McCain: The Iraq Invasion = A Matter For Historians; The Surge = A Matter For The Voters

In recent interviews on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos and CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, John McCain showed that he really still does not grasp, or at least is not willing to admit, the numerous negative and far-reaching consequences of the US war in Iraq.

Challenged by both Stephanopoulos and Blitzer on his support for the 2003 invasion, McCain continued to insist that Saddam Hussein “did pose a long-term threat to the security of the United States of America,” but then suggested that truly answering that question is “a job for the historians.”

To Stephanopoulos:

MCCAIN: I said that Saddam Hussein caused a — imposed a threat to the United States of America and our security. And the Oil for Food scandal, the $12 billion he was skimming, the fact that he had said that he had in operation and he wanted to have weapons of mass destruction, the fact that this society that he ruled in such a brutal fashion was really awful. And he did pose a long-term threat to the security of the United States of America.

But that’s a job for the historians.

To Blitzer:

MCCAIN: I’d be more than happy to go through all of that again, and historians will. The fact is that Saddam Hussein was bent on the development of weapons of mass destruction, and I’ll be glad to discuss that.

Got that? Support for the Iraq invasion = a matter for historians. Support for the surge = a matter for the voters.

One might be a bit more favorably disposed toward McCain’s attempt to consign the Iraq invasion to the history books and move on if McCain gave any indication that he understood the numerous disastrous consequences of that invasion, but he does not. Even in the most charitable interpretation, the surge has succeeded only in containing some of the worst effects of the Iraq war. In terms of reconciliation between Iraq’s sectarian and political factions, the tactics related to the surge have only entrenched and, in some respects, exacerbated existing tensions.

As has been the case with the current administration’s Middle East policy since March 2003, the next administration’s Middle East policy will largely be concerned with grappling with and attempting to mitigate those consequences. The fact that McCain doesn’t even recognize that they exist — because to do so would be to admit that he made the wrong call in 2003 — is a serious problem.

It’s transparent spin for McCain to present the surge (however he’s defining it this week), rather than the invasion itself, as “the crucial point” upon which to judge his national security record. This is like a gambler protesting that he shouldn’t be criticized for having lost a thousand dollars at the craps table, because “the crucial point” is that he just won back twenty dollars at blackjack. The wise choice, of course, would have been not to gamble in the first place.