McCain on Iraq

Andrew Sullivan, whose transformation into something quite akin to a lefty continues to surprise, has a markedly clear-eyed take on John McCain's saddening resuscitation of Iraq as a club with which to beat Democrats. He writes:

Look: if this war has actually increased the power of al Qaeda, has helped recruit many more Jihadists to the cause, and has been conducted with the level of incompetence McCain claims, then he really has no credibility in his strategy right now if he doesn't explicitly and clearly run a campaign that offers clear blue sky between his strategy and the Bush legacy. His speech yesterday didn't and couldn't do that if it were to appeal to Republican primary voters. It even contained direct, partisan swipes at Democrats for their current posture. McCain cannot have it both ways. By his own admission, the Democrats have been proved right about this president. The failures in this war are squarely Republican failures. And yet he still plays the partisan card - against those who have been right. Oy.

I was stunned, yesterday, to watch David Brooks report that "the problem with [McCain's] approach is he doesn’t grapple with the psychology and culture of the Iraqis, upon which all else depends," and then see him turn in the next few paragraphs and write that, "In 10 months, this election won’t be about the surge, it will be about the hydra-headed crisis roiling the Middle East. The candidate who is the most substantive, most mature and most consistent will begin to look more attractive and more necessary."

McCain's ability to correctly diagnose the problem in Iraq and suggest solutions is absolutely critical to evaluating his potential performance in the presidency. As Sullivan notices, not only does McCain's analysis of the situation suggest that he, McCain, got it very wrong, but it shows that he lacks the self-awareness to truly explain why he so erred and thus guard against such failures of judgment in the future.