McCain In New Hampshire Paper: Without More Troops, We Won't Win

[ProSense]

McCain In New Hampshire Paper: Without More Troops, We Won't Win

By Greg Sargent | bio

From an Op-ed piece by John McCain in the Manchester Union Leader:

We must be honest about the war in Iraq. Without additional combat forces we will not win. We must clear and hold insurgent strongholds, provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies, arrest sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias, train the Iraqi army, and embed American personnel in weak and often corrupt Iraqi police units. We need to do all these things if we are to succeed. And we will need more troops to do them.

It's worth noting just how tightly McCain is tying himself to this extremely risky political gamble. More after the jump.

The other day McCain said it would be "immoral" to ask soldiers to return to Iraq if the U.S. doesn't add more troops. Now he's telling voters in the all-important state of New Hampshire that "we will not win" if we don't follow his prescription.

So where does this leave McCain if President Bush doesn't send more troops? Does McCain continue to support the troops' fighting and dying in Iraq for a war that he himself says "we will not win"? How will McCain react if soldiers are asked to return to Iraq without an increase in troops, given that he himself says it's "immoral" to ask them to do so? Will he oppose the continued U.S. presence there?

If Bush says no dice on more troops, what's McCain's next move?

Brzezinski Calls Idea to Boost U.S. Forces in Iraq a `Gimmick'

By Judy Mathewson

Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. national security adviser, said it would be ``a gimmick'' for the Defense Department to increase the number of troops in Iraq temporarily before beginning to withdraw them.

``I wouldn't be at all surprised if that actually happens,'' Brzezinski said on ``Political Capital with Al Hunt,'' to air on Bloomberg Television this weekend.

``It's a gimmick because it satisfies McCain, it satisfies the hardliners,'' Brzezinski said, referring to Senator John McCain. The Arizona Republican, who is exploring a run for the presidency in 2008, said Nov. 19 that U.S. troops are ``fighting and dying for a failed policy'' in Iraq unless they get enough reinforcements to ensure a military victory.

A Defense Department review of Iraq options is likely to advocate an immediate increase of as many as 30,000 American troops, followed by a reduction to perhaps less than half the 140,000 now there, the Washington Post reported Nov. 20. President George W. Bush is also expecting advice from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group on stabilizing Iraq for an eventual pullout.

Brzezinski said U.S. and Iraqi officials should jointly announce a withdrawal date for American troops that comes before the end of 2007. Even in the best possible outcome, though, Iraq isn't likely to be secular or democratic, he said.

more...

[rusty charly]

1. So he agrees with Rangel?

[marmar]

2. There are still nearly two years to go before the election....

but I cannot stand another second of hearing McCain's voice or seeing his face. :puke:

[David Dunham]

3. Given the increasing Iraq killings, McCain's proposal looks idiotic

[mike_c]

4. there is nothing to WIN anyway-- what the hell does WIN mean,,,?

The war pigs and their enablers are so dumb that a slogan is sufficient to replace rational thinking. USA! USA! We're number one!

Sheesh.

[Nozebro]

6. PLENTY to win: control of the entire economy. That's why he didn't define

"WIN" -- it would be too embarassing for "his" crowd to come right out and say what he means. But, THEY know. They're salivating at the thought of plundering Iraq's assets and privatizing whatever isn't already privatized in the services sector of the economy.

[Donnachaidh]

5. why isn't he recruiting all the kids of the chickenhawks he's courting?

He's kissing ass of the RW theocrats -- why isn't he signing up their kids to go? These professed American patriots shouldn't have a problem sending their kids to be cannon fodder, should they? :sarcasm:

[Bitwit1234]

7. Could Someone Explain

I do not understand how our military can even fight the Saddam loyalist/terrorist/insurgents/sectarians (I have to put them all down because the bush administration changes their definition every six weeks or so). First the Iraqi and the opposition forces all look the same. Since they don't wear uniforms, how do our military tell who is the enemy and who supports us. We can never completely remove the opposition because we can't really tell who they are. Am I reading this wrong.

[sarge43]

15. No. Urban guerrilla warfare is the worst tactical on the book.

Not only can't the enemy be identified, every house, every building can contain them. They know the ground, you don't. The longer you stay, the more enemies you make. Almost always you wind up under siege, trapped on a ever shrinking static position. We just about at that point now. 30K troops won't do a damn bit of good.

[marylanddem]

8. Now THERE'S a winning platform

NOT...What an a-hole he has turned out to be...

[Life Long Dem]

9. Win what?

The civil war?

[BornagainDUer]

10. But Kissinger even said its unwinnable.

McCain is crazy.

[Botany]

11. Come on Huggy even with million troops we can not win "it"

This will be there 08 campaign thread ... the democrats lost Iraq.

[indepat]

12. Could someone please explain what winning is so we will recognize it when we see it ?

:shrug:

[TheCowsCameHome]

14. Don't hold your breath in the meantime.

[TheCowsCameHome]

13. In the Union Leader? No surprise there. Bill and Nackey Loeb would be proud.

The most conservative paper in the northeast loves this kind of attention.

[flordehinojos]

16. mccain is kissing bush's ass and acting as his rearguard. he wants to salvage bush's war so that

history won't catalogue bush as THE WORST U.S.A. PRESIDENT EVER! so said, in similar words, TWEETY MATTHEWS before he went on THANKSGIVING BREAK.

[Imagevision]

17. McCain will have a coronary when Bush endorses Rice for his replacement...

[Peace Patriot]

18. I just can't believe this! This was the mantra of Vietnam! More troops!

More troops! Just give us more troops, and we will win!

It's like a broken record in a dusty attic that's been playing on a hi-fi turntable all these years.

[Zorra]

19. No. Just...no. n/t

[Imagevision]

20. Victory in Iraq? - Stopping the bad guys from detonating themselves

to get rid of the occupation and take control over the oil, which bush & Cheney respond with, "no way MF.!!!!!!!!

[IndianaGreen]

21. Win what. John?

Today's Guardian wondered if there was anyone that can stop the civil war:

The broader question, growing more urgent each day, is whether anyone can now control the cycle of violence. Thursday was the most deadly day for Iraqi civilians, and morgue statistics showed that the past month has been the bloodiest since the 2003 invasion, according to the UN, with 3,709 civilians killed.

Since taking office, Mr Maliki has been under constant US pressure to disarm the Mahdi army and other Shia militias, while remaining beholden to them to stay in power. The Sadr party demanded yesterday that Mr Maliki "specify the nature of its relations with the occupation forces", demanded a timetable for a US withdrawal, and issued its ultimatum over the scheduled Bush-Maliki meeting in Jordan next Wednesday and Thursday.

"There is no reason to meet the criminal who is behind the terrorism," said Faleh Hassan Shansal, a Sadrist MP.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1956706,00.html

[wisteria]

22. More of our troops are not the only thing that is needed to help Iraq.

I don't think we have enough troops to send over there to keep the piece. The trained Iraq soldiers are turning around and becoming a part of the violence,Bush has cut funds for reconstructions already and where are we going to get these additional troops? A draft? We need the help of other countries to pursuade and help us help the Iraq government. Until the Shities and the Sunni's decide to get along, there is not much we can do, but try and keep the peace. How is that helping long term?