July 13, 2009 • Vol. 14, No. 40 Download Now! (pdf)

 

EDITORIAL
On Obama's Watch
by William Kristol

SCRAPBOOK
The 'Argentine Firecracker'

ARTICLES
Questioning Sotomayor
by Robert F. Nagel

Reversing Sotomayor
by Terry Eastland

A Good Niebuhr Policy
by Matthew Continetti

Tehran Needs to Stop Meddling
by Jonathan Schanzer & Howard Gumnitzky

What If Writing Were Like TV?
by P.J. O'Rourke

The Triumph of Crony Capitalism
by Fred Barnes

FEATURES
Bibi's Choice
by Peter Berkowitz

To Board or Not to Board?
by Jeremy Rabkin & Mario Loyola

BOOKS & ARTS
Rebel With a Cause
by John O'Sullivan

Seeing It Now
by Terry Teachout

Additional Splendor
by James Gardner

Touch of Evil
by Stephen F. Hayes

Sacha Kidder
by John Podhoretz

CASUAL
Michael and Me
by Jonathan V. Last

CORRESPONDENCE
Fortune 500, Rousseau & more

PARODY
Mark Sanford's inbox


« 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