It is hard to remember now, but 18 months ago Iraq was being torn apart by sectarian violence and America stood poised on the brink of what could have been the worst military defeat in our history.
That was a critical moment — a real-life test of a potential commander in chief’s judgment.
John McCain passed with flying colors. He resisted the conventional wisdom in Washington, which called for an “exit strategy.” He risked his political career to support sending more troops — something he has been advocating since 2003. We now know that “the surge,” which included the adoption of a classic counterinsurgency strategy focused on pacifying neighborhoods, has been a resounding success. Violence has fallen by more than 80 percent and U.S. casualties are at the lowest levels ever.
Barack Obama flunked the commander-in-chief test. He introduced legislation calling for all combat troops to be pulled out of Iraq by March 2008, he voted against funding our troops, and he predicted that the surge would make things worse, not better.
If we had taken his advice, U.S. troops would have had to retreat under fire, Iraq would have turned into a failed state, and terrorists backed by al-Qaeda and Iran would have scored a humiliating victory over the “Great Satan.”
Even now Obama says that if he had to do it all over again he would still oppose the surge, showing that he’s learned nothing over the past 18 months.
The dramatic turnaround in Iraq hasn’t shaken Obama’s faith in his 16-month timetable for retreat. The only thing that’s changed is his rationale. He used to say we had to leave because we couldn’t win. Now he says we must leave because we can’t lose. But, as Gen. David Petraeus has warned, the gains we’ve made are “fragile and reversible.” Obama admits that Petraeus warned him, during his recent visit to Iraq, against a strict date-driven timetable, but, even though he lacks any military experience of his own, the Democratic nominee is disregarding the best advice of commanders on the ground.
In support of his timetable-based approach, Obama cites some ambiguous statements by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki indicating that he would like to see U.S. combat troops withdraw by the end of 2010. But the prime minister’s spokesman has made clear that he rejects any rigid timeline, and that withdrawals must occur only if conditions on the ground warrant.
That is the essence of John McCain’s position. He has said that he would like most troops home by the end of his first term in office in 2013, and he has supported the recent return of the five “surge” brigades, totaling more than 20,000 troops. But he has also said that any further draw-downs should occur only when Iraqi forces are ready to fill the gap.
At the moment, although they have made great progress, the Iraqi security forces remain heavily dependant on U.S. support, especially for logistics, air cover, reconnaissance, and other important functions. If you withdrew our support infrastructure prematurely, as Obama threatens to do, terrorists could stage a comeback.
Bizarrely enough, even while opposing the surge in Iraq, Obama has supported a surge in Afghanistan, where the security situation has deteriorated. McCain has presented his own surge plan for Afghanistan, which is more wide-ranging than Obama’s — McCain wants to increase not only U.S. forces but also Afghan forces and to make other badly needed adjustments.
Beyond the specifics of their plans, there is the crucial matter of judgment and credibility. Ask yourself who is better qualified to turn around the war effort in Afghanistan: a candidate with a lifetime of military experience whose judgment has been vindicated in Iraq; or a candidate with scant background in foreign or national security affairs who has advocated a disastrous course in Iraq — and still does?
Gen. P.X. Kelley was the 28th Commandant of the Marine Corps and endorses John McCain for president.
