November 30, 2009 • Vol. 15, No. 11 Download Now! (pdf)

 

EDITORIAL
No Substitute for Victory
by William Kristol and Frederick W. Kagan

SCRAPBOOK
Media on Palin: 'War of the Worlds, II'

ARTICLES
Obamanomics 101
by Fred Barnes

Eric Holder's Horrible Hearing
by Mary Katharine Ham

Malign Neglect
by Stephen F. Hayes

Obama Blunders Through Asia
by Ross Terrill

German-Iranian Relations
by Benjamin Weinthal

Time for a Dose of Protectionism?
by Irwin M. Stelzer

Going Backwards in Beirut
by Peter Berkowitz

FEATURES
The Adventures of Low Impact Man
by Matt Labash

BOOKS & ARTS
Man with a Horn
by Ted Gioia

Prophet Disarmed
by Arch Puddington

Europe's Temblor
by Lawrence Klepp

The Yenta
by Joseph Epstein

Plus-Size Pathology
by John Podhoretz

CASUAL
The Turkey Vanishes
by Claudia Anderson

PARODY
Obama Chooses a Turkey to Pardon


« 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