McCain Campaign Press Release - "In Case You Missed It": McCain Campaign Conference Call On Barack Obama's Iraq Position

ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign held a press conference call with U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Kori Schake, senior foreign policy adviser and Randy Scheunemann, senior foreign policy adviser, to discuss Barack Obama's op-ed in today's New York Times:

Senator Lindsey Graham: "I was astonished when I read the op-ed piece. It is just an unbelievably brazen effort by a politician to rewrite history. And here is my view of Iraq and Senator Obama and what is important to the American people in this exercise. Number one, Iraq has been a central battle front in the war on terror. Whether you agree we should have gone into Baghdad or not, it is clear to any objective observer that what happened in Iraq after the fall of Baghdad became a central struggle in the war on terror. You do not have to believe me, just believe Bin Laden. ...

"And Lee Hamilton said that the war in Iraq was one of the central battlefronts. General Petraeus has said it. So for Senator Obama to suggest that it never has been a key battle in the war on terror, I think misunderstands what would happen if we had lost. The biggest winner in a failed state in Iraq would have been Al-Qaeda. ...

"So Afghanistan is an important battle, an important front in the war on terror and I will talk about that in a moment. But to say Iraq is not is just completely misunderstanding, I think, the dynamics that were going on since the fall of Baghdad.

"Now about the surge itself. In January of 2007 Senator Obama said: I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. Now his communications director, John Kerry, and other surrogates have acknowledged well of course there is better security no one ever denied that. Well that is a complete falsehood. Not only did they deny or argue against more troops would equal better security, Senator Obama said it would do the opposite. So it is very important to understood where he has been regarding the surge. He came out with full force against the idea of sending more troops. His solution was to pull out. That you had a sort of a lethargic indifferent population in Iraq they will never get their act together unless we pull out.

"Senator McCain saw Iraq completely different. He saw a country overwhelmed by an insurgency that was gaining momentum and it had to be countered. And the way he decided to counter the growing insurgency and to get things stable in Iraq was to put more troops in. A fundamental different path taken by Senator McCain. A fundamentally different view of how to solve the problem and it goes back to his visits.

"I have been with Senator McCain seven of eight times that he went to Iraq and here is what we learned on our multiple visits. We learned that the old strategy was not failing, the Rumsfeld strategy, the way we was failing excuse me. The way we deployed our troops was not working and the insurgency was thriving. That we did not have enough combat power to train the Iraqi army and secure the population and we were losing ground to the insurgency particularly in the western part of Iraq. That we had not enough troops and they were being deployed in the wrong manner. When Republicans would come back from Iraq almost all of them said the war is going fine it is just the media's fault. When the Democrats came back from Iraq they said this thing is hopelessly lost. I think a turning point in terms of Iraq, was in April of 2007 when Harry Reid to declared the war lost. That made it impossible for a democrat to go to Iraq and objectively look at what was going on. ...

"Senator McCain believed that the Republic Party did not lose in Iraq; the nation would lose in Iraq. The Democratic Party, particularly Senator Obama in the primary, built a political strategy around losing -- gaining from a loss in Iraq. Senator McCain risked his political career to make sure the nation did not lose in Iraq. So, Senator Obama completely misunderstood what needed to be done, early on, and continues to misunderstand the importance of winning in Iraq. For us to deny history does a great disservice for those who made history. The history that's being made in Iraq now, from the surge, came at a heavy prince and a lot of sacrifice. And, I want I want it to be clear that from this campaign's view -- from my view -- Senator Obama's rhetoric, from January 2007 all through the surge, made it much more difficult. If we had followed his counsel and advice, Iraq would have crumbled, Al-Qa eda would have claimed victory, Iran would be the biggest winner of a destabilized, fractured Iraq. Now, for anybody to say that the surge has not worked would be an affront to those who brought about success. ...

"And if we started to pullout one to two brigades a month and announce it now, it could jeopardize all the gains that we have made. It would reset the clock in Iraq. It would take an enemy that's on its knees and give them some hope they're back in the fight. That would be the worst thing you could do as an American political leader, commander-in-chief, is to arbitrarily announce that we are going to pull out the troops out in 16 months, beginning one or two brigades a month.

"And to say that Senator Obama has not advocated such a position is just rewriting history. This is what he said September '07, after General Petraeus testified: 'so let me be clear, there is no military solution in Iraq.' Let me stop there. He was wrong. There was a military solution. We needed more combat power to bring about security that would result in economic and political progress, which it has done. Economic progress in Iraq and political progress is stunning. And he says there never was. 'The best way to protect our security and pressure Iraqi leaders to resolve their civil war is to me to immediately begin to remove our combat troops, not in six months, or one year, but now.'

"So the bottom line is from January of '07 to September, all the way up to the present, Senator Obama has been advocating a strategy that would have resulted in a fractured, broken Iraq. A country in chaos, that would have been a major loss in the greater war on terror, and would have hurt our international security interests in the region and throughout the world."

Kori Schake: "Not only was Senator Obama mistaken about the nature in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, he's also fundamentally mistaken about the nature of the insurgency now and about how to counter it. Senator Obama seems to believe that threatening Iraqis with abandonment is the way you create an environment to encourage them to make brave political choices, and that's just not right. The reason the surge has worked is because it has created an environment, with us as a trusted partner, and the Iraqis increasingly taking responsibility for political developments and for security developments. Nine of 18 provinces are now with Iraqi leadership in control and us supporting. The extraordinarily good work done by Iraqi political leaders and Iraqi security forces in Basra, in Mosul, in Sadr City are a demonstration that by being a trusted par tner with the Iraqis that they can and will make positive change securing their country and securing our interests. And, the strategy that Senator Obama lines out in his editorial piece would not only bring that to an end, it would corrode it, and it demonstrates a fundamental lack of judgment about how to win the war in Iraq and about how to prosecute the war in Afghanistan."

Randy Scheunemann: "Senator Obama's confusion on Iraq continues and the contradictions within his own op-ed in The New York Times today make it clear that the American people should remain puzzled about what his position actually is. His daily refinements announced in advance to his first trip to Iraq in 918 days, as if his mind is already made up, lead one to question why he is even bothering to go.

"Senator McCain put forward a strategy as Senator Graham outlined to turn this war around and to win, Senator Obama continues to search for a political position that will protect his flank in an election. Senator McCain said he would rather lose an election than lose a war and see the nation lose a war. Senator Obama seems to think that losing a war will help him win an election. In January 2007, he said the surge wouldn't work. Today, he recognizes the surge has reduced violence, protected Iraqis and diminished Al-Qaeda, but he then goes on to say he still opposes the surge. Does he think this turnaround would of still happened without the surge and the change in strategy? He selectively quotes in his op-ed today Lt. General Dulik as saying Iraqis would be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009, yet his next sentence says 'only by redeploying troops can we press the Iraqis to achieve a successfu l transition to taking responsibility for their security'. So which is it? Is it on track and going to happen or does it need redeployment to enforce it? In The New York Times today Senator Obama said his residual force would 'so long as Iraqis make political progress, train Iraqi security forces'. What does this mean? Would he stop training Iraqi forces if the hydrocarbon law isn't passed, when he's conditioning training on political progress.

"Also in his op-ed today, Senator Obama falsely claimed that Senator McCain was backing off a commitment to respect the sovereign will of the Iraqi government. This is shameful. I hope Senator Obama gets a chance to talk with that sovereign government when he goes to Iraq. I hope he asks Prime Minister Maliki whether he supports the surge. I hope he asks the Prime Minister and the government whether they believe that American forces are 'babysitting a civil war', which is how Obama characterized the conflict last year. I hope he asks the government whether they believe that the support provided in the surge enabled the sovereign government not only to survive, but to undertake political reconciliation.

"Let me make one more point about Senator Obama position in reference to Afghanistan. In May 24, 2007, he joined only 13 other Senators to oppose $94.4 billion in supplemental funding for Iraq and for Afghanistan. It included $295 million to protect army helicopters from shoulder launched missile in Iraq and Afghanistan, $314 for road building in Afghanistan, $174 million provincial reconstruction teams in Afghanistan, $25 million for governance programs in Afghanistan, $3 billion for mine resistance ambush protected vehicles, MRAPs, $1.6 billion for body armor, $9.7 billion for training and equipping Afghan and Iraqi security forces. This is Senator Obama's judgment on display, defund our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq in an effort to placate the left-wing of the Democratic party. This vote was an exercise in political irresponsibility and Senator Obama should explain why he voted that way, why he wanted to strand our brave men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq when they are fighting Al-Qaeda terrorists. Senator Obama is not trying to have it both ways, he's trying to have it every way on the hope that his contradictions will be ignored by the media and the American people. He says he wants to win in Afghanistan but he votes against the money to do it. He's never said he wants to win in Iraq. He said he wants to withdraw from Iraq and he said that if he's president he will order his commanders to withdrawing and this has the effect of being an unprecedented order from a commander-in-chief if he gives it to General Petraeus and General Odierno ordering them to lose a war they are on the way to winning."

Listen To The Full Conference Call