Why Obama Is More Right Than McCain
By Michael Reynolds | Related entries in IraqFor four years the Bush administration ignored calls by John McCain, Joe Lieberman (and me) to change strategy in Iraq, fire Rumsfeld, quit pretending things were going well, and put more troops in place.
Four years. And then the Democrats won the mid-terms. Suddenly Rummy was ejected from a window of the E-ring and Bush at long last responded to the insistent sound of shouts and cries and dire warnings from patriotic war critics.
For two years the Maliki government hemmed and hawed, stalled and dithered. He flatly ignored the so-called benchmarks. And then, it began to look like there was a real chance that the next President of the United States really would begin a US withdrawal as soon as he/she had finished taking the oath.
And suddenly, Maliki began to take action to establish control over his own country.
Bush wasted time and money and lives until the mid-terms. Maliki wasted time and money and lives until the Democrats looked set to take the White House.
People seldom do hard things until they are forced by circumstances to do so. So long as Bush had a free hand, he lacked the motivation to deal with Rumsfeld. It was “stay-the-course” until Nancy Pelosi took over, and then, suddenly, it was Petraeus time.
So long as Maliki had an open-ended commitment from the US to hold his hand forever and ever, he dicked around and did nothing.
The funny thing is, this is a classically conservative view of human nature. Conservative (used to) understand that self-interest — survival — is the prime motivator. Conservatives (used to) understand that welfare encourages dependency. Bush needed an electoral baseball bat to the head before he would McCain up. And Maliki needed an Obama bomb before he would take on Sadr.
So, tell me now, with all we know: why is McCain’s open-ended offer to babysit the Iraqis for all eternity a better idea than Barack’s threat to take our Humvees and go home? Handholding failed. Threats worked.
Let’s keep up the threats. Who knows what else the Iraqi government might accomplish if we stop coddling them.
This entry was posted on Monday, April 7th, 2008 and is filed under Iraq. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 7th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
This strikes me as a shockingly simplistic analysis of McCain’s position on Iraq as well as the situation as a whole.
Moreover, if one is to argue that Obama is “more right” than McCain on Iraq, then aside from just explaining why McCain’s position is incorrect, it is also necessary to explain why Obama is right. It could very well be the case that both of them are wrong.
April 7th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
I assumed that most readers know the candidate’s history and positions. I didn’t think it would be necessary to recapitulate all facts. Makes for a rather long post at that point.
McCain was correct that in order to prevail we needed a change in strategy. I supported that call, even when the right-wing chest-thumpers were denouncing me as a nervous nellie and just short of a traitor. McCain was ignored by Bush until the mid-terms forced a reassessment.
Now, however, McCain holds that our presence — and a guarantee of that continued presence — is vital to suppressing an Iraqi civil war. I know believe he may be exactly wrong.
Obama is correct that we should be planning our exit and setting that clock ticking. The ticking clock seems to have concentrated Iraqi minds.
April 7th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Know=now.
April 7th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Because in actuality, the renewed commitment of the United States to support military efforts in Bagdhad is what has produced the success we have seen there recently. The citizens who had to fend for themselves against Islamic Jihadists had no choice but to capitulate, else face torturous reprisals against them and their families by militants who were more armed and more dangerous. Knowing that they could not lose against Al-qaeda is why they fought back, not because a desperate suicide mission was more appealing to them.
If what you say is true, then two things happen: 1) you would not see the Iraqi military successfully taking on insurgents, as they are in Bagdhad and Basra, and 2) Barack Obama is the ugly Meth-addict who’s mugshot is used to deter kids from doing drugs. He is the brown lung you show to kids so they don’t smoke. In other words, the positions he advocates would be so disastrous if they were put into effect, that the people of Iraq fear the possibility of his election. How does that make him “right on Iraq?”
April 7th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
The Iraqis get internet. They know the Democrats are likely to take the WH. They’ve known it for a while. They get the polls there in Iraq, so they know Bush is in the low 30’s and in his last year. So they know the clock is ticking. And knowing all that, Maliki finally went after Sadr — after months and months of fruitless urging by Mr. Bush and our generals.
Sooner or later the training wheels have to come off. Now that the prospects of an open-ended commitment are declining, it seems the Maliki government is finally ready to take some risks.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:26 am
First of all, the Democrats won in November and take power in January; during that period the casualties among civilians and coalition members were the highest of the entire war. The surge began in May, and it was only after that time we saw the drop in violence and witnessed the successes that we are seeing now.
I think you are overestimating the interest in, or access to American politics by everyday Iraqis in Bagdhad who have been under siege by Al qaeda for 4 years. Anyway, embedded journalists like Michael Totten have documented rather succinctly that a change in the rules of engagement of our Marines, a renewed commitment to holding down territory by extra troops, the recruiting of Sunni tribal leaders and reforms in the Iraqi military have made the successes possible. You can hear what the Iraqis say for themselves.
This theory that the Iraqis pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and whipped themselves into shape because they were afraid of the “safety net” of American troops was about to end, is unsubstantiated, as there is no evidence for this, only Democrat politicians and Mainstream Media pundits spouting out this talking point as if it is fact. Where was this safety net for the past 3-4 years? It doesn’t seem to have kept them safe very much.
Patreus deserves more credit than you are giving him.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:53 am
The change in strategy, and the surge, were something I was pushing for within weeks of the invasion. Unlike most of the right-wing chest-thumpers I have always believed we needed more men from the start, more focus on control and security. “Occupation 101: place boot firmly on neck,” was a phrase I must have written 50 times over the course of five years.
Obviously the average Iraqi pays little attention to US politics: the average American doesn’t, either. But we’re talking about Maliki not the average Iraqi. Maliki knows the clock is ticking on his security blanket. And knowing that it is unlikely he’ll get another blank check after November, Maliki has finally, at long last, begun to use the army we bought for him.
People don’t take risks until they have to So long as we hold Maliki’s hand, and assured him of perpetual handholding in the future, he has no reason to take risks.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Who are these chest-thumpers? I don’t recall any pro-war conservative pundits or politicians claiming there were too many troops in Iraq to win it, or that the level selected by the DOD was always the baby bear’s porridge.
The political argument during the height of the insurgency was always one side saying withdrawal was needed and the other saying no, we need to win this thing. Bush put forth the surge plan at the advice of his military advisors anyway, and it was supported overwhelmingly by Republicans in Congress. Are the same “right-wing chest-thumpers” the ones calling him “General Betray-us” or do they consider him a hero?
Besides, If you supported more troops from the beginning, aren’t you falling into the same trap that you are arguing against now? Wouldn’t the Iraqis be too reliant on Americans from the beginning?
So the U.S. f@#’ed up, everyone knows that. A lot of time was wasted, but now the counter-insurgency begins. So lets break out the text book and put boots on their necks. Better late then never.
People don’t take risks if they know for sure that they are going to lose. Thats how tribesmen in Bagdhad felt about Al-qaeda. You should read Totten’s blog. Its a remarkable read anyway, just to get a taste of day-to-day life in Iraq.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:24 am
The way I see it is either go full force and bring over however many troops it takes to quash all violence or pull out all the way and claim a partial victory for deposing Sadam let the Iraqis figure the rest out on their own. One lesson we should have learned if nothing else is halfway measures don’t work when violence is politics.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:54 am
In terms of a time-tabled pullout (versus a metrics-based pullout), the U.S. should be prepared to shoulder 1) a massive amount of Iraqi deaths as competing factions go at each others’ throats 2) a Balkanized country with chunks of present-day Iraq carved up and parceled out to various interests in the region (either officially or as puppet regimes) and 3) additional attacks on liberal targets around the world. “Liberal” is just a convenient term for anything that isn’t part of the extremist Muslim mindset. The sad fact here is that Iraq is the path of least resistance for most Islamic extremists who want to strike at the West and its allies. With the U.S. gone, that violence will migrate to other targets.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
“1) a massive amount of Iraqi deaths as competing factions go at each others’ throats 2) a Balkanized country with chunks of present-day Iraq carved up and parceled out to various interests in the region (either officially or as puppet regimes) and 3) additional attacks on liberal targets around the world.”
I don’t think most Americans would be too upset at these things:
1) Better them than us.
2) Where’s Iraq again?
3) Our “allies” would be more willing to help us in the future if they feel some of the consequences of inaction.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Who are these chest-thumpers? I don’t recall any pro-war conservative pundits or politicians claiming there were too many troops in Iraq to win it, or that the level selected by the DOD was always the baby bear’s porridge.
You gotta be kidding. I was called impatient, naive, stupid, bloodthirsty, weak and treasonous on blogs for literally years, before what I’d been calling for became US strategy.
I always read Totten — he’s a godsend.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Exiled:
My concern is not primarily casualty numbers, either Iraqi or US. There were civil war battles where we lost more than 4000 men in a day or two. My concern is that we not spend lives needlessly.
In this particular post I’m just pointing out that both the Bush administration and Mr. Maliki seem to profit from the motivation provided by threats to their power. Open-ended commitments allow endless procrastination.
April 9th, 2008 at 6:21 am
Obama will not be right for the presidency im afraid. Mccain will do a better job, for one he has way more experience, #2 well liked in senate for both parties, he isnt a true republican. Obama I just dont trust, for 1 he said he agreed on some of the things his pastor said, that strikes me.