MCCAIN: Do you agree that, at the time of the invasion, we didn't have sufficient troops to control the country, in hindsight?McCain's implication is clear: He says that because we're all now acknowledging that more troops should have been sent at the outset, we should therefore see the folly of not sending more troops now. This is downright bizarre. Why would the fact that the U.S. didn't send more troops before, when the situation perhaps could have been stabilized, lead us to conclude that we should therefore send more now -- that is, at a moment when the situation has deteriorated so badly that it almost certainly can't be stabilized? McCain's twisted little rhetorical formulation -- let's call it McCain's Conundrum -- has a pretty obvious answer: The situation has changed dramatically since the outset -- it's gotten much, much worse, to the point where it's very likely that an increase in troops can no longer do what it once might have been able to.GATES: Well, I had to deal with hindsight in some of the decisions that I've made, Senator McCain, and sometimes it's not very comfortable.
I suspect, in hindsight, some of the folks in the administration probably would not make the same decisions that they made.
GATES: And I think one of those is that there clearly were insufficient troops in Iraq after the initial invasion to establish control over the country.
MCCAIN: And yet, at this particular point in time, when the suggestion is made, as the situation deteriorates and the status quo is not acceptable, that we reduce troops or, as General Abizaid said, that he had sufficient number of troops, in your study, when did we reach the point where we went from not having enough troops to having sufficient number of troops as the situation -- boots on the ground -- as the situation deteriorated?
That's a non sequitur that I have yet found to -- I'm unable to intellectually embrace...Why is the conditions and situation continuing to deteriorate and not improve, if you have sufficient assets and people in order to get the job done -- which we now agree is not satisfactory?
It's not clear which would be worse: That McCain is pretending to be "unable to intellectually embrace" this "non sequitur," or that he's sincerely unable to grasp it. Neither is particularly reassuring in a would-be "Commander in Chief."
Here's what McCain's call for more troops is really about: It's a substitution for admitting defeat. It allows him to (a) acknowledge that the current policies are failing, and therefore distance himself from them; while simultaneously allowing him to (b) still hold out the illusory promise of victory, and therefore not be associated with our eventual loss. It's a deeply cynical exercise, yet McCain will probably get away with it.
--Greg Sargent (cross-posted from The Horse's Mouth)
