McCain paints himself into Iraq corner
Iraq is likely to be the number one issue in the upcoming primary debates and, it seems, in the general election. Of all the candidates, John McCain may be in the most difficult rhetorical position with regard to Iraq.
He painted himself into this corner at the November 16, 2006 GOPAC dinner with these remarks:
As troubling as it is, I can ask a young Marine to go back to Iraq. And he will go, not happily perhaps, but he will go because he and his comrades are the first patriots among us, and he will fight his hardest there for his country to prevail. Of that, I have no doubt. But I can only ask him if I share his commitment to victory.
"What I cannot do is ask him to return to Iraq, to risk life and limb, so that we might delay our defeat for a few months or a year. That is more to ask than patriotism requires. It would not be in the interest of the country, and it surely would be an intolerable sacrifice for so poor an accomplishment. It would be immoral, and I could not do it.
: John McCain, Iraq
At the time, just after the Democratic mid-term victories and just before the Iraq Study Group report, McCain seemed to have made a great political move: he argued for a troop increase. The troop increase probably would not come. So McCain could "have it both ways," arguing against a withdrawal because he was for a build up. He could distance himself from the Bush administration that had long resisted escalation while also distancing himself from the Democratic doves he would face should he win the primary.
Then Bush called his bluff. January 10, 2007, Bush's "New Way Forward" called for 20,000 more U.S. troops in Iraq. Oops.
With the ball now in the Senate's court, McCain is then put in the position of having to defend Bush's plan. At first he does. Or does he?
The Washington Post pokes at the difficulty of McCain's position:
McCain has long tried to balance his advocacy for the mission in Iraq with his criticism of the administration, always putting some distance between himself and the White House. He did the same in the days before Bush's prime-time speech Wednesday night. "There are two keys to any surge of U.S. troops," he said at a forum at the American Enterprise Institute. "To be of value, the surge must be substantial and it must be sustained."
Does the new policy meet those tests? McCain offers an equivocal answer. He said he has been assured by Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the president's choice to take over command in Iraq, that 20,000 additional troops should be enough, but that if they are not, Petraeus can ask Bush for more.
"He tells me, 'I think I can do it with this number,' " McCain said. "So I'm supposed to be a Monday-morning quarterback? I'm not going over there and command. I'm only sitting here trying to figure out the best way we can win this conflict."
His advisers dismiss suggestions that McCain has shrewdly left himself room to argue that Bush's plan for more troops was not substantial or sustained enough to ensure success. They, like the possible candidate, see the perils of his position -- but potential benefits as well.
"At the core of the issue is who he is, and that's what generates his popularity," said Rick Davis, one of McCain's top political advisers. "It's that he puts principle ahead of politics, that he tells it like he sees it regardless of the political ramifications."
It's this last paragraph's faith in the endurance of the media narrative of McCain as the "straight talker" that will be put to the test.
In October 2006 McCain said the needed number of new troops was 20,000.
McCain is no longer able to say the "surge" is not big enough. And if he were to make that argument, his own logic and words would compel him to argue for withdrawal.
Odds are that this spring, when the first debates are being held, we'll still be muddling along in Iraq. If so, debate questioners can make life miserable for McCain.
