Sen. John McCain, "staking his candidacy entirely on the surge in Iraq,'' has shown "that he does not understand one of the fundamental facts about the surge,'' MSNBC's Keith Olbermann was reporting of the Republican candidate for president last night - "getting the basic timeline and history of the surge entirely wrong.''
The McCain campaign objects to the characterization, and offers some background below on where the senator's critics are misguided.
The commentator's assertion stems from an interview that McCain conducted with CBS News, in which anchor Katie Couric pointed out that Sen. Barack Obama, who has just traveled through Iraq, has maintained that, while the increased deployment of troops there had contributed to security, a Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after the militia also contributed - and that security might have improved even without the surge.
McCain replied: "I don't know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened.'' He noted that a Col. McFarland had been contacted by one of the Sunni sheikhs, and because of that the surge forces were able to go protect that sheikh and others. "And it began the Anbar awakening,'' McCain said. "That's just a matter of history.''
[....]
The Swamp reached out for McCain's reaction. Read on:
"Senator McCain is correct,'' McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said today. "As General Petraeus has made clear, the surge is the reason why the Anbar Awakening was so successful in tearing up al Qaeda.
"The surge strategy that was supported by John McCain and opposed by Barack Obama was responsible for the reduction in violence we have seen over the last year and a half. Democrats can debate whether the Awakening would have survived without the surge, or whether the Shiite militias would have unilaterally disarmed without US troops and our Iraqi allies disarming them by force, but that is nothing more than a transparent effort to minimize the role of our commanders and our troops in defeating the enemy, because to credit them would be to disparage the judgment of Barack Obama and praise the leadership of John McCain.
"If Barack Obama had had his way,'' Bounds said, "the Awakening would have been crushed at the hands of al Qaeda, and US forces would have already left Iraq in defeat."
Did you notice the shift? McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds first claimed that the Bush troop surge was the reason for the success in the Anbar Awakening, but then goes on to attack Obama saying that if the Democrats had withdrawn U.S. forces, the Anbar Awakening would have been crushed by al Qaeda. Even more, Bounds then makes the outrageous claim that the "Democrats can debate whether the Awakening would have survived without the surge...." This debate isn't about whether the Awakening could have survived with, or without, the surge. This debate isn't even about whether the surge was the reason for the success of the Anbar Awakening. What this debate is about is Senator John McCain's insistence that the surge took place before the Anbar Awakening. John McCain lied about the timeline between when the Anbar Awakening took place in September 2006, and when President Bush announced his troop surge in January, 2007. And the McCain campaign continues to present this lie.
And as for General Petraeus' remarks on the surge and the Anbar Awakening, the Swamp includes this comment:
And here are some earlier comments to consider from Petraeus and Fred Kagan, architect of the surge:
General Petraeus: The Awakening "Was Very Much Enabled By The Surge Because That Enabled Us To Clear Areas Over Time." GEN. PETRAEUS: "Well, sir, the Sons of Iraq are individuals that -- it really dates all the way back to Anbar province and the first awakening, which, to be fair, took place -- it started before the surge, but then was very much enabled by the surge because that enabled us to clear areas over time. But it started with a sheikh in Anbar province coming to a brigade commander in Ramadi and saying back in October, 2006, would you support us if we turned our weapons on al Qaeda instead of on you? And the brigade commander got that test question right. He pledged support. It took some time to build those forces, to get them going, to get it established. By mid-March, they were ready to clear Baqubah or, I'm sorry, Ramadi." (Gen. Petraeus, U.S. House Armed Services Committee, 4/9/08)
Surge Strategy Architect Fred Kagan: "When Colonel John Charlton's Brigade Relieved MacFarland's In Ramadi And Was Joined By Two Additional Marine Battalions (Part Of The Surge) Elsewhere In Anbar, The 'Awakening' Began To Accelerate Very Rapidly." "The tribal leaders in Anbar began to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq last year, largely due to unspeakable atrocities committed by the terrorists against their own hosts. Many analysts and observers have seized upon this fact to argue that the movement in Anbar had nothing to do with the surge, began before the surge did, and would continue even without the surge. This argument is invalid. Anbari tribal leaders did begin to turn against AQI in their areas last year before the surge began, but not before Colonel Sean MacFarland began to apply in Ramadi the tactics and techniques that are the basis of the current strategy in Baghdad. His soldiers and Marines fought tenaciously to establish a foothold in Anbar's capital, which was then a terrorist stronghold, and thereby demonstrated to the local leaders that they could count on American support as they began to fight their erstwhile allies. Even so, the movement proceeded slowly and fitfully for most of 2006 and, indeed, into 2007. But when Colonel John Charlton's brigade relieved MacFarland's in Ramadi and was joined by two additional Marine battalions (part of the surge) elsewhere in Anbar, the 'awakening' began to accelerate very rapidly." (Frederick W. Kagan, "The Gettysburg Of This War," National Review Online, 9/3/07)
Again, the argument is not whether the surge provided some success in the Anbar Awakening. The argument is about the timeline of the surge taking place before the Anbar Awakening, with the surge being the catalyst for creating the Anbar Awakening.
And John McCain continues to lie about the timeline.
Update: It turns out that the McCain campaign has canceled a press conference for today in the aftermath of McCain's "Anbar Awakening" lie. From Salon.com:
In an interview with CBS News on Tuesday, John McCain made a major mistake in recounting the history of the surge in Iraq. McCain credited it with the development of the "Anbar awakening," the movement of Sunnis in that province away from al-Qaida and toward working with the U.S. The problem? The awakening began before the surge was even announced.
The McCain campaign has -- deservedly -- been getting hammered on this, and it has struck back, somewhat angrily. "Democrats can debate whether the awakening would have survived without the surge ... but that is nothing more than a transparent effort to minimize the role of our commanders and our troops in defeating the enemy," spokesman Tucker Bounds said. (Of course, that's not what's being debated -- McCain said the surge "began" the awakening.)
Now, all of a sudden, the McCain campaign has canceled a press availability that was scheduled for Wednesday. Both the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder and Politico's Ben Smith rightly wonder about the McCain camp's reasons for doing so.
"My bet is that the campaign much prefers local and regional interviews. Us national press folks will ask qualitatively different questions -- McCain v. the press, McCain v. history, McCain v. Obamania ... The priority here in northern Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional district is on getting good local news coverage," Ambinder, who is traveling with McCain, wrote.
"McCain's avail today was the one with more promise to make news," Smith wrote, then cited a list of potentially uncomfortable things -- with the awakening first among them -- that McCain could expect to be asked about before noting, "And now he's canceled the avail."
I would say that McCain's handlers have decided not to bring McCain out to the national reporters, who would certainly start to question McCain on the timeline. Instead, we get the McCain campaign PR-spin of McCain traveling to Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional district, where the campaign is hoping to spoon-feed local reporters news coverage that will benefit McCain. The McCain campaign is hoping this latest John McCain gaffe will go away over the next couple of days.
No comments:
Post a Comment