The War: A Winning Issue???
Conservatives who like John McCain keep telling me that his strong pro-war stance is going to be what carries us through this election.
Meanwhile, 77 people were killed in two coordinated suicide bombings in Baghdad.
The point is not that such attacks demonstrate that we aren’t winning. Things are better in Iraq than they were a year ago.
But I don’t think it has turned into a winning issue for the GOP, and events like this serve as a reminder of why the public hates the war.
UPDATE: Okie on the Lam says that this shows that Al Qaeda is getting desperate, and that the L.A. Times is simply trying to make it seem like the war is getting worse.
This may be true. But in this post, I’m talking about the perceptions of the average voter. And the average voter will see any such violence in Iraq — regardless of the particular circumstances — as just another reminder of why they want us out.
If you are right, the public needs to grow up and realize what kind of war we are in.
Post-surge Iraq is a winning issue for conservatives. I hate that murders like this happen anywhere but, every time I hear these reports, I can’t help but think of how it could have happened in the US … and it will happen if we don’t take the fight to the terrorists.
I know it’s the conventional wisdom to treat statements like mine as naive or worse. So be it. Austin Bay is right. At this point, the only thing that will cause us to lose in Iraq is if Americans surrender.
DRJ (517d26) — 2/2/2008 @ 12:35 pmPatterico,
It is not so much his pro-war stance rather than confidence in his ability to use troops effectively in any engagement AND not be overly reluctant to use military force if merited.
Iraq by itself is not a winning issue I agree.
I’m just surprised you’ve met a “conservative” who likes McCain – to hear the blogosphere tell it they are all sitting this one out if he gets the nomination 😉
voiceofreason2 (3e3f21) — 2/2/2008 @ 12:37 pmAllow me to clarify what your unnamed McCain supporters might be getting at. The war itself is unpopular, as is the decision to go to war, and ANY Republican nominee will have to deal with it.
However, McCain will be able to deflect criticism of the conduct of the war because, alone among the Republican candidates who ran in ’08 his criticism was more than Monday Morning Quarterbacking. He criticized Rumsfeld’s “light footprint” strategy back in ’03. Did Romney? I’ll give the Romulans an opportunity to correct me, but I’m pretty sure he didn’t until much more recently. Also, McCain can also address the issue of who is best equipped to handle Iraq going forward, as evidenced by the success of the surge. Yes, the Surge hasn’t ended violence, nor will it by election day, but the situation has clearly improved, and McCain alone among the Republican candidates can take a large measure of credit for it (he not only supported the strategy, like the other Rep candidates, he helped bring the strategy about and he staked his entire political campaign on it). This will be especially true if the Dems nominate Hillary, who also voted for the war.
Sean P (0fbd33) — 2/2/2008 @ 12:39 pmSean P, if you think that McCain can take credit for the surge, perhaps you need to change from Koolaid to Starbucks. The surge, it’s tactics, and it’s entire success, belongs to one man, and one man only, General Patraeus. Once Patraeus designed the surge, sure McCain was on board. But you have to ask, what exactly did McCain have to do with the implementation of the surge or the tactis involved. I can tell you in the word of one of McCain’s favored people; NADA.
What no one wants to accept, and what no politican has the guts to say, is that this is a war long time coming and it will be a long time leaving. The mindset behind the terrorists has been lingering since 1683, when they started their “religious” goal to retake the part of the western hemisphere they lost beginning at the gates of Vienna.
Prior to our entry into Iraq, Joe Biden did a paper saying that this war would last at least ten years. This will not be over until Islam becomes more modern, enters the 21st century and decides that the words of Mohammed are not to be taken literally.
A recent plot to blow up the subways in Spain was recently thwarted. There were 14 arrests, and Interpol is looking for the other three. Now why, when Spain clearly showed that it was not willing to fight the terrorists as they gathered in Iraq, would the terrorists want to harm Spain once again? I mean, didn’t Spain give them what they wanted?
They will never be sated. The demands (we leave Muslims soils) will only become some other demand. The only answer is to kill all of them, and how long do you think that will take?
Americans are tired of the war. Those who support McCain seem to think that he can conduct such strageties as to win quickly. That is not only false, it is fool hearty. Not McCain, nor anyone else, can finally end all the goals of those who want to relieve the glory that was once the Islamic hoards.
You say that McCain can use forces effectively. What happens when that legendary temper gets out of hand and then we find ourselves fighting Iran?
McCain will do what McCain always does; he will tell the voters “f— you” when the conservative base tries to hold his feet to the fire over conservative values. His “my way or the highway” attitude is not going to majically evaporate once he is sworn in.
retire05 (0a1524) — 2/2/2008 @ 1:40 pm#4, First of all wasn’t the surge once referred to as “The McCain Doctrine”? Second, are you going to deny that McCain publicly advocated and fought for a change in tactics that included an abondonment of Rumsfeld’s “light footprint” approach?
Your reference to the subway bombing in Spain makes no sense. I have never argued surrender works as a strategy. I HAVE argued that placating the Mullas in Iran will only bring about more loss of lif in the long run, so it is interesting that you try to paint me (& McCain) as soft on terror and a warmonger at the same time.
Sean P (db7ffb) — 2/2/2008 @ 2:01 pmAfter reading this Fred Barnes’ article, I think credit for the surge belongs to President Bush.
DRJ (517d26) — 2/2/2008 @ 2:04 pmFor one to believe the POTUS designs war strategy they as well would be able to suggest the joint chiefs of staff for the armed forces could be removed.
Even if one, like McCain, has served, it’s about the same as I used to set up networks. But I could not do them at the level I used to be able to.
As a nation we have become an “instant gratification” society. We can not comprehend 10 years of war or even having troops involved in one. Though Korea continues to be supported by US troops stationed there. We have bases in Germany as well. The nation has grown weary of the war, place a big chunk of that feeling on the backs of the MSM, they only show the problems and not the pluses often enough.
Complicating matters is the “feeling” society has about how wars are fought and WON! You do not win by occupying, you will by total domination! Genghis Kahn hit the same area with a vengeance and there was peace for 1000 years following!
I don’t see a pro war stance as a positive thing. Firm resolve, yes, but gung ho Rambo, no.
TC (1cf350) — 2/2/2008 @ 2:21 pm#5, the McCain Doctrine was first coined by John Edwards, NOT John McCain. General Petraeus wrote the book on how to handle the insurgency. That is where the surge came from, not John McCain who jumped on board after Petreaus presented it. But never to let any opportunity slip through his fingers, McCain now claims credit for backing something he only advocated, not planned and executed.
To explain what seems to elude you, my reference to Spain was to show that no matter the actions we may take, this will be a long, long war and that it will have nothing to do with our foreign policy which McCain is trying to convince the nation that he is best suited to handle. It will have to do with continuing to kill the Islamofascists until every last one of them are dead.
I paint you as nothing. Except maybe a little slow on the ferreting out the facts about McCain. Thinking that there was such a thing as an official McCain Doctrine and not knowing that it was really a talking point of John Edwards proves you to be slightly uninformed.
retire05 (0a1524) — 2/2/2008 @ 3:38 pmFor how many years were our troops regularly in harms way during the Korean War and WWII.? Oh well, so much for that brilliant comparison. When matters last as long as they have, we’re not in a war, we’re in an unsuccessful occupation.
Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9) — 2/4/2008 @ 11:00 am