How Does McCain Define Success in Iraq?
Before his speech was interrupted by a special report about explosions in the Green Zone, John McCain stated with certainty that we were “closer to success in Iraq”. What does that mean?
Is it the surrender of oil-rich Basra? If so, there’s a real problem, because that situation is clearly out of control.
How is today’s ‘success’ different from Petraeus’ view in 2004, when he assured everyone (less than 2 months before Bush’s re-election) that there was “tangible progress?” Hey, putting a penny in my savings jar is tangible progress too, but it hardly qualifies as a reason to go out and buy a million dollar house. Or in Petraeus’ case, a 3 TRILLION dollar house.
Does success mean maintaining troop levels in Iraq at all-time highs with no expectation for them to return to 2006 levels?
Does success mean a 100-year commitment to Iraq instead of oh, a 200-year commitment? Or perhaps, the imperialistic and secret plan to have no time limit at all?
If the surge is such a success, why aren’t we bringing our soldiers home?
In the words of Barack Obama,
“It’s a failure of leadership to support an open-ended occupation of Iraq that has failed to press Iraq’s leaders to reconcile, badly overstretched our military, put a strain on our military families, set back our ability to lead the world, and made the American people less safe,”