Rumble Bee's Fact of Life: Sometimes you get the honey, sometimes all you get is the sting.

Let us begin with the facts. MSNBC reports that Sen. John McCain, the Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has announced his support for a significant and sustained increase in US forces in Iraq.

McCain called for a minimum of six additional Army brigades -- roughly 25,000 soldiers -- to be sent to Iraq, especially translators, Special Forces and civil affairs officers.

He said the previous strategy of trying to train Iraqi troops and turn over security patrol duties to them hasn’t worked and that American troops were needed to impose and maintain order and to prevent ethnic cleansing.

I support McCain's approach and believe it is the best of a series of unpleasant options for resolving the mess in Iraq for the following reasons:

First, the McCain proposal is the best choice because it encompasses a realistic assessment of the situation on the ground in Iraq. To be blunt, the US is losing the war effort in Iraq, as even Defense Secretary Robert Gates has admitted. The current Bush Administration policy, for so long called "Stay the Course," leaves American troops in harm's way with no exit strategy in place. This failed policy calls for US troops to remain in Iraq until the Iraqi Army and police force can maintain the peace. But there is no peace to maintain.

The McCain proposal takes as its starting point the assertion that the Administration policy is a failure. This is obvious, but it is an assertion that the Bush Administration has been reluctant to make.

In addition, the McCain approach takes as its starting point a realistic assessment of the enemy we face in Iraq. Where the Bush Administration's policy failed because they were not willing to face up to the reality of the situation on the ground, the proposal by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to begin a troop withdrawal within four to six months fails to confront the nature of the enemy.

“If we fail in Iraq, there’s somehow the belief, that I don’t quite comprehend, that we just come home and then it’s over” – in the same way U.S. troops came home from Vietnam in the mid-1970s.

The difference, McCain argued, was that “the Vietnamese didn’t want to follow us” to attack the United States itself.

While it is true that, at the start of the US Invasion, Iraq was not a part of the war against the radical Islamist terrorists, Iraq is a part of that war now. To pretend otherwise is to be as naive as the Bush Administration in it's assessment of the war effort.

Next, in response to the dismal assessment in Iraq, the McCain proposal actually mentions the dreaded "S-Word." McCain has the honesty to talk about the sacrifices that his plan requires.

He warned that his recommendation “will mean more casualties and extra hardships for our brave fighting men and women” and that “the violence may get worse before it gets better. We have to be prepared for this.”

President Bush was either unable or unwilling to bring himself to discuss the sacrifices that would be necessary to achieve victory in Iraq. The main reason that the call for sacrifice was never an element of President Bush's rhetoric, I believe, is that Bush never had a clear goal for which the sacrifice was needed and was justified.

That brings me to the next reason I support the McCain proposal: the McCain proposal has clearly stated objectives that an increase in troop strength can accomplish. McCain understands that the ultimate solution to the problems in Iraq will be a political solution, not a military solution. However, before a political solution can be crafted, there must be a dramatic decrease in the violence in Iraq. The militias must be brought under control and ultimately disarmed, the sectarian killings must end, and the Shiites and the Sunnis must broker a political settlement.

 

McCain argues that the only way to get to a point of reduced violence that will enable political negotiations is with an increased and sustained US presence in Iraq.

[McCain] said the previous strategy of trying to train Iraqi troops and turn over security patrol duties to them hasn’t worked and that American troops were needed to impose and maintain order and to prevent ethnic cleansing.

It seems clear that the sectarian violence and subsequent reprisal killings must end before the political solution can advance. And as we witnessed this past fall, when the Administration attempted to secure Baghdad, a committment of too few troops only escalates the American casualties. That is why a significant and sustained troop increase is needed.

Finally, I support the McCain proposal because it is not the politically popular or expedient thing to do. This plan of action is not going to create a groundswell of support for McCain as a Republican Presidential candidate because it is a direct repudiation of the Bush Administration's failed policies in Iraq. The right wing is already distrustful of McCain (follow this link to read some comments from Free Republic) and by repudiating the Bush policy he will not be helping himself in the Republican primaries, nor will a call for more troops help in the general election.

So in summary, I support the McCain proposal because it is realistic about the situation on the ground, it is realistic about the enemy we face, it recognizes the tremendous sacrifices needed to win this war, and because it is a plan with no obvious immediate political gain for McCain (unless we win of course).

To me, the McCain approach is the best way forward because the alternatives do not advance us toward the goal of a political solution to the Iraq situation.