previous post next post  

McCain on Meet the press

MR. RUSSERT: Senator, the war in Iraq. The president said that we will accept nothing less than complete victory. What is complete victory?

SEN. McCAIN: Complete victory at least in my view is a flawed but functioning democracy in Iraq. I think it's hard to expect us to have a perfect democracy there but one that the people of Iraq will support, economic development, restoration of infrastructure and law and order and the Iraqi military and security personnel being able to take over most of the responsibilities for Iraqi security. And I think it's going to be long and hard and tough.


Emphasis mine.

Stray Thought: Russert asked John McCain : "We send kids to boot camp and send them to Iraq to fight. Why can’t we do the same with Iraqi kids?" (paraphrased)

One can only hope Russert was doing what I do here sometimes - pose a question I know the answer to (or answer one incompletely) as a setup to make someone (like you guys) look good, and more importantly, participate. I mean, good grief, I can train all the Privates and Lieutenants I can stuff through training in 90 days. But it takes a decade to grow the backbone of the Force... the NCOs and the Captains and Iron Majors who do the bulk of tactical planning, and lead and supervise (and most importantly, flex and adapt) the execution of same.

Of course, McCain knows this too (hence my hope it was set-up by Russert, and not an astounding attack of "d-uh" – McCain noted that Iraqi kids are being trained and sent out to fight and are improving at it. I just wish he'd completed the statement with the bit about what it takes to grow an Army's heart and soul. Combat is a tough teacher, and the Iraqis, if they keep their hearts in it, will do in a couple of years what it takes a decade to do in peacetime (just as the hugely expanded US Army did in WWII) - but they have to get those couple of years. He alluded to it, but didn't close the deal, here:

SEN. McCAIN: Well, we are recruiting Iraqi young people and they are serving, and they are taking significant casualties. As you know, one of the sort of not too perceptible changes that has taken place-- there's more attacks now on Iraqis than there is on American military. So they are serving, they are dying, they are fighting, and yes, there's a problem with leadership. The NCO is nothing like what we have in the United States Army. But we have also seen some pretty good performances in places like Fallujah, Mosul and others. But again, we are paying--continue to pay a heavy price for not having enough troops to bring the situation under control, which allowed places like Fallujah and others to become hotbeds and centers of insurgent activities.

You can read the whole bit here. I'm not a big fan of the Senator, but we do mesh pretty well on the issue of Iraq.

Continuing in this theme... Ramesh Ponnuru had this bit on The Corner yesterday:

"WHAT WOULD JFK HAVE DONE?" [Ramesh Ponnuru]

That's the question Theodore Sorensen and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. are asking about Iraq. Gosh, I don't know. Maybe he would have had our allies assassinated? Maneuvered us unnecessarily to the brink of nuclear war.

S&S strike a false note early. "What did we not hear from President Bush when he spoke last week at the United States Naval Academy about his strategy for victory in Iraq?" they begin. "We did not hear that the war in Iraq, already one of the costliest wars in American history, is a running sore." No, I suppose we didn't hear that. Nor did the president confess to being a dimwitted, arrogant, narrow-minded fundamentalist. Which he would have had to have done to give the perfect Bush speech, as written by these worthies.

Do S&S persuade anyone that Kennedy would have pulled out of Vietnam, if only he had lived?

Again, emphasis mine. I don't have the time to fight through the economics of the war - except to note that to date, unlike in Vietnam, we've managed to do this without a huge inflationary spiral, and people who use raw dollar amounts in economic comparisons that span decades are at best clueless, at worse, intellectually dishonest. I'm sure someone around here *can* work through the dollars side of things.

But lets talk about the cost figure that comes to most people's minds... and compare it to the only war the Left seems able to remember...

Casualties. Let's take a look at a graph produced by the fellas at Bastard Sword (and if you take this graphic for your own use - make sure you credit (with links) Bastard Sword, *not* me - even if you are linking to me for this whole thing, link to them in *your* post as well!)

casualltiesbymonth.gif

For source data, go visit David at Bastard Sword.

Heh. Defeaticrats, indeed.


10 Comments

McCain does have his days, doesn't he? Some good...some bad. This one was a good day. You, John... have been tagged. hehe!
 
I read through that last night and was unimpressed with the Sorenson/Schlessinger collected acumen. I was unaware that vast numbers of US soldiers were in Vietnam in 1963. Nor that Mr Kennedy spent such energies on getting out of that quagmire in 1963. And that such a fully explored and articulated strategy was in hand in Oct 1963. But give the article states that "Mission Accomplished" onboard a CVN in 2004, perhaps their collective memories are sharper than mine. And the specious use of quotations: "That is our object, to bring Americans home." From where? The Riviera? Then they present the Kennedy three step program, which bears remarkable similarity to what Mr Bush appears to be stating as his plan in Iraq. Except for step one, where Mr Bush appears to believe in some sort of victory to precede the withdrawl, while S/S believe Mr Kennedy would dump and run, with a phased timetable of course. Perhaps this is a campaign to rehabilitate Mr Kennedy as a 21st Century Democrat, a prototypical John Forbes Kerry: bravely facing the enemy while vigorously running off in all directions. Cheers
 
Until there is not one more piece of Blue on your screen chart will I stop talking about this issue. My uncle has talked to me about Vietnam numerous times and I could not imagine this type of war in modern times. However, it appears thats what this is becoming. However,let there be no doubt, when our brave men and woman come home they will all be welcomed, not like what happened to some Viet Vets.Keep up the good work. Raymond B www.voteswagon.com
 
Wish I were smart enough to modify the Bastard Sword graphic to add in red the number of Americans killed in Washington DC, home of a virtual ban on private gun ownership since about 1970. Numbers are comparable to the sad loss of troops in Iraq, with none of the gains for freedom.
 
Wish I were smart enough to modify the Bastard Sword graphic to add in red the number of Americans killed in Washington DC, home of a virtual ban on private gun ownership since about 1970. Numbers are comparable to the sad loss of troops in Iraq, with none of the gains for freedom.
 
Well and good, Ray. Just so you know - my father went to Vietnam, and came home with 5 Purple Hearts and a Distinguished Flying Cross. I put my butt on the line for 24 years, and managed to avoid getting shot, but still retired with a 70% disability. And I, and my father, support what's going on in Iraq. You can be as concerned as you wish about the blue on the chart - as long as you recognize that whatever the faults of the war and it's management - and there are many, as there have been in EVERY flippin' war ever fought, regardless of the politics of the people in charge - this *isn't* Vietnam. And it isn't going badly. It isn't going perfect - but only the ignorant think it would. If enough people feel the way you seem to, and don't have the stomach for it, we will probably lose much of what we've gained - and make no mistake, we've made changes in the Middle East, for better or worse, and kicked over an unsupportable status quo. We've made them look at themselves. They don't like much what they see, and many of them blame us. But we saw how avoiding unpleasant realities in the 30's led to 1939. This time we're trying something different. So far, opponents of the war have pretty much only offered "We don't like that." Not an alternative that isn't little more than returning to the status quo ante. Okay - you think the deaths are horrible. Fine. What do you propose? Concrete - not just, "Leave now and come home." We did that already. It didn't work then, in Lebanon, Somalia, Yemen. What do you offer that is different, other than "This is bad." Got that. I've seen the elephant, youngster. If I have to dance with the pachyderms, I prefer to do it in the other guy's yard. Gimme something else. What d'you have on offer, Raymond?
 
Ray - This is exactly the type of war that *does* occur in modern times. The Soviets called it "war of liberation" and we, with our penchant for thinking a new term for an old concept redefines the concept, have called it everything from "guerrilla warfare" through "unconventional warfare" through "low-intensity conflict"--the current buzzword for it is "asymmetric warfare." It, like all other guerrilla wars, bears some similarities to the Vietnam War--because all guerrilla wars have points in common: 1. one side is weaker militarily, in numbers of troops, quality and/or quantity of armament secure operational bases, logistics--just about anything--and so resorts to the classic tactics of the underdog which were first put in print by Sun-Tzu and then paraphrased and expanded upon by Mao; 2. the weaker side considers terror as just another weapon in its arsenal and targets one segment of the civilian population while courting another segment; and 3. the weaker side makes extensive use of psyops and propaganda, knowing that the more frequent and strident the lie, as long as it is consistent, the more apt it is to be (eventually) believed. Iraq is *not* Vietnam, Ray. The differences between the two far and away outnumber the similarities--and some of those similarities exist only in the collective imagination of the empty suits posing as knowledgeable commentators, and some of them stem from Congress' seemingly-perpetual inability to comprehend anything other than a catch-phrase. "...when our brave men and woman come home they will all be welcomed, not like what happened to some Viet Vets." Thanks, Ray, and I do believe you're dead right about that--but I'd sure like to be a spectator when a few couch-potato moonbats decide that 4-to-1 are good odds for having a go at a grunt just back from the sandbox. Heh. They weren't even good odds against *me*...
 
Get in some good licks, didya, Chief? (Snork!)
 
JTG - Any and all injuries the aforementioned incurred were caused by the recipients' inebriated ineptitude in negotiating a crowded bar. Both bartenders were witnesses and that's what they told the investigating officer (after tossing me a clean towel and telling me to get my hands out of sight). Heh--I'm sure it was just a coincidence that all three served in the First Cav in 1967...
 
How about a spoof program called BEAT THE LIBERAL PRESS since its all lies and half truths we can beat them with their own lies
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.