Debate in Iraq

Likely Democrat Presidential standard-bearer, Senator Barack Obama, has only been in Iraq on one occasion. And that was nearly two and a half years ago, back in January of 2006. Putative Republican candidate, Senator John McCain, however, has been there on eight separate occasions. Senator Hillary Clinton has also been to Iraq on a few occasions.

Nor, it seems, has Senator Obama been to Afghanistan at all. Both McCain and Clinton have toured Afghanistan. And, as pointed out by Sam Youngman back in early March at The Hill (H.T., Ed Morrissey, below), Obama has skipped two out of three meetings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held on Afghanistan, since he joined the panel. As the Chair of a Subcommittee covering Afghanistan, he has yet to schedule a meeting.

Early yesterday, Ed Morrissey at HotAir posted a portion of a Wall Street Journal WashingtonWire blog post reporting that, while very recently traveling in South Dakota, Hillary Clinton had noted at one stop that she had been to both Iraq and Afghanistan more often than Senator Barack Obama. And, she further noted that for part of the time, she had traveled with Senator John McCain, which she described favorably. In the midst of making some campaign-related rhetorical comments about the war, she added:

"I have the highest respect and regard for Sen. McCain, he and I have actually gone to Iraq and Afghanistan together," she said. "And I honor his service to our country and his patriotism."

Responding to rather intense pressure heaped on him over the past few days, Senator Obama is quoted at the New York Times blog, The Caucus now saying that he is "considering" going to Iraq to see the situation first-hand. He likely did so because, in addition to the challenge put to him by McCain, over the past several days he has been subjected to intense pressure coming from ads being launched by an Iraq veteran's group called "Vets For Freedom."

Here is the link to their webpage with their latest ad, featuring Specialist Kate Norley, an Iraq veteran combat medic, who challenges Obama to revisit Iraq anew to witness first-hand the remarkable progress there, and also to agree to meet "unconditionally" with General Petraeus -- an obvious allusion to his controversially expressed willingness to meet with President Ahmadinejad of Iran (amongst a litany of bad actors). There are other media clips linked at the "Vets For Freedom" website in their Media Center.

Senator John McCain had previously suggested that Obama travel to Iraq with him. While Obama caved in to some of that pressure by giving consideration to a trip, he rejected the idea of traveling with McCain, calling that a "political stunt." His campaign did not explain why they considered it a stunt, but it is pretty obvious they fear political embarrassment.

By no means am I the first to suggest the following idea, but it occurs to me that Senator Obama and John McCain could agree not only to travel to Iraq, but also to hold the first general election debate there, in front of our American troops.

Each man aspires to be the Commander-in-Chief, and this would give to our troops an immediate and well-deserved acknowledgement of the high respect that so many of us feel for them as our defenders, regardless of our, or their, political party preferences or affiliations.

Certainly Senator Obama does not believe that holding and participating in a debate is a "political stunt," having participated in literally scores of them during the primary season, and having thereby persuaded a majority of the voters and caucus participants in his own party to favor his candidacy over that of Hillary Clinton. She was, after all, the overwhelming favorite at the beginning of the primary campaign season.

What greater legacy could we Americans leave to this fledgling democratic state in the Middle East, than to vividly demonstrate how politics can be a rough and tumble, but respectful clash of ideas, which we engage in in order to select our own leaders and choose our own destiny? When this election process is done, we will have selected a new President, House of Representatives, and a number of Senators, and we will move on in accordance with priorities chosen by We the People. The people in the other states in the region would likewise witness such a debate with rapt attention as well, no?

And, what more vivid reminder and demonstration to the American people could there be of the significant role our military, and others, including a new Iraqi security apparatus, have played within Iraq and elsewhere in fighting al-Qaeda terror?

Today, John Hinderaker at Powerline has outlined the increasingly serious dilemma faced by Senator Obama, as it becomes more and more clear to the American public that Obama's assessment of the situation in Iraq one year ago was simply wrong. Moreover, his stated solution -- to immediately begin a phased withdraw -- would most likely have unleashed a painful, and perhaps tragic social disruption in Iraq, and throughout the region, as well as a concomitant major setback in American foreign policy. Senator McCain's position, though bold and seemingly risky at the time, clearly seems to have been the correct prescription.

As John notes:

The problem for Obama is that it is hard to see how he can go to Iraq without acknowledging that the surge has succeeded, violence has been reduced, and the Iraqis are making considerable political progress. If he goes to Iraq, he has to meet with generals, soldiers and Marines, and they will tell him these things. But if Obama admits that we are succeeding in Iraq, he is admitting that John McCain was right all along. He can't do that.

and,

Obama's Iraq policy is increasingly at odds with realities on the ground, and more and more voters are becoming aware of that fact. Obama can't stay away from Iraq until November. His advisers must be trying to figure out how to fit such a trip into a narrative that will hold water through the election. For now, they may just be hoping for things to get worse. But when they do finally announce a trip to Iraq, the nature of that visit will likely hold the key to how Obama intends to handle the increasingly dangerous (for him) issue of Iraq in the fall.

Neither engaging in wishful thinking, nor having his surrogates lie about (H.T. Allahpundit, here) his pre-surge position, is any kind of plan. So in a way, he might be better off dealing with the issue and in a bold way right now. Politically, Senator Obama could show some mettle by stepping right into the lion's den" on this critical issue, and agree to a debate with Senator McCain in Iraq, in front of our troops. Otherwise, he will continue being visibly backed against the ropes by John McCain before he's even officially declared the candidate!

And after all, didn't he boldly utter the title quote to David Nason, the New York correspondent to The Australian, less than two weeks ago, in "Obama's Iraq challenge: debate me":

"If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate I am happy to have anytime, any place." (emphasis added)

A wag at this point might be tempted to say, "Okay. How's the Green Zone sound?"

"I Will Stand Where I Stand . . ."
-- Senator John McCain, Senate floor speech, all-night debate, July 18, 2007

(Update: 03/02/08)
Campaigning down in Tyler, Texas early today (02/27/08), Republican Presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, delivered a direct ripost to a comment made by Democrat hopeful, Senator Barack Obama during the final Democrat presidential debate last night. Senator Obama said, in response to a question, that if al-Qaeda came back to Iraq and established a base after he, as President withdrew the troops, then he would send military troops back to Iraq.

But as John carefully and pointedly explained today, al-Qaeda is already in Iraq. "It's called al-Qaeda in Iraq!" he said. And he further noted that al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) does not want a base; they want to take the country. McCain said, "I will not surrender to al-Qaeda."

Here is the video*:


Base-tm
Uploaded by luvnews


The words in the title quote (above) of our post today, were taken from a early morning speech delivered by McCain during the debate over a Democrat proposal to force the Administration into a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq, way back on July 18, 2007.

It was, in my opinion, one of the great speeches in American history, coming as it did at a pivotal moment in our nation's contentious internal debate and, at that moment, institutional confrontation over the future of our commitment to the struggle in Iraq. Yet, his stirring remarks went utterly unreported by any in our national media, save for a few bloggers who picked up the significance of his speech and shared them.

Most notably, Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters quickly turned around a transcription of McCain's remarks, which the Senator actually finished delivering at about 4:10 am, and Ed astonishingly was able to have them posted them on his blog, along with commentary, by 10:46 a.m. that morning!

Ed properly entitled that post, employing John's own words, ones embodying his determination that whatever the ultimate verdict of history, or the shorter term judgment of the people, that "I will stand where I stand." Ed introduced the Senator's remarks thusly:

Harry Reid wanted a debate, and he got one, especially from John McCain, during last night's stunt -- which Reid himself mostly skipped. It didn't change a single vote, and more importantly, Reid didn't get what he wanted -- a Republican refusal to engage. Instead, Republicans made it clear that they had no intention of allowing Congress to usurp the role of the executive, and McCain made it clear why. Here's his entire statement from the debate early this morning:

. . . .

The AP reported on the debate back then in a story that began:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Republicans scuttled a Democratic proposal ordering troop withdrawals from Iraq in a showdown Wednesday that capped an all-night debate on the war.

The 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate under Senate rules."
. . . .

Had the Democrats succeeded in forcing a withdraw back then, our nation would now be humiliated and retreating, having opted to abandon an ally whose people we freed, and having, in our cravenness, emboldened al-Qaeda to become a major force, not only in Iraq, but throughout the Middle East, freely recruiting future terrorists. And, we would have also clearly signaled our other allies, both there in the region, and throughout the world that we can no longer be relied upon.

One wonders how long would it have been before al-Qaeda operatives and other terrorists would have been back on our shores, and at our throats? But because of the surge, which the Democrats opposed -- AQI is quickly becoming a discredited and defeated force, with recruitment down, prospects dimmed and increasingly, a Sunni populace that has rejected their approach.

During that all night debate, at a little after 4 am, John McCain, his campaign for the Presidency on the brink of collapse, nevertheless stood and delivered one of the great speeches in all of American history. Yet no one but a few bloggers such as Ed Morrissey reported his stirring words at that moment.

Senator McCain concluded his speech as follows:

"I am privileged, as we all are, to be subject to the judgment of the American people and history. But, my friends, they are not always the same judgment. The verdict of the people will arrive long before history’s. I am unlikely to ever know how history has judged us in this hour. The public’s judgment of me I will know soon enough. I will accept it, as I must. But whether it is favorable or unforgiving, I will stand where I stand, and take comfort from my confidence that I took my responsibilities to my country seriously, and despite the mistakes I have made as a public servant and the flaws I have as an advocate, I tried as best I could to help the country we all love remain as safe as she could be in an hour of serious peril."

"I will stand where I stand . . ." should, and one can only hope will likely become words embodying courage and steadfastness of purpose at a moment of real peril. That, it seems to me, is the very mark of good leadership. Please, go to the post and read the Senator's full remarks.

Finally, as we noted in a comment on that post at Captains Quarters, McCain's remarks were immediately followed by those of Hillary Clinton. Imagine, if you will, being in her position that day. She no doubt figured that, as the putative Democrat candidate, she had been given the advantage of the final word, by being scheduled to speak after him. But as she listened to his remarks, surely it had to cross her mind that something quite extraordinary had just been said. I wonder if, for even one brief second, a thought crossed her mind that she was indeed on the wrong side of history. We'll never know; she would likely never admit to it. And, neither will many likely know or care what she had to say that early morning. The moment had passed her by.


Thank you President Bush and John McCain, and General Petraeus, and thank you to all those brave troops who have put their lives on the line for our nation, and so effectively taken on an implacable enemy of this nation. We must not abandon them.


*A news report, from Brietbart, embedding the video of the Senators remarks today can be found located here. Reader comments are also linked to that post. (No comments were permitted with the original Dailymotion video, posted above.)

** The McCain campaign website indicates that he began speaking at about 3:45 a.m., which may only be slightly inconsistent with the AP report published the 18th that indicated he finished at 4:10 a.m -- it was not a 25 minute speech.

John McCain's Own Benchmark Porposal:
A Timetable for Withdraw!

UPDATE BELOW: Romney's strong support for the surge in early January '07:
UPDATE II BELOW: Captain's Quarters had the McClatchy Tribune story as well:

Regarding this CNN-reported ongoing kerfuffle over the timetables . . . how about a little perspective here?

One year ago, on January 26th of 2007, the McClatchy Tribune out of Tuscon, Arizona, per Margaret Talev, reported that John McCain himself was proposing a timetable of specific benchmarks that the Iraqis would have to meet, or we would pull out!

And Barack Obama was quoted in the story congratulating his fellow Senator at the time, noting that he (Obama) had proposed the same thing two weeks before!!

Below are the first several grafs of the story, which can be found here (my emphasis added).

And he's making his accusations aimed at Mitt Romney, for being for a timetable back then?

Washington
McCain considers setting benchmarks for Iraqis
By Margaret Talev
McClatchy-Tribune
Tucson, Arizona
Published: 01.26.2007

WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the most stalwart supporters of the war in Iraq, said Thursday that he might propose that the Iraqi government meet certain benchmarks for the United States to continue its engagement.

Fellow senators and independent political scientists said McCain's thinking reflected growing concerns within the Republican Party about the course of the war, and also might mark a turning point for the likely 2008 presidential contender, whose previous unconditional backing of the war may have hurt his prospects.
McCain said Thursday that he hadn't yet decided on precise benchmarks. "They'd have to be specific, and they (Iraqi government officials) would have to meet them," he said.

Asked what penalty would be imposed if Iraq failed to meet his benchmarks, he said: "I think everybody knows the consequences. Haven't met the benchmarks? Obviously, then, we're not able to complete the mission. Then you have to examine your options."
. . . .

Here is the key quote in the story from Barack Obama at the time:

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said: "I called for that . . . several weeks ago. I'm glad that John McCain agrees with me."

So, just one year ago, John McCain was suggesting PULLING OUT of Iraq for failure to meet his benchmarks! And, he was warmly congratulated for his stand by Senator Barack Obama!


UPDATE: Here is the link to the Boston Globe story, (hat tip: Free Republic, here) dated January 10, 2007, highlighting former Governor Romney's position supporting the troop surge, a few weeks before John McCain (above) announced he was for specific benchmarks and withdraw if they were not met!

From the story by Rick Klein:

WASHINGTON -- Former governor Mitt Romney Wednesday endorsed President Bush's plan for a troop increase in Iraq, breaking his public silence on the troop "surge" by arguing that a stable Iraq is only possible if US forces can provide security to Iraqi civilians.

Hours before Bush spoke Wednesday night, Romney issued a statement calling for five additional combat brigades in Baghdad and two Marine regiments in Al-Anbar province -- precisely the plan for as many as 21,500 new troops that was outlined by the Bush administration before the president’s speech.

"It is impossible to defeat the insurgency without first providing security for the Iraqi people," Romney said in a statement released Wednesday morning. "In consultation with generals, military experts and troops who have served on the ground in Iraq, I believe securing Iraqi civilians requires additional troops."

UPDATE II: Captain's Quarters had the McClatchy-Tribune story linked as well here. Ed Morrissey notes there was no specific timetable included, but observes how unwise it now appears for McCain to have picked a fight over this issue:

He didn't use the supposedly verboten word "timetables", but unmet benchmarks have to have timetables to be unmet, and clearly McCain had some timeframe in mind with this remark. Like I said, he drew a really dumb line in the sand with this issue.

NY Times: Two Liberals Turn Tail On Iraq Loss:
Yanking Stability from the Jaws of Defeat?

(Update below)

Two liberals from the Brookings Institute, Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack published an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times today, (HT: Powerline here), grudgingly observing that the war in Iraq just may be a war we could . . . ahhhh . . . win.

Well, they don't quite say that. Not yet, anyway. They delicately sidestep the use of the term "victory," of course, preferring instead to choke up a familiar diplomatic alliterative euphemism -- "sustainable stability." That put them on the same page as Iraqi Ambassador Ryan Crocker, in his remarks just the other day. Said he, as quoted in a Steven Hurst AP article:

"I think it is very important that for own interests that we stay with this until Iraq gets to the point of sustainable stability, I think that can be done."

And though Scanlon and Pollock were quick to charge that the Bush Administration "has over four years lost essentially all credibility" on the War, they nevertheless concede that Administration critics have indeed failed to take note of several positive changes taking place in Iraq.

Well, it's not like the ignoring of specific successes, as well as shortcomings, haven't been repeatedly pointed out by Michael Yon, or Michael Totten and a slew of milbloggers, and other new media critics all along. Here, for example, is some incredible recent reporting of Michael Yon on us working with Iraqi insurgents, and how we are persuading them to come over to our side. This kind of reporting never makes it into your average newspaper. And Michelle Malkin links to the latest dispatch from Michael Totten.

Yet O'Hanlon and Pollock are incapable of acknowledging anything sounding like praise for even the Administration's recent handling of the conflict, notwithstanding acknowledging several recent successes. Check, for example, the inherent inconsistency in this introductory statement of theirs:

As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

Live with? Basically, these two sound a little unhappy, don't they? Don't they seem to be saying that Americans could grudgingly learn to "live with" success? They're only talking to the left when they say things that way.

Perhaps these two are ringing what amounts to a political two minute warning bell for all the liberal Democrat Presidential candidates and congressional leaders (a repetitious redundancy if there ever was one), to cautiously eschew the scheduling of any more specific funeral dirges for this war. One recalls Harry Reid announcing that the war "is lost" and basically calling General Petraeus a liar, alleging that the surge had failed back in mid-April, well before the extra troops had even arrived! Or the ill-timed scheduling of the congressional vote on the Levin/Reed "al-Qaeda Enabling Act of 2007." Or, maybe they're cautioning against holding any more hearings where congressional members openly and personally attack our military leaders, at least for the time being?

It seems unlikely the Democrat leadership will listen. Having arguably spent the entire good will of their political victory last fall, in an unceremonious, undisguised, and ill-advised series of attempts to force a humiliating military defeat on this country, these Democrats are now singularly ill-equipped to find, or even recognize any neutral middle ground.

If this nation and the coalition should succeed in Iraq in spite of them, they lose. And their entire current lineup of Presidential contenders are hopelessly locked into endlessly parroting their nutroot base's Bush-hate rhetoric, so that any attempt by any of them to pull back now will backfire with their legions of primary voters. None of them dare. And who would be the Fred Thompson to those pygmies? There is no Scoop Jackson in that party, let alone a Senator Vandenberg!

Here are a few of the specific developments in Iraq that O’Hanlon and Pollack now acknowledge:

Troop Morale Up:

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

What happened? Wasn't the leftie "plan" to undermine troop morale? The New Republic (TNR) had just launched (subscription needed for full article) their latest salvo with the "Scott Thomas" story in that regard, that is until serious questions began to surface, and it suspiciously turned into what Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post reported was a TNR concession that the story was an inside job. Hack job would be more like it.

O’Hanlon and Pollock also note significant other good news.

Improvements in Security and Providing Basic Services:

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people.

Other things these two liberals point out we are now doing well in Iraq include, holding areas until they are fully secured.

And, they say, we are successfully persuading the Iraqis into helping to fight the right enemies, i.e., al-Qaeda and other Salafists. They will have to patiently explain why this latter one is a positive development to Katie Couric, and the folks over at CBS News, who allege that this is all just Bush propaganda – his "new rationale."

O’Hanlon and Pollock also note that the

coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. (my emphasis added)

And outside of Baghdad, they point out that a new focus on decentralizing power is working surprisingly well, too.

They also note areas of what they believe are shortcomings, especially on the political front with many politicians "of all stripes" resisting reaching accommodations where they are needed. Please read it -- it sounds like a pitch-perfect description of the new Congress.

But in the end, even these two "progressives" conclude that,

there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

Given the nearly completely opposite view, driving a daily drumbeat of harsh criticism from the Democrat party leadership for so long now, isn't it just possible there has been a dogged blindness on the part of the Democrats to any precurser signs of progress all along? Or that there has been a complete lack of respect for balance in reporting the news out of Iraq by this nation's left-leaning mainstream media?

As for the Democrats' staunch supporters in the media -- enablers really -- won't this talk of possible success likely prove very confusing?

Sustainable stability? What is that?

Perhaps we could think about it historically. Let's see . . .

"Sustainable stability" has really meant unabashed victory to several generations, and thus, millions upon millions of Korean people living below the 38th parallel, for over half a century. Hasn't it?

Oh well, somebody call "Okinawa Jack" Murtha, and break the news.

There go the damned Viet-Nam analogies!

(Update: 6:53 pm) Dean Barnett from Hugh Hewitt notes the anticipated reaction from the left -- personal attacks mounted on the two authors of the Op-Ed, with no effort to address what they actually observed. Given that, how likely is it that there should be anything other than personal invective coming from the Democrat leadership?

Dean also links to a Michael Goldfarb piece posted today at the Weekly Standard regarding the piece, and noting the strange behavior of Congresswoman Nancy Boyda (D-KS) during hearings at the end of last week. Boyda sits on the House Armed Services Committee, and on Friday, she actually got up and left the room rather than listen to the testimony of retired General Keane. She later returned to the hearing, only to deliver a rant about how she refused to listen to claims regarding Iraq "that it's a place that I might take the family for a vacation . . ."