Not a Gaffe: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of Iraq

[DaemonSeid]

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

[UGAalum94]

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.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I'm not sure how important knowing when the Anbar Awakening is...

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

Sure, it's an error to suggest that the surge happened first, but I'm not sure why it's a disqualifying error...

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

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

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

. . . 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.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

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.

[ASTalumna06]

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.

[Tinia2]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

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???

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Tinia2

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."

[Tinia2]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Tinia2

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 know 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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Tinia2

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

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.

[ASTalumna06]

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.

[moe.ron]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

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?