by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright November 10, 2005
All Rights Reserved.

howing the same common sense as California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, expected presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) urged the White House to beef up troop strength in Iraq. Schwarzenegger, who advocated several right wing ballot measures in a costly special election, lost everything, damaging his credibility and his political future. McCain, who appeared in several losing TV ads for Arnold and the GOP, spoke to the conservative, Washington think tank the American Enterprise Institute, advocating dramatic increases in U.S. forces. It's not rocket science to figure out that Bush's approval ratings plunging under 40% are related to growing public disgust with Iraq. Costing more than $4 billion a month and over 2,060 U.S. lives since the war began March 20, 2003, few Americans want to see more carnage and waste more tax dollars.

      Countering Democrat calls for an exit strategy and troop reductions, McCain urged the White House to commit more troops and resources to Iraq. With outgoing Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan warning about the deleterious effects of budget deficits, President George W. Bush is already seeking creative ways to generate more tax dollars, including the unthinkable prospect of changing the mortgage interest deduction. Greenspan has already signaled that the federal government can't pay for the costly Medicare prescription drug benefit or the expected whopping Social Security price-tag for 70 million baby boomers nearing retirement. When you look at the budget, the most conspicuous hemorrhage involves the Iraq War. McCain argues that increasing troop strength might accelerate the end to what looks like an interminable conflict—probably an unrealistic wish.

      Advocating drawing down troops, Centcom chief Gen. John Abizaid and Iraq ground commander Gen. George W. Casey Jr. expect Iraqi forces to eventually perform the heavy lifting, slowly scaling back U.S. forces. “A smaller U.S. footprint, that is allowed to decline gradually as Iraqi forces get stronger actually help us,” said Casey, rejecting the idea of escalating troop strength. Some at the Pentagon believe that fostering too much dependence on the U.S. military (a) incites more terrorist resistance and (b) discourages the Iraqi military from assuming full responsibility for their own security. McCain's call for more troops is based on the leap that bigger is better. Creating a bigger target in Iraq with U.S. troops will only expose more soldiers to unmanageable danger. It's hard to know whether McCain's plan attempts to highlight White House incompetence.

      Knowing the political repercussions, it's inconceivable that McCain, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, would advocate augmenting troop strength when the most recent AP/Ipsos poll puts Bush's approval rating at 37%. Advocating a change in strategy, McCain conceded that even with more troops it would “take time, probably years and mean more American casualties,” calling attention to the enormous sacrifice that lies ahead. Bush used Veterans Day to defend his Iraq policy. “Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, we will never give in, we will never accept anything less than complete victory,” Bush told a military crowd in Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania, ignoring cries even within his own party to retool his policy. As casualties mount and public opinion heads south, Bush hunkers down.

      Bush walks a tightrope taking the offense with his Iraq policy. He's preaching to the choir, telling partisans that Iraq is the “central front in the war on terror.” Since toppling Saddam, Iraq has become a magnet for homegrown insurgents and foreign terrorists fighting U.S. occupation. It's doubtful that Bush will take McCain's advice of augmenting troop strength. With 150,000 troops already in Iraq, there's no stomach—or money—in congress or elsewhere to support more troop deployments. “Our forces cannot hold the ground indefinitely, and when they move to fight other battles, the insurgent ranks replenish and strongholds fill up,” McCain said, viewing Iraq as a Mexican standoff. When McCain talks about insurgents “replenishing” forces, he's talking about an endless supply of zealots clamoring to fight U.S. occupation—something missing at the Pentagon.

      Speaking on Veterans Day to troops in Iraq, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned that failing in Iraq would threaten the lives of U.S. citizens. There's never been convincing linkage that Iraq attacked the U.S. or threatened to do so—certain not on Sept. 11. Bush must stick with Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove's old message that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. It's surprising that McCain, an expected candidate in 2008, would adopt the risky and unpopular position that it's time to increase U.S. troops. With Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice in the Plame affair, Bush can only hope that the same doesn't happen to Cheney and Rove. Staying on the attack takes the battle to Bush's critics but it doesn't address abysmal approval ratings or, more importantly, what to do in Iraq.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.