We’ve heard what some of the news reporters had to say about John McCain’s recent trip to Baghdad, and that he lied about the conditions there. In an op-ed piece for the Washington Post today McCain tells us basically why he said what he said the other day:

I just returned from my fifth visit to Iraq since 2003 — and my first since Gen. David Petraeus’s new strategy has started taking effect. For the first time, our delegation was able to drive, not use helicopters, from the airport to downtown Baghdad. For the first time, we met with Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province who are working with American and Iraqi forces to combat al-Qaeda. For the first time, we visited Iraqi and American forces deployed in a joint security station in Baghdad — an integral part of the new strategy. We held a news conference to discuss what we saw: positive signs, underreported in the United States, that are reason for cautious optimism.

I observed that our delegation “stopped at a local market, where we spent well over an hour, shopping and talking with the local people, getting their views and ideas about different issues of the day.” Markets in Baghdad have faced devastating terrorist attacks. A car bombing at Shorja in February, for example, killed 137 people. Today the market still faces occasional sniper attacks, but it is safer than it used to be. One innovation of the new strategy is closing markets to vehicles, thereby precluding car bombs that kill so many and garner so much media attention. Petraeus understandably wanted us to see this development.

I went to Iraq to gain a firsthand view of the progress in this difficult war, not to celebrate any victories. No one has been more critical of sunny progress reports that defied realities in Iraq. In 2003, after my first visit, I argued for more troops to provide the security necessary for political development. I disagreed with statements characterizing the insurgency as a “few dead-enders” or being in its “last throes.” I repeatedly criticized the previous search-and-destroy strategy and argued for a counterinsurgency approach: separating the reconcilable population from the irreconcilable and creating enough security to facilitate the political and economic solutions that are the only way to defeat insurgents. This is exactly the course that Petraeus and the brave men and women of the American military are pursuing.

The new political-military strategy is beginning to show results. But most Americans are not aware because much of the media are not reporting it or devote far more attention to car bombs and mortar attacks that reveal little about the strategic direction of the war. I am not saying that bad news should not be reported or that horrific terrorist attacks are not newsworthy. But news coverage should also include evidence of progress. Whether Americans choose to support or oppose our efforts in Iraq, I hope they could make their decision based on as complete a picture of the situation in Iraq as is possible to report.

Be sure to read the entire op-ed here.

Hat Tip: California Conservative. <):)

Written by ~J~

2 Responses to “McCain’s Trip to Baghdad in His Own Words”

1. smh10 says:

   April 8, 2007 at 10:24 pm

   This editorial IMO is a way for Senator McCain to gracefully remove himself from his double speak of the past week. Notice, he makes no comment about the military protection he had available in Baghdad which is what began the controversy in the first place.

   I will take the word of this man long before that of members of Congress:

   http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/386aaa23-000a-4f35-a619-ba2f1a19189d
2. ~J~ says:

   April 9, 2007 at 12:15 am

   The Hugh Hewitt post from the Lt. Col. is certainly a different perspective from what we are used to seeing daily. Somehow I think the guys on the front lines know more about how it’s going than the ordinary citizens or even our lawmakers.

   We need to all step back and take a hard look at our positions and not stand firm on them because we are stubborn but because we actually believe in what we are saying.

   I respect the right of anyone to express a differing opinion from mine, and it is well-known on this site we deliberately have a conservative (me) and a liberal (Tonto) who post here daily.

   I may consider his way of thinking wrong just as he considers my way of thinking wrong and we grew up together raised by the same two people.

   Instead of arguing over it we all need to find common ground. Unfortunately, no one wants to compromise. See the comments by Sen. Schumer in the article I posted about the Senate possibly blinking.

   After they passed legislation by the slimmest of majorities in the House and Senate, with 2 Republicans giving the margin of victory in the House as the final vote for was 218, exactly 50% plus 1 in the House, they are going to reconcile both bills and forward the final product to the president, who has promised a veto.

   Now, after the fact, Schumer speaks of working with the White House to get a compromise. If this doesn’t smack of politics of the worst sort I don’t know what does. What was the purpose of the legislation if they now say they must compromise? If nothing but a show vote to their special interests, what was it? The BDS is so bad they are determined to make the president’s last 21 months pure hell, and they’re doing a good job of it at the expense of the people of the United States who just want them to do a good job, and most reasonable people understand there must be compromise in our system of government.