History Forum / General / British History / July 2008

DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor

NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA

Mon Jul 21 2008

The Drudge Report

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been
rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published
an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan
for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican
circles.

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors
Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email
late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this
piece as currently written.'

In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that
he never talks about winning the war-only of ending it... if we don't win
the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster
for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.'

NYT's Shipley advised McCain to try again: 'I'd be pleased, though, to look
at another draft.'

[Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as
Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.]

A top McCain source claims the paper simply does not agree with the
senator's Iraq policy, and wants him to change it, not "re-work the draft."

McCain writes in the rejected essay: 'Progress has been due primarily to an
increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an
early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in
Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. 'I am not
persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the
sectarian violence there,' he said on January 10, 2007. 'In fact, I think it
will do the reverse.'

Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the
editorial.

'The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it
appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain,
he also went into detail about his own plans.'

Shipley continues: 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator
McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would
have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in
Iraq.'

Developing...

The DRUDGE REPORT presents the McCain editorial in its submitted form:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called
the situation "hard" but not "hopeless." Today, 18 months later, violence
has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and
Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is
full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile
gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a
change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time
when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an
equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in
Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," he said on January 10,
2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that "our troops have
performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence." But he still
denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently
certified that, as one news article put it, "Iraq has met all but three of
18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security,
political and economic progress." Even more heartening has been progress
that's not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them
Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of
Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister
Nouri al Maliki's new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists
in Basra and Sadr City-actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of
sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama's determination to
pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In
a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his "plan for
Iraq" in advance of his first "fact finding" trip to that country in more
than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our
troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he
thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been.
Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our
assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime
Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is
that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some
unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The
Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this
does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to
secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for
one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover.
The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics,
command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed
to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial
withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five "surge" brigades,
and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As
we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields,
such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have
said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end
of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic
assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable
crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement
with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground
and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his "plan for
Iraq." Perhaps that's because he doesn't want to hear what they have to say.
During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our
troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in
Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be "very
dangerous."

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a
comeback, as they have in the past when we've had too few troops in Iraq.
Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it
ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by
waving the "Mission Accomplished" banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war-only of ending
it. But if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the
terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to
happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven
counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the
goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.