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.