McCain, Palin Contradict, Ignore Gen. Petraeus on Iraq War

Gen. David Petraeus, Commander of U.S. Central Command, thoughtfully told the BBC on September 11, 2008 that he will never use the word "victory" to describe U.S. involvement in Iraq.

Said Gen. Petraeus, "... we have tried to be brutally honest and forthright in what we have provided to Congress, to the press, and to ourselves...

"This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not war with a simple slogan."

(See Iraq War Spending and Casualty Statistics at September 3, 2008)

Meanwhile, John McCain, who hails Petraeus as "one of the great military leaders in American history," frequently pontificates about "Victory in Iraq" and simplistically spouts to TV cameras that "We will come home in victory."

And McCain running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, described yesterday by a former Republican U.S. senator as a "cocky wacko," often proclaims her well-rehearsed line that "Victory in Iraq is finally in sight.

And in her snarky convention speech, Palin derided Obama because he doesn't "use the word victory" in relation to the Iraq War.

Guess Palin and McCain forgot to notice that Gen. Petraeus and Barack Obama are on precisely the same page about "victory" in Iraq.

It's Palin and McCain who are contradicting and/or ignoring Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commanding general in Iraq.

It's Palin and McCain who are resorting to simple slogans, in the words of Gen. Petraeus.

What I don't understand is this: with even the Bush administration in apparent acceptance that a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq is inevitable, what are McCain and Palin talking about?:

• What does "victory in Iraq" mean to McCain and Palin?
• What does it entail?
• What would it look like?
• And how would "victory in Iraq" impact the over-stretched U.S. armed forces and the reignited conflict in Afghanistan?

Or is the McCain/Palin mantra of "victory in Iraq" just more shameless, substance-free Rove-style rhetoric, designed to inflame and divide voters?

The bottom-line is this: Is John "Country First" McCain politicizing the Iraq War for his own political gain, or does he really disagree with Gen. David Petraeus, who he claims to regard with near-religious fervor?

What is it, Sen McCain: crass exploitation of the horrific pain and suffering of the Iraq War? Or like George Bush, who fired innumerable generals who didn't share his deep obsession with Iraq, do you think you know more than "one of the great military leaders in American history."

Either answer portends continuation of the disastrously arrogant and failed Iraq policies of Bush administration.

No wonder retired military brass lined up in droves at the Democratic Convention to support Barack Obama's presidential candidacy.

No wonder "Senator Barack Obama has received considerably more contributions from members of the U.S. military -- in both number and amount -- than Senator John McCain," per various sources.

(Photo taken on May 22, 2008: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Related Reading

• The Anti-War Party Celebrates the Military, Thanks to Obama
• Palin on Global Terrorism: Deep Commitment, Shallow Understanding, by Dr. Amy Zalman, About.com Guide to Terrorism
• Obama vs. McCain: Overdue National Referendum on Iraq