McCain's latest talking point, in fact his only talking point, is that he was right about the surge and that the surge is both succeeding and/or has succeeded already.
Despite Dickerson joining in on the surge cheerleading, this is wrong on many accounts.
For some reason, the media (you know, the one's that are cozy to Obama) are overlooking McCain's latest blunder (gaffe is too nice a word) on Iraq. In a recent interview, Katie Couric asked McCain about Obama's claim that the Sunni Awakening helped reduce violence in Iraq prior to the surge.
McCain called this a "false depiction of what happened," then went on to claim that it was the surge that enabled the Sunni Awakening to occur.
It is McCain, though, that is offering a false depction of history since the Sunni Awakening began, at the latest, in October 2006 and involved some 80,000 fighters, many of them former insurgents. President Bush didn't announce the surge until January 10, 2007 and troop escalation did not begin until February 2007.
Second, the drop in violence in Iraq is relative. The violence in Iraq was at its highest in 2006 and 2007. The decrease in violence that has accompanied the Sunni Awakening, the Shiite militias' cease-fire, and the Surge has reduced violence to about 2005 levels--when the violence was still incredibly high.
According to Iraq Body Count, for instance, on average there are currently 12 civilian deaths per day by suicide bombings and an additional 20 civilians deaths a day by gunfire and executions. That is over 900 violent civilian deaths a month in Iraq caused by this war and it does not include Iraqi Security Force or coalition force deaths.
As the incomparable Juan Cole demonstrated recently, Obama is seeing an Iraq that is actually just as violent as the Iraq he say during his last visit in 2006.
Finally, McCain's claim that the surge has "succeeded" overlooks the very purpose of the surge in the first place.
As President Bush outlined in his January 10, 2007 speech, the success of the surge had to be met with political gains, the so-called benchmarks set for the Iraqi government. As of January 2008, a total of 3 of the 18 benchmarks had been accomplished. By June 2008, the Bush Administration was claiming that 15 of the 18 benchmarks had been met. However, the GAO said that the Administration broadly overstated gains in many areas.
By McCain's own admission, despite his claim that the surge succeeded, the recent gains in Iraq are extremely fragile. What happens when the 80,000 Sunni fighters associated with the Sunni Awakening, armed by the United States mind you, and the Shiite militias decide to battle one another for control of the country? And never mind the Kurds.
McCain, who is now staking his entire campaign on the surge, has shown how little he actually understands about Iraq. First, he claimed (and Lieberman had to correct him) that Iran was allowing al Qaeda fighters into the country; he then discussed the "Iraq/Pakistan" border, which Jon Stewart brilliantly pointed out was called Iran (not to mention that the real precarious situation is along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border); and now his false timeline of events and the relative reduction of violence in Iraq.
Let's not forget that McCain's entire position also goes squarely against the stated wishes of the current Iraqi government. Nor shall we forget that had we not invaded Iraq in the first place, there would have never been the need for a surge.
So, McCain is actually in a lose/lose situation. The more he repeats the canards about the surge, the more he blunders on basic facts, the more vulnerable he becomes. Yes, McCain, follow Dickerson's advice and keep it up.
