Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS   LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Jonah Goldberg :: Townhall.com Columnist
For McCain, Surge is a Losing Strategy
by Jonah Goldberg
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
How much of the Republican convention did you watch?




"Senator Obama didn't support the surge, wanted to pull out, said that it would fail. I supported it when it was the toughest thing to do. I believe that my record on national security and keeping this country safe is there. And the American people will examine our records, and I will win."

That's John McCain explaining why he'll win.

He's wrong.

He's leading a loud chorus of conservatives and Republicans desperate to make the surge the defining issue of the campaign.

In an editorial for the conservative Weekly Standard, Fred Kagan (the primary intellectual author of the surge strategy) wrote: "It would be hard to design a better test for the job of commander in chief than the real-life test senators John McCain and Barack Obama have undergone in the last two years."

It's understandable why so many Republicans see the surge as an ideal political battleground. Outside foreign policy, McCain's standing with the GOP base is shaky. The party doesn't have many policy wins to brag about. And Obama doesn't have much of a record to attack. Also, many hawks - often called neoconservatives - see the surge as vindication that they were right about the feasibility of the Iraq invasion from the beginning. It was President Bush's bungling that was wrong, they say, not the war itself.

Whatever the merits of all that, there's a problem. As political analysis, it's nonsense.

Yes, McCain heroically pushed for the surge when the war was at its most unpopular point. Even more impressive, he favored a change in strategy back when the war was popular.

Within months of the invasion, McCain was calling for more troops and the head of then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Later, when the Iraqi civil war erupted, al-Qaida in Iraq metastasized and Iran mounted a clandestine surge of its own, McCain doubled down; he argued that we couldn't afford to lose and proposed a revised counterinsurgency strategy for victory. That was the same month that Obama introduced the "Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007."

That's great stuff for McCain's biographers. But the catch-22 is that the more the surge succeeds, the more advantageous it is for Obama.

Voters don't care about the surge; they care about the war. Americans want it to be over - and in a way they can be proud of. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Jonah Goldberg's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Subject: Re John McCain's Judgment

Jonah Goldberg writes "McCain doesn't need to explain why he'd be a better commander in chief. Voters already acknowledge his superior judgment on foreign policy by huge margins."

"Superior judgment?" For four years John McCain was an outspoken and constant critic of the Iraq War which he characterized as "a terribly mismanaged war."

Yet, in 2007, when Pres. Bush announced the "surge" as a desperate measure to avoid "the consequences of failure," Sen. McCain reflexively bought into the concept without so much as a pause to consider that the Commander-in-Chief who oversaw the "the terribly mismanaged war" in Iraq would still be calling the shots for the surge.

Nor did John McCain question why, if Gen. David Petraeus was thought of so highly, why hadn't Pres. Bush relied on Gen. Petraaeus' leadership years earlier to take command of our forces?

How does John McCain's unwarranted blind faith in the "surge" qualify as "superior judgment"?

Answer for Buck
You're still believing the political line for why we got into the war. It is far more complex than Hussein thumbing his nose at us over WMD. He posed a real threat, not only to our financial security (he was trying to knock off the dollar as the worlds reserv currency) but to the war on terror. Had we left him in power he would have worked to undermine our efforts in Afganistan and anywhere else he could reach. Had we left him there and he succeeded he would have the Muslim countries falling in line behind him instead of us.

The reason the oil is important is because first, our allies and the world economy are dependent on it and the price of oil is affected by flow of oil from the middle east. If we suddenly became completely independent for our energy needs tomorrow we would still have an interest in stabilizing the Middle East. Oil makes the crazies wealthy enough to cause havoc on our interests and it's not just about Israel.

These people who are causing trouble because they believe they can take over the world. And why do they think that? Because whe have been so weak in our response to them in the past. For the last six or seven years we responded, for the most part, with strength. All we have left to do is keep Iraq out of the terrorist camp and cut the Iranians down to size and this war will be mostly over.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone: