Posted on 05/15/2008 1:13:57 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Republican John McCain declared for the first time Thursday he believes the Iraq war can be won by 2013, although he rejected suggestions that his talk of a timetable put him on the same side as Democrats clamoring for full-scale troop withdrawals.
The Republican presidential contender, in a mystical speech that also envisioned Osama bin Laden dead or captured, and Americans with the choice of paying a simple flat tax or following their standard 1040 form, said only a small number of troops would remain in Iraq by the end of a prospective first term because al-Qaida will have been defeated and Iraq's government will be functioning on its own.
"By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won," McCain told an audience of several hundred here in the capital city of a general election battleground state.
Later, as the Arizona senator drove to the airport on his "Straight Talk Express" campaign bus, McCain was peppered by reporters with questions about the timetable. He and his aides insisted there was a difference between ending the war and bringing troops home and, as they criticize the Democrats, announcing a withdrawal upfront without regard for the military endgame.
"It's not a timetable; it's victory. It's victory, which I have always predicted. I didn't know when we were going to win World War II; I just knew we were going to win," McCain said.
The Vietnam veteran added: "I know from experience, you set a day for surrender — which is basically what you do when you say you are withdrawing — and you will pay a much a heavier price later on."
In the primary campaign, McCain had criticized former Republican rival Mitt Romney for hinting at a timetable.
Democrats challenged McCain's comments, led by presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton.
In a statement, the New York senator dismissed McCain and said he "promises more of the same Bush policies that have weakened our military, our national security and our standing in the world." The Barack Obama campaign said that while the candidate agrees with some of McCain's sentiments, "you cannot embrace the destructive policies and divisive political tactics of George Bush and still offer yourself as a candidate of healing and change."
Other Democrats equated McCain's comment with President Bush's May 1, 2003, speech on the deck of an aircraft carrier displaying a "Mission Accomplished" banner.
In his remarks, McCain peered through a crystal ball to 2013 and envisioned an era of bipartisanship driven by weekly news conferences and British-style question periods with joint meetings of Congress.
The senator conceded he cannot make the changes alone, but said he wanted to outline a specific governing style to show the accomplishments it can achieve. He backed up his remarks with a Web ad featuring similar content.
"I'm not interested in partisanship that serves no other purpose than to gain a temporary advantage over our opponents. This mindless, paralyzing rancor must come to an end. We belong to different parties, not different countries," McCain said. "There is a time to campaign, and a time to govern. If I'm elected president, the era of the permanent campaign will end; the era of problem-solving will begin."
To the disdain of some fellow Republicans, the likely GOP nominee has worked with Democrats on legislation aimed at overhauling campaign finance regulations, redrafting immigration rules and regulations and implementing government spending controls.
While that has cultivated a maverick image for McCain, the Arizona senator has also been accused of exhibiting a nasty temper — swearing even at fellow lawmakers from his own party — and unabashed partisanship.
In particular, McCain has clashed with the leading Democratic presidential contender, Barack Obama. After tangling with the Illinois senator on lobbying reforms, McCain questioned Obama's integrity in a publicly released 2006 letter.
McCain wrote he had thought Obama's interest in ethics legislation "was genuine and admirable," before adding: "Thank you for disabusing me of such notions." He accused Obama of "partisan posturing."
In outlining other potential achievements of a first term in his speech, the 71-year-old McCain implicitly was suggesting he would seek a second term, an attempt to mute suggestions he would serve only four years after being the oldest president elected.
In particular, he sees a world in which the Taliban threat in Afghanistan has been greatly reduced.
He added: "The increase in actionable intelligence that the counterinsurgency produced led to the capture or death of Osama bin Laden, and his chief lieutenants. ... There still has not been a major terrorist attack in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001."
McCain also pledged to halt a Bush administration practice of enacting laws with accompanying signing statements that exempt the president from having to enforce parts he finds objectionable.
uh, yeah.
mystical. right.
“It’s not a timetable; it’s victory. It’s victory, which I have always predicted. I didn’t know when we were going to win World War II; I just knew we were going to win,” McCain said.
—
I’m sorry folks, I know politicians like to run their chops, especially when they need to grab the spotlight, but if Maliki can not clean house in another year or two as his forces build-up and take the fight to insurgents even more so than to date, this is just so much,, well, you know..
We all want to “win” and as soon as possible, well, except for those across the aisle and on the left, they still long for a defeat... but we all know, it is an election year after all, they need to act tough.
Oh, I am going to get so slammed for saying this, but how many times have we heard Bush say essentially the same thing? "Soon, soon, soon..."
I just don't think we can expect Iraq to have a government that can function on its own in the foreseeable future.
McCain is already kicking the can to the Next Guy.
The Iraq war was won a long time ago. We’re now fighting Iran and Al Qaeda in the place where they need to be fought - over there.
I just don’t think we can expect Iraq to have a government that can function on its own in the foreseeable future.
—
Quite frankly, I think they are finally realizing that they can call shots and get things done.. and the situation from a democracy standpoint is in a lot better shape than ever. jmo. Maliki is to be commended for standing strong. (Notice how the media does all they can to avoid reporting such news.)
Won’t that be about a year late?
“I just don’t think we can expect Iraq to have a government that can function on its own in the foreseeable future.”
I’m just hoping we still have one!
As far as the Dems are concerned, it may as well be 100 years. And if they want to talk mystics, it may end in 2012 if the Mayan calendar is right.
McCain assumes he’s going to be the next president-elect in the Fall, but the way he’s directing the Republican party today, it’s becoming less and less of a certainty that he will be the president-elect in November because no matter what, he seems to grate on the minds of Conservatives everywhere.
As it is, it's Nation Building and we've never had very good success at that.
Third party. Definitely.
He was wrong about Kosovo. He wanted ground troops, remember?
March 25, 1999
‘’These bombs are not going to do the job,’’ said Senator John McCain of Arizona, a Republican who was a naval pilot in the Vietnam War. ‘’It’s almost pathetic. You’re just going to solidify the determination of the Serbs to resist a peace agreement.
‘’You’d have to drop the bridges and turn off the lights in Belgrade to have even a remote chance of changing Milosevic’s mind,’’ he said. ‘’What you’ll get is all the old Vietnam stuff, bombing pauses, escalation, negotiations, trouble.’’
Mr. McCain, who is expected to announce his candidacy for President next month, said the Administration was caught with unpalatable alternatives — bombing, which he said ‘’has never worked without ground forces,’’ and the use of ground forces, which he said had little support on Capitol Hill or in the nation as a whole.
‘’Many Republicans have criticized the Democrat president for a failure of resolve over the Kosovo crisis and in other earlier foreign policy crises like Bosnia and Iraq.Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who spent more than five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, insists the United States should be preparing its troops for a ground war in case that option became necessary.McCain was one of a number of members of Congress travelling to Brussels and Aviano, Italy with Defense Secretary William Cohen in the next three days to meet top NATO leaders and visit U.S. forces involved in the operations.
http://www.alb-net.com/kcc/index24-1.htm
McLame’s global warming comments have made me decide to leave the Presidental ballot blank, or vote for Ron Paul. Gad, did I just say that....?
Ummm .... You mean like Western Europe after World War II and South Korea after the Korean War?
Even Israel does not stand by itself in the defense arena. Every major Istraeli war requires a massive U.S. logistics operation.
He should have boasted of flying cars that drive themselves, computer chip implants to add memory to the human brain, a cure for cancer, and a new food supply: soilent green. All by 2013!!!
I want a Republican primary do-over-——the guy is nuts, illustrating that the commies really are good at washing brains.
Yeah, you did, I am joining you though! LOL
“I just don’t think we can expect Iraq to have a government that can function on its own in the foreseeable future.”
I’m just hoping we still have one!
Oh we’ll have a government alright, way more than we ever could imagine!
A Politician making a Military prediction? Yeesh.
No, he was not wrong.
An entrenched enemy can sit underground as thousands of tons of ordnance are hurled at him all over the countryside and do quite well. World War One barrages would last for days.
In the end, you need infantry to flush the fox out of the hole.
In Kosovo, the role of that infantry fell upon the Kosovo Liberation Army as Clinton wanted to keep U.S. boots out of Kosovo.
Whether or not having that Muslim infantry (which had been classified as "terrorist") replace U.S. ground troops is a good thing is debatable.
The air campaign undoubtedly pinned down the Serbian Army making it operationally useless. However, without the KLA infantry moving in for the clean up, the Serbs could have stayed hunkered down indefinately.
Once the Serbs had to react to KLA infantry, they either had to sit in their holes and die at the hands of KLA infantry or move to meet the KLA infantry and die at the hands of U.S. air power.
The actual damage inflicted on the hidden and entrenched Serb forces by air power was not very significant.
Air power is fantastic against armies on the move and infrastructure that can't go anywhere but relatively ineffectual against dispersed, hidden and entrenched forces without out infantry to pin point targets and do the final clean up.
The old claim that "air power can win a war all by itself" has been around since the days of Billy Mitchell and the claim has yet to be vindicated except for the "war" of the conquest of the Japanese home islands after the nuclear attacks.
Before that, even raids such as the Tokyo Fire Raids that killed over 100,000 Japanese in a single night did little to bring about a Japanese surrender thereby necessitating the planned infantry invasion of Japan that was canceled only after the nuclear strikes.
Maliki seems to be “cleaning house” already.
The pieces seem to have just fallen into place in Iraq, and as usual with these situations the business was just the result of gradual development, in this case that of the Iraqi army, which was what everyone was saying from 2004 on. It just takes time.
Now, with an effective army, the Iraqi government (Maliki) has the acknowledged greatest native power in the land, and so all nearly all the major factions fall behind the “strong horse”. That is the key right there. Thats why Maliki has been doing all the high profile “independent” military PR he has been doing. Over there, if you have it you have to flaunt it.
2013 is pessimistic, I think by the end of this year it will become obvious even to our MSM that the Iraqi state is on a strong footing, and things will become even quieter there than they are already. Not that it will be totally so, as every country in the area has an insurgency problem of some sort, but it will be impossible to say that the Iraqi state is weaker than the Iranian or the Syrian or the Saudi.
It seems to be doing so right now. The key is the army, and Maliki has been showing it off. “Power comes from the barrel of a gun”, and it is so. The Maliki government now clearly has the most and best guns, nearly all the money, and all the factions are coming together. Those that don’t are being or will be exterminated.
On the contrary - the US is the world champion “nation builder”, the only other real contenders are the British. Its just that this business is very difficult, and in the ME, very difficult.
Its not likely in hindsight that the thing could have been won earlier, as the real problem there was not war as such, it was building Iraqi institutions, in particular the army. No army = no state.
Remind me, Why are we still there?
You would think someone as prominent as McCain would have been forcefully arguing for pulling out what forces we have there, it’s a quagmire other wise.
I guess Clinton should have listened to McCain and not Weasley Clark, the bomb the snot out of e’m from 15,ooo feet General and the “leader” of the free world forces who got us suckered into that whole mess to start with.
I’m sure McCain would have been glad to render what technical insight he had to offer to get the job done either way, even if he was an naval aviator and not a ground pounder.
At the rate things are going and that area long being a hot bed for world wars starting over events there .. he may get a chance yet.
Its a political prediction. War is just politics by other means. The key here is not the particulars of movement of armies or the use of firepower but the establishment of political power.
“Remind me, Why are we still there?”
In the narrow view, to create a friendly Iraqi state.
As in Korea, where the proximate objective was to preserve a friendly South Korean state.
In a larger view, to preserve a host of US allies, in the 1950’s, pretty much all of East Asia, here a slew of characters across the ME. A lot of these 1950’s allies were lousy allies and poor specimens, as are our present allies of the 2000’s, but even so.
In a much larger view, to keep a system of alliances and the general balance of power such that the world doesn’t collapse back into the situation of 1914 or 1939.
Because, before the U.S. got there and stayed there, that region was a bloodbath for all sides be they Serb, Croat, Bosnian or Kosovan.
After the U.S. got there and stayed there, the Pax America has broken out and the killing pales in comparison to what it was before.
You know, sort of like all of Western Europe.
I was referring to the Kosovo affair in response to another poster, I should have phrased the question specifically to Kosovo, my mistake.
But thanks for the input. Unfortunately, conflict is unavoidable in the future in many of those same areas we have ‘pacified’ for so many years. Perhaps better we had done what MacArthur and Patton recommended, but hindsight is 20/20. ;-)
Not trying to make light of it, but what do we get out of playing the globe’s police force? (/devil’s advocate)
Seems like we get more repudiation and slurs than Thanks from many of those who we keep alive so they can get the political thing mastered eventually and stow the daggers and ammo .. or is that just the media covering and reporting only what it wants to?
“McCain believes Iraq war can be won by 2013”
Doubtful. That would leave the Repubes with absolutely NOTHING to run on in that years’ elections.
“We all want to “win””
I agree
“and as soon as possible”
Not so much. I believe that there are those that wish to prolong the war in order to have it as an issue.
We have already been in Iraq longer then we spent fighting WWII, the country does not have the same resolve for IRAQ as it did for WWII and the and predictably the results will be similar to previous conflicts we did not have the resolve for.
The way I see it is the sooner we cut our loses the sooner we cut our loses.
McCain also promised to have Democrats in his administration. Hillary & Bill? Lieberman? Kerry? Ted Kennedy?
Well, actually, although it might not seem that way, the U.S. is relatively selective as to where it plays Policeman of the World.
In some places, such as the Persian Gulf, strategic vital interests are dominant. The combination of the fact that the Persian Gulf region contains 70% of the World's known oil reserves and the fact that radical Islamist mullahs who believe that suicide martyrdom gains you Eternity in Paradise are actively seeking nuclear weapons and military hegemony over those oil reserves necessitates our presence there for pure self interest.
If the Persian Gulf lands contained nothing but sand fleas, we would still need to defend access to the oil reserves and, if there was no oil there, we would have that area on "Ignore" as long as Iran was not a nuclear threat.
In Europe, we do notice because we are a product of Western Civilization and, in the future centuries, Western Civilization will need every body it can muster merely to survive.
In Japan, we notice because Japan has become an honorary member of Western Civilization and loss of Japan would entail loss of the Western Pacific which would be a threat to our West Coast and trade and sea lanes.
Whether or not the U.S. had any vital strategic interest in South Vietnam is open to debate. Geographically, South Vietnam was a horrible place to draw the line as it was not only in direct contact with Red China but also bordered along its entire long axis by enemy sanctuary territory. South Korea, by contrast, could be defended much more easily by holding the relatively narrow waist of the peninsula as the remainder of the peninsula was protected by sea power.
In some areas such as Rwanda, mass genocide occurs and we hardly notice.
In the Persian Gulf, when our enemies were killing each other by the hundreds of thousands such as in the Iraq-Iran War where Iran lost 1 million and Iraq lost around half a million, we also hardly noticed as long as the balance of power was maintained and neither Iran nor Iraq threatened our vital interests of maintaining the oil supplies of Western Civilization flowing.
The Spanish-American War was won in a few months. The resulting Philippine Insurgency lasted until 1902.
The fighting in the World War II European Theater lasted less than four years. The Eighth Air Force alone lost over 50,000 men killed. The resulting American military occupation of Western Europe resulting from that war which was necessary to avoid losing Western Europe to the Soviet Union lasted over half a century.
The way I see it is the sooner we cut our loses the sooner we cut our loses.
You have something in common with Obama in that you both do not seem to realize what, exactly, you would be "losing".
You would be creating a power vacuum in Iraq that would be filled by the fanatical Islamist mullahs of Iran.
The fanatical Islamist mullahs of Iran would then have military hegemony of the Persian Gulf region that contains 70% of the World's know oil reserves.
You think that $4 per gallon gas is devastating Western economies? Think what no gas at any price will do when the mullahs want to flex their muscles.
With that economic power, the mullahs will soon buy or blackmail the necessary resources to finish their nuclear weapons program and missile programs.
You will then have the nearest U.S. major city near you surviving at the wish of radical Islamist Iranian mullahs who believe that die in a U.S. nuclear counter-strike will earn them Eternity in Paradise as long as they take you and one or two or ten or twenty million of your fellow Americans with them when they die.
America will not die because it is too weak. It will die because it will become too naive to survive.
Take your time, we'll wait...
If thats your problem, that horse has left the barn long ago. You can blame President McKinley I suppose, and Teddy Roosevelt after him, as they between them created Cuba, the Philippines, Panama, etc.
Seems self destructive to me. How about we turn around, keep our horses in the barn, and not follow the liberals into oblivion.
Or is that too damn much to ask?
What we get out of it is survival.
Thats pretty much what Roosevelt had in mind when he brought us into WWII. US grand strategy hasn’t really changed since 1940.
World wars with modern weapons aren’t going to leave the US alone. The next Napoleon or Hitler or Stalin will see the US as an enemy no matter how isolationist we are. We are just too big, rich, powerful, attractive, and subversive to ignore.
So, in a nutshell, it has been US policy to prevent the rise of another Napoleon, Hitler, or Stalin, and to prevent the possibility of another World War, partly by making the idea of challenging the US absurd, by being so powerful that a direct challenge in military power cannot be attempted, and by being so powerful that any aggression against a neighbor is guaranteed to fail if the US aids the other side.
Of course there is that other track of tying together the worlds economies through free trade and finance, promoting democracies (as the theory goes that democracies don’t fight democracies) etc. But its all part of the same strategy.
It is too much to ask.
The US can’t just “go home”, pull up the drawbridge and opt out of history, because history will follow us home. The world is too small and technology can reach us here.
If the US did go home, based on precedent, the world is guaranteed to devolve into World Wars III, IV, V and etc., as the US has been holding the lid down on the boiling pot.
And this isn’t a matter of analyzing current enemies or current threats only; one has to consider that problems will crop up or escalate from unexpected directions. The lessons of history are grim.
yep. We won the war in the first year with the take over of the country and the capture of Saddam. When we won WWII we said we won. We didn’t leave but we won and knew it.
You do not even have to get to the Articles. It is right there in the Preamble:
".... provide for the common defense ...."
After victory in World War One, the U.S. washed its hands of Europe and the future of Germany and, 23 years later, we needed to fight a still militaristic and aggressive Germany all over again at the cost of hundreds of thousands of additional American combat deaths.
After World War Two, the United States decided to turn both Japan and West Germany into Peacenik nations whether Japan and West Germany wanted that or not. The Japanese Constitution was written by MacArthur's staff and it was crammed down the Japanese throats.
Twenty five years later, in the 1970's we did not need to fight the Japanese or the Germans in another war, did we?
Fifty years later, in the 1990's we still did not have to fight either the Germans or the Japanese in another war, did we?
In regards to the Persian Gulf, see Post 37.
Unless we screw thing up, 25 years from now in the 2030's, our kids will not have to talk about how, in 2026, New York City, Washington, DC, Chicago and a few other major American cities were obliterated in an Iranian nuclear strike before the Iranian mullahs were obliterated twenty minutes later and went to Paradise after a U.S. retaliatory nuclear strike.
THAT is what it means to ".... provide for the common defense ....".
The Constitution authorizes broad powers. It does not anal-retentively micromanage such powers. That is why we do not need a Constitutional Amendment to establish a U.S. Air Force when some would argue:
"Quote me the clause in the Constitution authorizing ANY Branch of the government to set up an Air Force. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about aircraft or Air Forces."
McCain just put the seal on his election loss.
Talking about your "penumbra's and emanations".
You absolutely tortured the English language and common sense to come up with that.
Since the dawn of recorded history, shaping the future form of government of a defeated enemy so that enemy does not rise against you or your children or grandchildren in the future once again has been a part of the "spoils of war".
You really ought to read more History. It will do you good.
Talking about your "penumbra's and emanations". You absolutely tortured the English language and common sense to come up with that.
While linking abortion with anything that any drafter of an 18th Century or 19th Century Constitutional amendment ever drafted is a torture of the English language, exercising the victor's rights to the "spoils of war" fits the description of the term "common defense" only if you are totally ignorant of History, which you seem to be.
A shooting war is nothing more than "politics by other means". Shaping the future government of a future enemy is nothing more than a political preemptive strike to avoid future shooting wars.
Then pass an Amendment. As it was, the Founders were quite clear on such things. Anything less is pi$$ing on the Constitution and we get quite enough of that from the Democrats. No need for the GOP to follow suit.
Then pass an Amendment.
Don't need to any more that you need to pass an Amendment to adopt space weapons technology in the 21st Century or create the Army Air Corps in the early 20th Centuries because the Constitution says nothing about the specifics or aircraft or missiles or satellites.
It all comes under providing for the "common defense".
Did the fact that the U.S. failed to mold Germany's future after World War One result in the combat deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in the 1940's?
You bet your naive ass it did.
That was an instance of FAILING to provide for the "common defense".
And no, it most certainly does NOT fall under "common defense" any more than "gay marriage" falls under "equal protection".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.