Message:
...of McCain's editorial, but here it is, cut and pasted:
In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq,
he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months
later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four
years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of
defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work
remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops
and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge
at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack
Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000
additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence
there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the
reverse."
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have
performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still
denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently
certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but
three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure
security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has
been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000
Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government,
have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do
they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to
crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that
have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination
to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his
rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he
offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding”
trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the
same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In
2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we
had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw
because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if
Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he
has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of
U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.
Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness.
The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next
year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they
will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of
help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern
army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning
how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control,
communications, and other complicated functions needed to support
frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A
partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five
“surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security
situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our
presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of
leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome
home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in
office, in 2013.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic
assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable
crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my
disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the
ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing
his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear
what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I
have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey
Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that
leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could
stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few
troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from
recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst
mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission
Accomplished” banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of
ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph
for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I
will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue
implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but
also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure,
self-sustaining democratic allies.
|
