McCain's risky strategy
His presidential hopes depend on a perception of "victory" in Iraq. If things turn worse by summer with fewer U.S. troops, will he still argue for more of the same?
By Joe Conason
Salon.com
Feb. 15, 2008 | One year after the first deployments of the American troop escalation in February 2007, proponents of the Iraq war have unanimously proclaimed "the surge" a smashing success. "We are winning," they proclaim on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard and the New York Post (as well as in periodicals not owned by Rupert Murdoch).
Nearly everyone culpable in creating and prolonging this disastrous intervention describes the latest perceived success as a triumph over the forces of disorder and terror -- and none more than Sen. John McCain, whose presidential aspirations may well depend on perception of progress toward "victory."
The impulsive gloating of McCain and his fellow hawks is premature but understandable. Reporters and statistical analysts both believe that local violence has diminished markedly in Iraq since last fall, thanks to the additional troops as well as shifts in U.S. strategy against insurgent forces. Although the number of American casualties per week in 2007 was about the same as in 2006 (and worse than 2005) that number declined toward the end of the year, along with the number of civilian casualties, bombings and death squad killings. The result was to soften opposition to the war among independent and Republican voters -- and to revitalize McCain's candidacy.
Yet as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has noted more than once, those improvements are fragile and may disappear with the "reverse surge" of U.S. troops rotating out without replacements. When he made his last visit to Baghdad two weeks ago, market and roadside bombings intensified, with bloody attacks in towns around the capital and dozens of Iraqis killed. Both American and civilian casualties appeared to be trending slowly upward again in January and February, according to data compiled by Iraq Body Count.
(Continued here.)
By Joe Conason
Salon.com
Feb. 15, 2008 | One year after the first deployments of the American troop escalation in February 2007, proponents of the Iraq war have unanimously proclaimed "the surge" a smashing success. "We are winning," they proclaim on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard and the New York Post (as well as in periodicals not owned by Rupert Murdoch).
Nearly everyone culpable in creating and prolonging this disastrous intervention describes the latest perceived success as a triumph over the forces of disorder and terror -- and none more than Sen. John McCain, whose presidential aspirations may well depend on perception of progress toward "victory."
The impulsive gloating of McCain and his fellow hawks is premature but understandable. Reporters and statistical analysts both believe that local violence has diminished markedly in Iraq since last fall, thanks to the additional troops as well as shifts in U.S. strategy against insurgent forces. Although the number of American casualties per week in 2007 was about the same as in 2006 (and worse than 2005) that number declined toward the end of the year, along with the number of civilian casualties, bombings and death squad killings. The result was to soften opposition to the war among independent and Republican voters -- and to revitalize McCain's candidacy.
Yet as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has noted more than once, those improvements are fragile and may disappear with the "reverse surge" of U.S. troops rotating out without replacements. When he made his last visit to Baghdad two weeks ago, market and roadside bombings intensified, with bloody attacks in towns around the capital and dozens of Iraqis killed. Both American and civilian casualties appeared to be trending slowly upward again in January and February, according to data compiled by Iraq Body Count.
(Continued here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home