I'm not in tune with what the average American perceives, but it appears to me that the polls loosely follow what the media decides to publicize. I see a correlation, but I'm also reading, listening and watching. I tend to take political commentaries (along with the media's attention to the candidates) with a grain of salt. I think both candidates have said some idiotic things and I also know there are people out there who are drastically affected by the ebb and flow of information.

I can agree that both sides have said some “idiotic” things, as preciousjeni put it. But at the same time, I can not vote for a freshman senator, who has virtually no experience in politics. What does anyone even know about him, besides the fact that he’s black and he wants the whole world to know it?

Obama is currently a U.S. senator who has yet to finish his first term in office. He served for seven years in the Illinois state Senate. He ran for a seat in the United States House of Representatives in 2000, and lost in the primary. He’s written a few books, and in 2006 he won a Grammy.

And… that’s it.

The last time the citizens of the U.S. elected a president directly from the Senate (which rarely happens) was in 1960 when John F. Kennedy took office. And he was a World War II veteran, a three-term U.S. Congressman, and was serving in his second term in the Senate when he was elected.

And you want to talk about screwing up while speaking? How about the speech Obama made just last week in Berlin where he apologized to the Germans? In my opinion, someone who is not nationally recognized as being a representative of this country (remember, he hasn’t been elected!) should not be permitted to make statements of this magnitude, especially when dealing with foreign countries.

And let’s not forget… he apologized to the Germans! Why?! Because we helped to stop the holocaust and defeat Nazism? Or is it because we reunified their country after creating conditions that lead to the fall of the Berlin Wall? No, maybe it’s because we ensured the freedom of West Germany during the Cold War and caused the economic collapse of the Soviet Union.

But hey, at least he was wearing an American flag pin.

Could someone post a quote of the part of this speech's transcript where he apologized? I didn't see the speech, but I read the transcript and I'm not seeing it. I might just be overlooking it though.

i did not see/hear it either. but here it is for those who care to review it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_114771.html

Hey AST, just where is your point?

“I know my country has not perfected itself.” This comment was made in a country that was once controlled by Nazis.

“At times, we've struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.”

He actually apologized for America. Is America perfect? No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. America has made mistakes in the past… major mistakes. The point is, he made this apology in Germany. He could have been in any country in the entire world, and he chose Germany. Probably because Germany was safe for him. And why is that? Oh, that’s right, it’s largely because of us.

And again, HE DOES NOT REPRESENT THE UNITED STATES. He was even turned down by the German Chancellor to speak in front of the Brandenburg Gate, as it is deemed a backdrop for U.S. Presidents. But Obama represents Illinois, which is part of the United States. The same way that you are part of a chapter of your fraternity/sorority, but you do not in any way represent or speak on behalf of your entire organization. If you’re the president of your chapter, you would most likely be seen as the “leader” of the chapter, and have the ability to make major statements on behalf of it. But how do you think the other members of your entire organization would feel if your chapter president decided to stand in front of hundreds of thousands of members of another fraternity/sorority, and apologize for your organization’s actions, when you a.) did nothing wrong to them, and b.) helped them in a major way. Or imagine there is a new candidate for President for your national organization, and they do that same thing. I would imagine you’d be offended that someone who had not yet earned your vote had decided to speak for you and your entire fraternity/sorority.

People are claiming that his speech was “Reagan-esque”. But I disagree. When Reagan made his famous speech in Germany, he was actually President.

If that's an "apology" it's a pathetic one. It reads to me as a statement of fact and an indication that, perhaps, citizens of this country aren't as arrogant as the world thinks we are. But, I'm not seeing the so-called apology.

Do you honestly believe that's an apology or do you just not like Obama?

Anyway, Obama wasn't speaking on behalf of me. What he said was Now, if he were President, he would be speaking on behalf of the United States because he would be our official spokesperson.

Seems like folks are blowing it way out of proportion in the same way the original article posted in this thread took things too far with McCain.

But as a "citizen" of the United States, he stood up in front of thousands of Germans and said that America has made mistakes. Even if he wasn't apologizing in a literal sense, he was still making a statement of a large magnitude, knowing full well that he is not a "normal" citizen. Do you or I get to do that when we feel like it? He may have said that he's speaking as a citizen, but that is not what he portrays.

But hey, if hundreds of thousands of people really wanted to hear me speak, i'd try and keep them entertained for a little while.

I'm not a jingoistic citizen by any stretch of the imagination. I don't mind admitting, on an international level, that America has made mistakes and has a ways to go. In fact, I appreciate it. I wish our current President would be so gracious more often as I firmly believe it would improve our global reputation.

If I were standing in front of thousands of Germans (or anyone for that matter) I wouldn't have a problem making the same statements. It's realistic and honest. Even if no one ever said it, it would still be true.

Then again, I seem to be in the minority around here with regard to the global perception of America as I don't mind when non-citizens poke fun at America's national leaders. That's another thread though.

The greatest thing about our Constitution is that it gives us the right to free speech. We are allowed to be critical of our government or our country's actions. Each and every one of us is free to stand up and give our opinion of our government and our country.

That said, I don't even think saying that we're not perfect and we've made mistakes is being critical. Find me a country that's made no mistakes ever. Women weren't able to vote until 1920, that was a mistake. Prohibition? Slavery? Vietnam? Since we are a government of the people, by the people and for the people, we, as people are going to make mistakes and that's just plain and simple reality.

The plain and simple reality is that HE IS INEXPERIENCED. He doesn't know what he is doing. And if you ask a good portion of his supporters, they don't know what he's doing either, and they don't know why they're voting for him. Of the people I've asked, not one of them can tell me anything about what he stands for. Because he hasn't been in politics long enough to establish himself. The only thing that I hear people saying is that he's an eloquent and articulate speaker. Well that's great. He'll be president. And when I'm paying taxes out my ass and I'm "punished" with a child, I'll be joyed at the fact that his grammar and verbal communication skills are exceptional.

So, it's the latter, eh?
;)

Did I say that I didn't like Obama? Personally, I don't know him. How someone says they "hate" someone without knowing them, I have no idea.

Would I like for him to be the next President? Hell no. And reasons for that are endless. The ones that I've outlined for you here are only the beginning. And quite frankly, him not being experienced is the foundation for those reasons, and the motive for me to vote for the other guy.

so you are wishing for four more years of bush???

Yes - clearly, not liking Obama and saying "that's why I'm voting for [McCain]" means "I wish wholeheartedly for four years of Bush."

ok. great part of being in america is that one can do what ever one wishes with their vote. however, just as www.snopes.com was introduced to the group in a thread a few days ago, i would like to introduce another very good, well known site: http://factcheck.org/ it is worth the time it takes for a look see.

What does this even mean in response to my post?

You took a ridiculous stance that somehow, being anti-Obama was the same as being pro-Bush. I'm pretty sure I don't need factcheck.org to tell me that's a false dilemma, although I thank you for posting a site that nearly everyone on Earth already uses, just like Snopes.

judging from what i have seen on this board over the past 2 years, while everyone on earth may know and use the sites, some posters here do not.

McCain does not equal Bush, and being anti-Obama doesn't mean being pro-Bush. Thanks for painting with such a broad brush, though, it adds a lot to these discussions.

KSig RC, I am just as confused as you are. Did I want Bush to win the first time he ran? yes. Did I vote for him in 2004, simply because I felt Kerry as president would have been a disaster? yes. But I sure as hell do not want another 4 years of Bush. And how someone can deduct that from me saying I don't want Obama to win the election, I don't know.

didn't get the memo?

yea, apparently I didn't