Context context context

[khaosworks]

June 12, 2008
Democrats Criticize McCain on Strategy in Iraq
By KATE ZERNIKE

PHILADELPHIA — The presidential campaigns clashed Wednesday over strategy in Iraq as advisers to Senator Barack Obama seized on remarks by Senator John McCain to accuse him of being insensitive to the sacrifices being made by American soldiers.

In an interview on the NBC “Today” show, Mr. McCain was asked whether, if the troop escalation he had long advocated in Iraq was working, he had “a better estimate of when American forces can come home.”

“No, but that’s not too important,” Mr. McCain replied. He then went on to say, as he has many times, that the most important goal is reducing casualties in Iraq, and that American troops were still in South Korea, Japan and Germany without any fear of harm.

“We will be able to withdraw,” he said. “But the key to it is that we don’t want any more Americans in harm’s way.”

Democrats leapt to criticize Mr. McCain for playing down the strains of the war. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, issued a statement calling Mr. McCain’s remark “a crystal clear indicator that he just doesn’t get the grave national security consequences of staying the course. Osama bin Laden is freely plotting attacks, our efforts in Afghanistan are undermanned, and our military readiness has been dangerously diminished.”

The Obama campaign jumped in with a conference call for reporters, with Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic Party’s nominee in 2004, and two Obama foreign policy advisers.

“It is unbelievably out of touch with the needs and concerns of Americans, particularly of the families of the troops that are over there,” Mr. Kerry said. “To them it is the most important thing in the world.”

Mr. Kerry, who considered having Mr. McCain as his vice-presidential nominee in 2004, said that military officials had said that they could not sustain the troop levels in Iraq and that the demands of that war had left the United States unable to react to other crises or meet the needs of the war in Afghanistan.

The Obama advisers argued that Mr. McCain has several times seemed “confused” about the situation in Iraq, noting that he has confused Sunnis for Shiites and incorrectly identified whom Iran was supporting.

“On critical, factual questions that are fundamental to understanding what is going on in Iraq and the region, Senator McCain has gotten it wrong and not just once but repeatedly,” said Susan Rice, a former assistant secretary of state.

Shortly after, Mr. McCain, at a town-hall-style meeting with about 500 people at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, took pains to acknowledge the sacrifices the war has demanded.

“Nothing is more precious than Americans, and I know that it has caused great heartache and pain,” he said, “but I also want to tell you that I believe in the conflict in Iraq with this new strategy, we are succeeding.

“Every American is precious, every casualty is someone that pains and grieves us, no one more than a veteran,” said Mr. McCain, who spent five years as a prisoner of war during Vietnam. “But the consequences of failure would be chaos and genocide in the region.”

Reflecting the rapid-response nature of the race, the McCain campaign then arranged a conference call of its own to defend and explain his comments.

“The obvious fact is that more than most any American, Senator McCain knows the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform make and the burden that their families bear and it really is wrong to suggest otherwise,” Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut said in the call. Mr. Lieberman, a former Democrat, was re-elected in 2006 as an independent after being defeated in the Democratic primary largely because of his support for the war.

The war had receded somewhat as an issue in the campaign as the economy and record gas prices had dominated the discussion. But it is the issue that most starkly divides the candidates. Mr. McCain has been a long supporter of the war — though he criticized the Bush administration for the first four years of the war for not providing enough troops; he has argued that the increase in troops last year has helped to reduce casualties and move Iraq toward stability. Mr. Obama was not in the Senate when the war began but was outspoken in his opposition to it early on.

You can see the video where McCain describes when the troops come home as "not too important" here.

But as I've always said, it's all about context. What's the actual exchange?

TODAY: If it's working, Senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?

MCCAIN: No, but that's not too important. What's important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea, Americans are in Japan, American troops are in Germany — that's all fine. American casualties and the ability to withdraw... we will be able to withdraw. General Petraeus is going to tell us in July when he thinks we are. But the key to is that we don't want any more Americans in harm's way. And that way they will be safe, and serve our country, and come home with honor, and victory. Not in defeat, which is what Senator Obama's proposal would have done.

Right now what he's saying is actually correct: it's not so much the fact that Americans are in Iraq that's the real problem... after all, as he points out, American troops are all over the world. It's that they are dying.

The very presence of American troops in Iraq is a problem, though, in terms of resources, in terms of military necessity, in terms of wastage, but at the end of the day, the human response wouldn't be as strong if they were not in danger. So he's right. It's not as important. What might be a bit off his his insistence on withdrawal with honor... which may lead to those casualties he says he's trying to avoid.

I'm no fan of the Republicans, as is obvious, but I don't think it's really fair to jump on McCain in this particular instance: there've been greater misstatements and more egregious positions he's taken. The new G.I. Bill, for instance...

Comments

[etherial.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure the Democrats are lost on the context. America's armed forces are stretched very thin and there is evidence that our mere presence in Iraq is contributing to its instability. Withdrawing from Iraq is different from withdrawing from Germany. It's more like withdrawing from Vietnam, which, you know, we did.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

And I've found it a good general rule that when a politician of whatever party says something "isn't too important," that means it is in fact vitally important.

As for it being fair or not to jump on him, well, he put himself out there, and his supporters have been and will be jumping on Obama for as little or even less.

"Nothing is more precious than Americans"?

[madfilkentist]

I'm as suspicious of the news article as of the Democratic politicians. Were they really focusing on the "It's not too important" line out of context, or were there quotes positioned in a way to suggest that they were? I really can't tell from the article.

[devinsong.livejournal.com]

I would say that it's not *only* important that American troops are dying. All the other people dying (like Iraqi civilians) are pretty important too. Though it's very hard to say whether leaving now would just dump them back into civil war.

There are no certain solutions.

I've got a friend over there right now (on about his sixth middle east deployment) who is much on my mind.