Tuesday, July 15, 2008

McCain has much to learn

Watching clips of McCain's latest speech in which he proffered up the "Karl Rove playbook" to mock and deride Senator Barack Obama over Iraq and Afghanistan, I was struck by how much McCain seemed less to truly target Obama as he was actually targeting GW. GW wasn't in Iraq when he decided to invade. He wasn't in Iraq when he decided to take out a regime. GW proved to be quite ignorant about Iraq when he decided he knew best what that country needed. And how long did it take GW to commit to a "Surge" and approve of "counter insurgency strategies?" A reminder for McCain that it was around 2 years after the invasion and about 2 years after sovereignty was supposedly returned to the Iraqi people and their new Iraqi gvt. 2 years, in fact in which the GW administration was in complete denial about the true state of affairs in Iraq. Indeed, he ran a campaign how we were "turning the corner in Iraq." Actually, we turned that corner and met our goals back in 2003! So why were we in Iraq long after returning sovereignty to the Iraqi people? It took 5 years to find out that it was all about the oil. All about foreign companies, including American oil companies having an opportunity to glean profits from one of the largest middle eastern oil reserves parked under the desert sands of Iraq. That was the real reason GW wanted to be there, costing American and Iraqi lives so that he could help his buddies in the oil business. But he didn't care to be honest to the American public about who he hoped to actually benefit with such a war. But the hints were already there, when the first recipients of federal gvt no bid contracts went to companies such as Halliburton, etc. who had close political and business connections with his family, namely former President George H.W. Bush. And the very same companies, Including Blackwater that ran amok wasting taxpayers' dollars, proved inefficient in their work, cost likely innocent Iraqi lives (Blackwater), cost Soldiers their lives through say electrocution just by taking a shower (Halliburton). Under the circumstances, a "surge" and "counter insurgency strategies," would be met with heavy Democratic scepticism. And why not?

I stand by the fact that I too happened to be sceptical about the "surge." I also continue to be sceptical about the sort of "political success" in Iraq where Malaki can wander about the streets of Baghdad handing out cash to anyone who cares to reach for it; that was bought and paid for by U.S. and Iraqi lives. Where it is far more possible for Ahmedinajad (sic) to walk openly in Baghdad; but GW and members of Congress must use stealth to visit or be guarded heavily while traveling. Including McCain himself. I am going to be so sceptical because of the many ways in which this war was mismanaged. How often the American people got lied to.

McCain in his pretty speech ingores all of the above. And when was the last time that I heard that the insurgency was "on the run." Oh yeah, when Veep Cheney said they were in their death throes for about 2 years. Meanwhile deaths of American Soldiers and Marines were increasing dramatically. Or that the "terrorists were on the run." Back in Afghanistan before GW suddenly decided to bow out of that same country and go after Saddam Hussein. And apparently, Senator McCain can't even trust his own assertions about the evident defeat of the enemy. To pull troops out of Iraq would signify "defeat." Our defeat. But, and here is the latest pretzle argument, that so McCain asserts, we can make use of the same "counter insugency strategies" that worked so well in Iraq.

So let us review those "counter insurgency strategies." An increase in manpower. We won hearts and minds by paying enemies to become friends. In order to increase American manpower in Afghanistan, we would have to pull American troops out of Iraq. Acknowledged in fact by DoD Gates. To have the money to pay Taliban and etc. enemies to become "friends," we might not be able to bail out large banks as they fail, such as IndyMac. That too, was what McCain fails to acknowledge. And even further, how long would such loyalty hold? As long as the money kept rolling in? Or unless there was a better offer from some other gvt instead? And an offer that could prove inimicle to American interests. That is after all how Pakistan became a terrorist harboring state and the Taliban could become a regrouped and deadly insurgency in recent months.

Instead of McCain trying to tell Obama how stupid he is or how much of a flip flopper he happens to be; McCain should look to himself and his fellow GOP who refused to demand any real accountability from an administration that made a total mess out of foreign policy and made also a mockery of America's standing in the world. Obama may be that junior Senator from Illinois, but he at least had the cajones to stand up and question what we were doing in Iraq, even in the face of being called a "defeatocrat." And he continues to have the cajones to question and challenge today. McCain plays the same denial playbook that GW got his campaign instructions from in 2004. And McCain actually thinks that he can see denial as an effective campaign strategy for winning the White House.

Polls to McCain, 45% of those polled now think Obama can better handle Iraq. Only 47% think that McCain can better handle Iraq. A 2 point spread? It suggests that McCain's rather childish rants aren't playing beyond the party faithful. As for the war in Iraq, the majority continue to think that this war was not worth fighting at all. No matter how McCain claims "flip flops" (he could look in the mirror on flip flops), Obama has the voters on his side. Source: CNN, 15 July 2008.

No comments: