John McCain's campaign consists primarily of negative attacks on Barack Obama. But on those rare occasions when he "goes positive," McCain's claim to fame is the alleged success of "the surge" in Iraq. In fact, as Satyam at ThinkProgress notes, McCain now advocates a "surge" as the solution for just about everything.
Moments ago, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) — who last year famously admitted to not understanding economics — called for an “economic surge” in a speech in Ohio today...
McCain’s policy prescriptions for the major issues often boil down to simply tacking on the word “surge.” In the past, he has trumpeted the Iraq surge and recently embraced an Afghanistan surge. Last week, he suggested a surge to control inner-city crime.
And Steve Benen found McCain recommending a surge for energy too.
But what about McCain's original surge in Iraq? A few weeks ago, McCain was firing heavy artillery at Barack Obama for refusing to declare the Bush-McCain surge a success. But is it?
As we all remember, Bush declared the purpose of the surge was not to end all the violence, but rather to create "breathing space" to "help make [political] reconciliation possible." So how is that working out?
Iraqi parliament adjourns without setting elections
By Leila Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers
BAGHDAD — After weeks of late-night negotiations and under intense U.S. pressure, Iraqi lawmakers failed to pass a much-debated provincial elections law Wednesday before adjourning for the month...
Parliament also has yet to pass a law to share oil revenue or to amend the constitution on such issues as the role of Islam and the nature of federalism in the government. With deep religious and ethnic divisions, members have opted to deal with such issues by putting them off.
In other words, the Bush-McCain surge is a failure - but don't expect to read about it in the "liberal media" apart from the small McClatchy Newspaper chain, which was the only DC news bureau to report skeptically on the pre-war lies.
And even this decent McClatchy article misses one huge aspect of the adjournment of the Iraqi Parliament: that no Bush-Maliki "Status of Forces Agreement" (SOFA) was ever submitted for their approval, let alone ratified.
How many times did George Bush and the Busheviks promise the Corporate Media that a SOFA would be approved by Maliki and the Iraqi Parliament before July 31?
So it looks like my repeated predictions will come true - the U.N. mandate will expire on December 31 without any agreement to replace it, leaving U.S. troops and contractors without civil or criminal immunity under Iraqi law. And without that immunity, lawyers for the Pentagon and private contractors will tell their bosses to start bringing Americans home.
Update 1: The NY Times describes the current of Iraq's ethnic conflicts, which the Bush-McCain surge was supposed to end:
The decision to go on vacation rather than settle the issue underscored how little progress had been made on the most important recent political question to confront Iraqi leaders, in contrast to the military strides in making Iraq safer than it had been in years. The law was seen as so important to prevent new outbreaks of violence that President Bush, eager to leave office claiming lasting progress in Iraq, had called several Iraqi lawmakers urging them to pass it.
The elections would be the first provincial balloting in almost four years. Negotiations broke down over the politically explosive issue of who controls the ethnically mixed and oil-rich northern city of Kirkuk. The last elections were boycotted by many Sunni Muslims, the minority in Iraq who held power for decades under Saddam Hussein and were the prime engine for the deadly insurgency during this war...
The fissures in the Parliament dispute reflected the larger fractures in Iraq: Shiite politicians blamed Sunni parties for the breakdown; Sunnis accused Kurds and their Shiite allies of recklessness in their demands; Sadrists pointed fingers at politicians in the dominant Shiite parties. Still others attributed lack of progress to improper intervention by outside forces.
“This period enables us get rid of the pressure of the American Embassy, the British Embassy, the United Nations and the Parliament blocs,” said Abdullah Iskander, a Sunni politician. “Now we can think clearly.”
But while lawmakers continued to cast blame, political leaders on the fringes of power saw the breakdown as an intentional tactic on the part of the politically entrenched. “I am sure there are many groups working hard to prevent an election,” said Baha al-Araji, a Sadrist member of Parliament, mentioning specifically the Dawa Party and the Islamic Supreme Council.
But the most intense anger came from Awakening members, who think they are largely responsible for the decrease in violence that has made the prospect of peaceful elections possible.
“This is a slap on the face of Iraq,” said Sheik Hamid al-Hayis, a founder of the Anbar Awakening movement, who tried unsuccessfully to join the government of Mr. Maliki several months ago. “We couldn’t make a big change in the government structure. That pushed us to work to make change in the provincial council. But even that we can’t touch.”
Update 2: AP and NBC are reporting the US and Iraq are "close to a deal"
under which all American combat troops would leave by October 2010 with remaining U.S. forces gone about three years later
But is October 2010 a Bush/McCain-approved "time horizon" based on "security conditions on the ground" - or an Obama/Maliki-approved "timeline"? Apparently it's both and neither, depending on whether you ask Iraqis or Americans.
A U.S. official in Washington acknowledged progress has been made on the timelines for a U.S. departure but offered no firm date. Another U.S. official strongly suggested the 2010 date may be too ambitious. A timetable is part of a security agreement being negotiated by U.S. and Iraqi officials.
And senior U.S. officials in Baghdad and Washington told NBC News that any agreement on withdrawing American forces would not likely include a "specific timetable" but be based on "security conditions at the time."
Those sources said they have no idea how close both sides are to a deal, but they claim that the pending agreement under discussion is heavily qualified to give both Iraq and the U.S. the flexibility they may need as security conditions on the ground change.
Too bad Jean Paul Sartre isn't still around to find the sweet spot between Being and Nothingness.
And what about the crucial issue of immunity for US troops?
Both sides stress the deal is not final and could fall apart over the issue of legal immunity for American troops.
One of the U.S. officials said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had a long and "very difficult" telephone conversation Wednesday in which she pressed the Iraqi leader for more flexibility, particularly on immunity.
In diplomatspeak, a "very difficult conversation" means they threatened to murder each other. And apparently Maliki didn't cave, or they would have enthusiastically reported the issue as resolved.
Operation Not-a-Pumpkin still appears to be stalled...
"What we're doing now is more ... a bridge to have the authority in place so we don't turn into a pumpkin on December 31," the official said. Neither country wants an extension of the U.N. mandate. Iraq has rejected its explicit limits on sovereignty, and the administration believes that a limited extension would only postpone the need for a bilateral accord and potentially leave U.S. troops with "our backs against the wall."
It sounds like it's time for another personal visit by Darth Cheney...
Update 3: Boy things move fast! McClatchy now says the deal is virtually done - unless of course it isn't.
U.S. agrees to set withdrawal date with Iraq
By Leila Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers
BAGHDAD — The United States and Iraq are nearing completion of negotiations on a security agreement that would pull American troops out of Iraqi cities by next July and foresees all U.S. combat troops gone from Iraq by 2011, according to two Iraqi officials who are familiar with the negotiations.
"The tactical team is finished and it's a closed deal, but remember that we've been through this before and every time we close a deal it's reopened," said a senior official who's been participating in the talks.
Of course the only reason the "closed" deals keep getting "reopened" is because they are never "closed" in anyone's mind but that of the anonymous source who repeatedly lies to willing stenographers. So why should we believe Mr. Anonymous this time?
The deal still must be approved by Maliki, other officials and the parliament, a process fraught with potential problems.
Parliament? Didn't they just adjourn until September? And doesn't a majority oppose the U.S. occupation? Somehow parliament's approval doesn't strike me as a "slam dunk."
The senior official said that Maliki already had expressed concern that the agreement wasn't strong enough, from the Iraqi perspective, on when Americans, including private contractors, would be subject to Iraqi law.
Ah, that damn immunity problem simply won't go away.
Under the agreement, the United States would pull its troops from Iraqi cities and onto American bases in Iraq by June 30, 2009, according to the Iraqi officials familiar with the negotiations.
U.S. troops would be immune from Iraqi law while they were on their bases, but when moving outside the bases their actions would be subject to American and Iraqi military jurisdiction.
Even that provision may not be tough enough for Maliki, the senior Iraqi official said. "Now they want to renegotiate this," the official said. "We've worked really hard to come up with a reasonable formula."
Reasonable for whom, pray tell? Ah yes, for the Americans. But for the Iraqis? Not so reasonable. Which is why the deal isn't remotely "closed."
