CITIZEN McCAIN

The November election looks more and more as if it is going to be a reprise of 1996. The more John McCain tries to campaign, the more his campaign resembles the ill-fated attempt of Senator Bob Dole to oust Bill Clinton from the White House. Yesterday was no exception. When Matt Lauer, one of the hosts of NBC's Today show, asked Mr. McCain for his take on the surge and whether the results so far had made it easier to predict when troops might begin returning home. Mr. McCain responded, "No, but that's not too important." What is important, then, Mr. McCain?

Ever since he pushed President Bush to increase temporarily the number of American forces in Iraq, Senator McCain has consistently obfuscated the purpose for the escalation in the number of boots on the ground and support personnel in the rear. When sold to the American public, Mr. Bush claimed that it (the surge) was designed to reduce the then raging civil war in Iraq so that the Iraqi regime might have time to organize itself and pass key legislation in order to begin the process of reconciliation among Shia, Sunni and Kurd, the principal groups in Iraq.

Clear benchmarks were laid out then. And, hardly any of these have been met. Yet, Mr. McCain claims the surge is working. Is it?

True, there has been a decline in the number of American casualties and one can imagine an equally steep decline in the total number of injured or deceased Iraqi civilians. But, a decline was bound to occur at some point since the ethnic cleansing in Baghdad had pretty much run its course. And, protective walls had been and continue to be erected in order to isolate ethnically cleansed neighborhoods.

In addition, the "success" in Anbar Province has little to do with the surge. Rather, it is the direct result of Sunni fatigue with Al Queda insurgents and the willingness of American commanders on the ground to arm Sunni factions in order to fight Al Queda in Iraq. To date, however, the American government has not yet successfully persuaded the Shia led government in Baghdad to accept these citizen-soldiers as a constituent element of an emergent Iraqi army. Could it be that the Americans have merely provided weapons to the Sunni citizen-soldiers, guns that will be turned on the Iraqi government if no agreement is forthcoming?

All the elements of a civil war remain in place. The Mahdi Army remains outside effective government control. The Iraqi Army itself is riven with sectarianism. Despite the many years of training, the Iraqi Army seems incapable of standing up in order to allow American troops to stand down. And, now the Americans have armed the Sunni in Anbar. Let the conflagration begin! Success, then, is in the eye of the beholder. And as escalations go, this surge seems only a qualified success if you ignore the benchmarks once advocated by the Bushidos.

Yet, none of these important caveats accompanying a "successful" surge seems to matter to Mr. McCain. For him, the surge's most important goal was to reduce American casualties in Iraq. Stand down or complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq has never been the goal since McCain would like to make Iraq just as safe a place for Americans to occupy as Germany and Korea have been. To be sure, maybe some troops could come home. But, for the forseeable future, perhaps even extending outward 100 years, Mr. McCain envisions some contingent of American forces remaining in Iraq. And, if Germany and Korea are any guides, a substantial number of troops will be needed as long as the war on terror blows hot.

Yet, poll after poll taken in Iraq has consistently shown that the Iraqi people do not wish the American troops to remain. And, even if one doubts the validity of an opinion poll conducted during a war, there are those voices in Iraq who have consistently called for the U.S. to leave, whether it be the head of the Mahdi Army, Sadr, or any number of Sunni leaders. Nor, for that matter, does it seem as if Iraqis - apart perhaps from the Kurdish population in the North - are willing to contemplate the provision of permanent military bases in Iraq, an objective that some in the Pentagon have long harbored. Even the status of forces agreement that the Bush administration is trying to sew up before year's end has met with resistance from the Iraqi government. In short, McCain's vision is but a desert mirage, one the American voter ought to reject vehemently.

What's worse is that McCain shows almost complete disregard for regular American troops and National Guard soldiers who have returned to Iraq or Afghanistan for their fifth, sixth, or even seventh tours of duty. How long can Mr. McCain expect such pressure to be maintained on the American military? For McCain, as long as the troops aren't being killed, maimed or wounded, there apparently is no problem. Really? The suicide rate among military personnel would seem to suggest otherwise. Then, maybe they are just bad seeds who couldn't cut it in the military. What we really need to do is to retain those courageous troops who don't succumb to post traumatic stress disorder and aren't tempted by suicide. Hold on to them by all means, Mr. McCain. Perhaps that's why you don't want to support the new GI Bill since American troops will have to stay indefinitely in Iraq. And what soldier would want to keep going back to Iraq if he or she had a chance at improving their lives through a new and improved program of GI benefits and avoiding IEDs and suicide attacks?

Illusion, mirage, delusion, it's all the same. You assumed that American troops would be greeted as liberators. You touted your Sunday stroll through a marketplace in Baghdad as evidence that the situation on the ground had improved. Yet, you casually forgot the protective vest you wore and the troopers, snipers and helicopters that made your armed escort possible. And, then you have the audacity to hope that Mr. Obama would come to his senses about Iraq if only he would visit there too! Good grief, Citizen McCain. You really don't get it, do you?

It's almost laughable that Citizen McCain keeps confusing the Shia with the Sunni, blaming Iran for arming the Al Queda in Iraq, and believing that Al Queda made us do it (invade Iraq). Indeed, it would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that Mr. McCain has learned nothing from his Vietnam War experience. Yes, he heroically held out in capitivity in northern Vietnam and refused early release out of solidarity towards his fellow POWs. But, he steadfastly has clung to the illusion that the Vietnam War was winnable.

Even if the Vietnam War might once have been winnable - however defined - it clearly was not winnable after the Tet Offensive. The American media saw through the lies fed to us by the Johnson Administration and its Pentagon spokesmen. And, the American public grew more and more disillusioned. Though the Viet Cong were pushed back from major cities such as Da Nang and Hue, their "incursion" revealed the fragile hold that the South Vietnamese and the U.S. Army held on major portions of South Vietnam. Those brave soldiers who resisted onslaught after onslaught at Khe Sanh could not hold that bit of real estate forever. Nor could a "country" ostensibly governed by the nominal, but thoroughly corrupt South Vietnamese government be expected to remain under non-communist control, and certainly not by the revolving door of military henchmen who never managed to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese. Not even incidents such as the massacre of civilians at My Lai or the eventual deaths of over 50,000 American soldiers alter the reality on the ground either. Thus, it came as no surprise that, when asked to stand up, the South Vietnamese Army and government collapsed instead.

Citizen McCain, do you really see yourself in the role of Nixon, the president who escalated the Vietnam War for six pointless years and expanded it to embrace Kampuchea, only to see the fall of Saigon and the rise of the Khmer Rouge? Is that what you wish to play: Nixon to Bush's Johnson? How silly of you!

Of course, like the Johnson Administration and the sycophants who clung to it, George W. Bush, too, failed to learn any lessons from the Vietnam War. But, then, he and his fellow chicken hawks could be "excused" for having no direct experience with the war. Through deferments or cushy National Guard positions, they were kept out of harm's way and allowed to maintain their delusions. But, Senator Chuck Hagel wasn't, and he has consistently drawn the correct lessons from the Vietnam War debacle. It's no wonder he has been adamantly opposed to Bush's folly in Iraq. Maybe you should talk to Senator Hagel about Vietnam or about Iraq. You might just learn something.

Citizen McCain, it is encouraging to know that you have distinctive views about America's role in Iraq. Like you, I never believed there were enough troops in the theatre to secure a victory, and I was equally appalled at the atrocious strategy employed by the Bushidos after the capture of Baghdad. Unlike you, however, I never believed this war would be a cakewalk. Nor did I buy in to all of the lies, manipulations, exaggerations, and misinterpretations that the Bushidos constantly foisted on the American people. It is simply not acceptable that you promise to more efficiently prosecute a war that ought never to have been waged in the first place and whose continued prosecution merely weakens the United States and gives courage to terrorists everywhere.

Citizen McCain, it is rewarding to know that family members are willing to serve in that theatre. At least, you are not a bloody hypocrite. However, that still cannot excuse your complete lack of understanding of Iraq's history, its problematic relationships among Kurd, Sunni and Shia, or its unwillingness to host for an extended period of time American troops without subjecting them to IEDs or suicide attacks. And the fact that you have family members serving in Iraq doesn't give you any special claim to speak as the voice of wisdom. Senator Jim Webb has kin there too. And, unlike you, he is opposed to this war. You, on the other hand, you just don't get it.

It is a sad reflection of the abysmal state to which the Republican party has sunk to see how quickly the Republican party has rallied around your candidacy. Oh yes, there are a few nutjobs on the right and Christian capitalists who doubt your street cred. But rally they have. Do they suffer under the self-same delusion that plagues you with respect to Iraq? Why is it that so many Republicans fail to understand the nature of this war and the absolute disaster that the Bushidos have foist upon us. Is it because they are so bound to war contractors that they can't see beyond permanent war? Is it because they have so little understanding of other countries that they can't imagine any foreigner ever having a legitimate gripe against U.S. foreign policy? Is it because their ideology has so miserably failed them that they confuse Fox News with reality?

Let's hope that you, your party and your party's candidates get what they deserve: an overwhelming defeat in November. Your message and what your party has to offer have long been at odds with what America truly needs. Now, they merely serve to prolong everyone's agony - whether it's soldiers in Iraq, homeowners faced with foreclosure, stockholders losing out to corporate greed, or children treated as mindless test-takers. Good riddance and may you and your party experience the agony of defeat a thousand times over.