Veterans Respond to McCain's "Obama Wants to Lose" Remark

by: Brandon Friedman

Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 17:21:12 PM EDT


While Barack Obama spends the week in Afghanistan and Iraq, speaking to throngs of cheering troops and diplomats, John McCain is accusing the likely Democratic nominee of wanting to "lose" the war in Iraq.  Here's what he said today:

MCCAIN: It seems to me that Senator Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.

It looks to me like desperation brought on by Maliki's endorsement of Obama's plan  is starting to settle in--especially considering that most Americans and very few Iraqis even look at Iraq in terms of winning and losing anymore.

But the question, then, becomes this: If McCain thinks Obama wants to lose in Iraq, and thousands of troops support Obama's policies, does this mean that McCain thinks those troops want to lose in Iraq?

Let's take a look at some math we all learned in first-year algebra for a possible answer:

The Transitive Property: If a = b and b = c, then a = c.

Of course, I know this might be an "unsound application" of the mathematical property, but still.  What's McCain really saying here?  Personally, I fought with everything I had in Iraq and Afghanistan--to win.  And based on my experiences, I believe Barack Obama has proposed the most prudent policies on Iraq so far--as evidenced by the support he's getting from the American people and the Iraqi government.  So for John McCain to disparage Senator Obama by saying he wants to lose is to imply that I wanted to lose as well.  And, frankly, that's insulting.  I would expect more from a fellow combat veteran like John McCain.

Anyway, as an "unsound application" of algebra or not, I'm not the only Iraq and Afghanistan veteran who's feeling insulted by John McCain's remarks today.  Here are some more we've received at VoteVets.org via email:

As a veteran of a fifteen-month combat tour in Iraq at the height of the surge, it is incredibly offensive to see John McCain make off color remarks about Senator Obama's view on Iraq, claiming he "wants to lose" there.  By bolstering his political rhetoric, he forgets that many veterans of the war in Iraq would like to see a reallocation of forces to Afghanistan to combat genuine threats to our national security.  Would John McCain be so cavalier to say that I want to lose in Iraq, a place where many of my friends left their lives and limbs?

Alex Horton
Austin, TX
Iraq veteran
Army
2006-07

Senator McCain's comments represent the radical anti-troop, anti-veteran rhetoric his campaign has become known for.  I went to combat, and I saw first-hand the damage the failed policies of George W. Bush and John McCain have  caused to our American troops.  I wonder if this eye-witness knowledge means that I want to lose as well.

Richard Smith
Huntsville, AL
Afghanistan veteran
Army
2007-08

The message of "losing" being offered by Senator McCain is a lie.  There is no compelling United States interest in Iraq that is worth the treasure and time that our nation has been asked to pay.  The police action in Iraq has done nothing other than to show the world that America is weak and afraid--of admitting mistakes.  In this case, over 4,000 men and women have died because of the cowardice and lack of integrity of our political leadership.

Senator McCain has to stop following this folly.  He has to show strength and admit that the strength of America is in its willingness to champion reason over fear.  There is no possible cost-benefit analysis that can justify the abandonment of the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan in order to police a sovereign state that no longer desires our presence.

George Zubaty
Louisville, KY
Iraq and Afghanistan veteran
Army
2001-02 and 2003-04

To suggest that Senator Obama wants to "lose" in Iraq is outlandish, thought I can't help but notice that Senator McCain has no problem with the fact that we continue to lose ground every day in Afghanistan--the real War on Terror.

Brian McGough
Ashburn, VA
Iraq and Afghanistan veteran
Army
2001-02 and 2003

To say that Barack Obama wants to "lose" in Iraq is completely beyond acceptable standards of political discourse.  For Senator McCain to impugn the loyalty and patriotism of a sitting United States Senator while he is overseas to gain some short-term political leverage is beneath the dignity of the office which he holds.  This is an act of political desperation and moral cowardice.  John McCain should be ashamed of himself and immediately apologize.

Terence O'Rourke
Portsmouth, NH
Iraq veteran
Army
2006-07

I am very disappointed to hear another combat veteran like Senator McCain say that Senator Obama wants to "lose" the war.  When I served in Afghanistan and Iraq, our objective was to win the War on Terror and we always gave it 100 percent.  His statement today is very insulting to me and all the others who continue fighting the war today.

Peter O'Brien
Boston, MA
Iraq and Afghanistan veteran
Army
2001-02 and 2003-04

I served proudly for 15 months in George Bush and John McCain's war of aggression.  By saying that my preferred candidate for president, Barack Obama, is somehow treasonous by supporting the Iraqi people's desire for us to leave, Senator McCain is saying that I am as well.  I guess the only other way to be a good American in McCain's eyes would be to stay in Iraq for 100 years so we can "win."

Rick Hegdahl
Bellevue, WA
OEF and OIF veteran
Navy
2002-03 and 2005-06

I don't know what Senator McCain is talking about.  How is staying in Iraq for a 100 years winning, while responsibly removing our military from a sovereign country--at their request--losing?  Wasn't leaving the whole point?

Ernesto Estrada
San Francisco, CA
Iraq veteran
Marine Corps
2003

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that Senator McCain has yet to clearly define what victory in Iraq looks like for the United States, it is extremely discouraging to hear such divisive rhetoric coming out of what Senator McCain promised would be a campaign "on the issues."  During my time as a soldier and now as a civilian, I have never doubted that anyone on either side of the political spectrum has wanted anything less than the complete success for our troops.  It is so unfortunate to see Senator McCain adapt the old tactic of baselessly calling a political opponent's patriotism into question as a campaign tool.

Neil Riley
Ashburn, VA
Iraq and Afghanistan veteran
Army
2002-03 and 2004-05

Lose in Iraq?  It seems to me that the more the U.S. and Iraq discuss withdrawal, the more the violence subsides.  And that's not losing.  To be honest, there's only one place we're truly at risk of "losing," and that's Afghanistan--a place to which John McCain refuses to devote proper attention.

Peter Granato
Washington, DC
Iraq veteran
Army
2003-04

To say that Senator Obama wants to lose in Iraq is, in fact, saying that the majority of this country wants to lose.  To suggest that every person who has been critical of the Bush-McCain policy favors losing the war is beyond reprehensible and absurd.

David Brignac
Baton Rouge, LA
Afghanistan veteran
Army
2006-07

This type of insulting nonsense will not go unnoticed or unchallenged by the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who've fought in both John McCain's war in Iraq, and in the other war in Afghanistan.  Either way, something tells me that John McCain would never say the same thing to any of our faces.

Brandon Friedman :: Veterans Respond to McCain's "Obama Wants to Lose" Remark
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Apparently Maliki wants to lose as well (0.00 / 0)
Along with the Iraqi National Security Adviser

Sen. Barack Obama got a red-carpet greeting in the Green Zone. The Democratic presidential contender, who was in Baghdad Monday, was seated one-on-one with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki at the end of his marble-lined salon, while Obama's senate colleagues sat at the side with the aides. But the greatest gesture of Iraqi hospitality came just after Obama and the Americans had zipped off in their convoy of armored SUVs. Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told a scrum of the assembled press that the Iraqi government hopes U.S. combat troops can go home by the end of 2010 - perhaps leaving advisers and trainers behind. It puts the Iraqis' schedule - or at least in their publicly-stated preference-close to the mid-2010 date that Obama has proposed.



"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

Major breakthrough.... (4.00 / 1)
my deployed soldier kid who has voted GOP since 88 is going for O.
He's not an Obamiac, but has figured out that the change is necessary.

[ Parent ]
Must be almost as old (0.00 / 0)
Your "kid" must almost be as old young as me!!

Not only have I voted GOP since 1984, I raised money and gave them money and their allied groups.

Not this year.


[ Parent ]
McCain isn't concerned about the war (4.00 / 1)
I don't think McCain is concerned about winning or losing in Iraq or any other place for that matter.   If he was concerned then he would have no problem pulling a few combat units from Iraq and placing them in Afghanistan as needed.  I think people like McCain who have signed onto the Bush docrine, are more concerned about trying to prove the Bush Administration's past, failed foreign policies right then they are about defeating any sort of enemy.  The U.S. military has performed brillliantly on every level and have achieved their military objectives.  Yet, time and time again we saw the Bush Administration resort to going hat in hand asking for assistance or cutting deals with unsavory regional players in order to see their own foreign policies to succeed.  Their own hubris and arrogance has been humbled and they can not stand it so they lash out against everyone (including the U.S. military) that looks for new leadership or a new direction.

"Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home."

Marcus Tullius Cicero 106 BC-43 BC


I trust you guys (4.00 / 1)
I trust you OIF/OEF guys to know what's going on.  What I wrote below is simplified and spelled out anacronyms for the non-military reader.

My perspective is from the Cold Warrior.  Specifically from 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne); area of operations (AO) Latin America in the late 80s early 90s (later as a Navy intel officer).

One thing that stuck with me, and it is indeed arguable whether it is true or not, is that the old Team Daddies (Master Sergeants) and Command Sergeants Majors always harped that we could have won Vietnam if the conventional forces just stayed out.

See, our mission (for Kossacks that are not familiar) was something called Foreign Internal Defense (FID).  Basically we went to Latin America to train their military to fight their problems so the the US didn't have to.  One 12 man A-Team could train a light infantry battalion of the host country.  And yes, a lot of material was supplied by the School of the America's but I only saw training plans for infantry out of Ft. Benning, the same training plans used for Infantry Advanced Individual Training, translated into Spanish.

I know that this background will cause criticism among some kossacks, but keep in mind, outside the atrocities perpetrated, it did keep us out of conflict in such places as El Salvador and Honduras.  We even had orders to report human rights violations by our troops to the embassy.  Unfortunately, this only led to them not taking us along when they committed them so that we were not witnesses to the acts.  Guatamala for instance.

So that is my perspective, not being an OIF/OEF vet.  I foresee a long time presence of FID operation and we are not really getting out totally.  But we must really get our conventional troops out ASAP.  For one, they are not trained in cross-cultural communications.  This is a must!  Whether that idiot commander/junior officer on the ground believes it or not, our troops are perceived as diplomats in a way, as representing the US.  Would you want a State Department official not knowing the language or culture?  That is what happens when our troops are on the street harassing a shop keeper.

So I think back to my Vietnam era mentors, regardless if they were right or wrong historically, they hit the point of only inserting influence when  the influence is trained or educated in the culture and language of the host nation.  I have so many horror stories of Panama with the 7th Infantry Division scaring the shit out of the locals and so many fuck-ups including a little girl losing her eye from a stone chip due to some drunk yahoo (who was court-martialed for drinking) who let his M249 Squad Automatic Weapon go off in a cantina while drinking illegally.

just add the 10th power to that and we have Iraq.

Get our troops out and get them home!


While I predominately agree with you (4.00 / 2)
I don't see the FID concept application in Iraq.  The government of Iraq is made up of political parties that either originated in Iran or had been exiled there for 20 years prior to our invasion.  They have a close social, military, and trade bond with their Shia neighbor.  Syria is the home to more Iraqi refugees than any other country.  And the Syrian government is developing relations with the Iraqi government, especially the Sunni Accordance Front.  The Iraqi Islamic Party also maintains a close relationship with Saudi Arabia.

In other words, unlike Latin America where we had (have) several nations with a tremendous tension and constant struggle, Iraq has no foreign threat.  They have a trained militia (the Badr Organization that originated in Iran and is an official part of the GOI) and a tremendous relationship with the neighboring region.  I don't see the need for ongoing FID operations there.

Afghanistan on the other hand ....

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama


[ Parent ]
thanks for the correction (0.00 / 0)
put into that light, I tend to agree with you

[ Parent ]
VetVoice on Social Media
Follow rockrichard on Twitter

VoteVets.org on Facebook
  • VetVoice Recommends

    "The War I Always Wanted,"
    By Brandon Friedman

    "The welcome mat for memoirs by veterans of operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom might never wear out so long as they write with the savvy of Brandon Friedman . . . Friedman's take is vivid, frank, precise and dramatic." --Military Times

    "Add Brandon Friedman's The War I Always Wanted to the ranks of outstanding non-fiction produced by officers from elite combat units in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Always truthful, often excruciatingly so, The War I Always Wanted rises at numerous points to the level of literature." --Steven Pressfield, author of Gates of Fire

    Buy The War I Always Wanted here.

    "A Time To Lead,"
    By General (Ret.) Wesley K. Clark

    "A Time To Lead confirms the rewarding benefits of military service at a time when such service is experiencing considerable strain. It also includes a comprehensive description of America's current national imperatives, which deserve serious consideration." --General Alexander M. Haig, Jr., former Secretary of State

    "This is a primer on leadership forged in battle and by decades of experience. . .This isn't just a book; it's a manual for leading people and living a good life." --Barry McCaffrey, General, USA (ret.)

    Buy A Time to Lead here.

    "Love My Rifle More Than You,"
    By Kayla Williams

    "Whip smart, sassy, with a mouth as foul as a sailor's, 28-year-old Sergeant Kayla Williams. . .tells what it's like to be a female soldier in Iraq." --Booklist

    ". . .echoes military memoirists from Julius Caesar to Ernie Pyle." --Publishers Weekly

    ". . .a shocking, on-the-ground view of one military woman's experience in Iraq." --Bookmarks Magazine

    Buy Love My Rifle More Than You here.

    "How to Break a Terrorist,"
    By Matthew Alexander

    "...a riveting, fast-paced account that reads like a first-rate thriller." --Publisher's Weekly

    " ...an absorbing behind-the-scenes look at the secret intelligence war within a war." --Military.com

    Buy How to Break a Terrorist here.

    Search

    Advanced Search

    RSS Feed Links

    Subscribe to VetVoice in a feed reader!

    Subscribe to VetVoice by Email!

    Diaries and comments at VetVoice do not necessarily represent the views of VoteVets.org. VetVoice will strive to remove any illegal material as soon as it is flagged. Similarly, VetVoice will use its discretion in determining whether to remove exceedingly offensive material. However, between posting and removal, any offensive or illegal material does not reflect the condoning or endorsing of said material by VoteVets.org or VetVoice.
    Similarly, the views expressed on this website are those of the authors alone. Opinions on this website do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense or any of its components.
    Menu

    Front Page Writers
    PTSD Resources
    TBI Resources
    IRR Information
    Casualty Reports
    VA Information
    Support the Troops
    Veteran Candidates We Support
    Congressional Committees
    Contact Your Elected Leaders
    Sites We Like

    Paid for VoteVets Political Action Committee. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. VoteVets Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on behalf veterans and their families. VoteVets Political Action Committee is a federal political committee which primarily helps elect Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran candidates and educates about veterans and military issues aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election.

    Site Design: Articulated Man

    VoteVets Political Action and Vote Vets Action Fund are separate organizations.

    Powered by: SoapBlox