December 8, 2008 • Vol. 14, No. 12 Download Now! (pdf)

 

EDITORIAL
Before He Goes
by William Kristol

SCRAPBOOK
Sally Quinn, Media Bias, etc.

ARTICLES
Obama's Good Students
by Joseph Epstein

To the Shores of Tripoli . . .
by Seth Cropsey

The Obama Jolt
by Fred Barnes

Wrinklies at Work
by Irwin M. Stelzer

The Marriage Juggernaut
by Kevin Vance

Remember the Holodomor
by Cathy Young

FEATURES
Columbia University, Slumlord
by Jonathan V. Last

BOOKS & ARTS
Friendly Persuasion
by Claudia Anderson

America's Teams
by Max Boot

Does She, or . . . ?
by Pia Catton

Over There
by Andrew Nagorski

Pigs Without Blankets
by Terry Eastland

Tania Unleashed
by Peter Collier

It's Killing Time
by James Grant

Biomorality
by Steven Lenzner

Vulture Culture
by Judy Bachrach

Tin Lizzie Tales
by Richard Striner

Taken on Faith
by Joseph Loconte

Tunnel Revision
by Stephen Schwartz

Just One More
by Charlotte Hays

CASUAL
Fried Bread Lines
by Christopher Caldwell

PARODY
Tax tips from Charlie


« Memo to Obama Speechwriters | Main

McCain Defends Statement on the Surge and Anbar Awakening

Marc Ambinder reports that John McCain was asked by a reporter about the kerfuffle surrounding his comments on the surge and the Anbar Awakening:

“First of all, a surge is really a counter-insurgency strategy," McCain said. [...]

Colonel McFarland, in Anbar province, McCain said, "had already initiated that strategy in Ramadi by going in and clearing and holding in certain places. That is a counter-insurgency. And he told me at that time that he believed that that strategy, which is quote the surge, part of the surge, would be, would be, successful. So then, of course, it was very clear that we needed additional troops in order to carry out this insurgency. Prior to that -- counter insurgency. Prior to that they had been going into places, killing people or not killing people, and then withdrawing. And the new counter-insurgency, the surge, entailed going in and clearing and holding, which Colonel McFarland had already started doing. And then of course, later on, there were additional troops, and General Petraeus said that the surge would not have worked, and the Anbar Awakening would not have taken place, successfully, if they hadn’t had an increase in the number of troops."

"So I’m not sure frankly that people really understand that a surge is part of counter-insurgency strategy which means going in, clearing, holding, building a better life, providing services to the people. And then clearly a part of that, an important part of it, was additional troops to help insure the safety of the sheiks, to gain control of Ramadi, which was a very bloody fight, and then the surge would continue to succeed as a counter-insurgency.’’

Ambinder makes an important observation: "Most of us equate the surge with troop levels, but for McCain, it has always been about a strategy; to executive the strategy, more troops were needed."

That's exactly right. Here's how McCain described the proposed change in strategy on January 5, 2007--five days before the "surge" was ordered by President Bush:

The mission of these reinforcements would be to implement the thus-elusive hold element of the military's clear, hold, build strategy, to maintain security in cleared areas to protect the population and critical infrastructure, and to impose the government's authority: essential elements of a traditional counterinsurgency strategy.

We are talking about the fundamental elements of counterinsurgency strategy here.

Email the article McCain Defends Statement on the Surge and Anbar Awakening to a friend:

Send this article to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


 
Contributors
Editor (on leave):
Michael Goldfarb

Deputy Editors:
John McCormack
Samantha Sault

Contributors:
Dean Barnett
Jennifer Chou
Brian Faughnan
Ulf Gartzke
Reuben F. Johnson
Thomas Joscelyn
Stuart Koehl
John Noonan
Bill Roggio
Jaime Sneider
Search
Archives
Contact
wws@weeklystandard.com
Categories
Feeds: Atom | RSS
[What is this?]
Powered by
Movable Type 3.2