What to make of John McCain’s unequivocal embrace of Bush’s plan? On Monday I wrote,
Here’s something to watch for: will McCain, Bill Kristol, Gen. Keane and Fred Kagan go along with the President if what we are hearing is correct — that Bush will propose a “surge” of approximately 20,000 troops rather than the 30,000-plus, over at least 18 months, they wanted? Or will they declare Bush’s plan a half-measure and walk away?
As Ana noted, McCain’s explicitly stated position was that “the worst of all worlds would be a small, short surge of U.S. forces.” Isn’t that what the President announced last night? And if so, how come McCain was on Fox News declaring Bush’s proposal the right thing to do?
Two reasons, I’m told. First, McCain believes the numbers matter less than the change in strategy. He and other surge supporters have been assured that five more brigades will deploy in Baghdad. That, they believe, will give Gen. Petraeus enough troops to create the key 50/1, citizens/soldier ratio necessary to pacify, and hold, the neighborhoods where they deploy. Petraeus is the new ground commander and the author, literally, of the Army’s book on fighting an insurgency. McCain likes him — a lot — and has faith that Petraeus knows what he needs to pacify Baghdad. Second, while Bush said last night that the U.S. commitment to Iraq is not “open-ended”, he did not give any timetables. Again, McCain and other supporters of a sustained surge are taking it on faith that the 21,500 increase will endure for at least a year.
In the end, says a McCain adviser, the plan may fail. “It’s late in the day. It may not work. But if we withdraw now, there will be a bloodbath akin to Cambodia. We have one more shot — one chance to do something different. And this is different. It’s worth trying.”
Asked whether taking such an unpopular stand on Iraq will hurt his presidential chances, McCain told Wolf Blitzer last night: “I’d much rather lose a campaign than lose a war.”
If the new strategy fails, he’ll likely lose both.
