Dagdag, not bawas?

In the face of the national outcry to bring home the troops, U.S. Senator John McCain, a declared presidential candidate in the 2008 elections, is proposing an increase in U.S. forces in Iraq. He wants the military presence in that country ramped up, not drawn down. He doesn’t want a downgrade to advisers, he wants more battle groups out there. He dismisses "phased redeployment," the current euphemism for withdrawal, he wants force build-up.

Some huff that McCain has not learned the lesson of the recent Bush repudiation at the polls, or that the Republican stalwart refuses to terms with the imminent takeover by the Democrats of the U.S. Congress. Others claim he’s out of touch with reality, and that even President George W. Bush has had serious meetings with the Iraq Study Group which is considering "options" to get America out of its quagmire.

But these is contrary opinion saying McCain is politically astute, that he’s reading the conservative sentiment correctly, and that he’s really looking out for the guys still out there in the battlefield who fear the consequences of a cut-and-run strategy at the very moment sectarian violence is heating up significantly.

He’s being very smart politically, admirers say, because it’s not at all certain that Bush or the Iraq Study Group can develop viable options. Since immediate withdrawal is off the table even as a talking point, the permutations of what’s left are truly complex, especially if you take as a given that this war in Iraq cannot be won.

If all you’re looking at is how to leave gracefully without being branded losers, few are willing to bet that politicians will associate themselves with the ignominy that is yet to come. McCain’s positioning allows him to distance himself from a potential disaster. He is, you see, not willing to throw in the towel, not yet anyway.

McCain seems better placed to speak for the men in uniform, much more effectively then war hero-turned peace activist, fellow senator John Kerry, former presidential bet of the Democratic Party.

Both are Vietnam War vets. McCain, a naval pilot, was a former inmate at Hanoi Hilton where he was routinely tortured. He has several decorations, including the Purple Heart, the Silver Star and Distinguished Flying Cross, none of which he has thrown into the Potomac unlike other disgruntled veterans like Kerry. Unlike Kerry too, he has never engaged in second-guessing Vietnam, and never joined disillusioned veterans who agonize over what they did there.

As a former POW, McCain presumably knows the sinking feeling of one who is about to be left behind, not physically but in the minds of Americans. Once Iraq occupies less priority in the public psyche and becomes like a garrisoned South Korea (not quite, since sectarian hostilities in Iraq are not expected to end anytime soon), soldiers still in the field could ask themselves why the hell they’re there in the first place.

At the same time, the U.S. military mind-set is still largely anchored, Vietnam and misadventures like Somalia notwithstanding, on Douglas McArthur’s dictum of "total victory" in war. But victory is simply not going to happen in Iraq.

It will be recalled that the size of the U.S. expeditionary forces when ordered into Iraq was in excess of 260,000, as compared with about 144,000 now. The speed with which the fall of Saddam Hussein was achieved was breathtaking. Although Bush’s triumphant claims of "Mission Accomplished" were premature, hard-nosed, battle-savvy generals were still shocked at the speed with which the occupying force bogged down. This was asymmetric war at its worst: Who was the enemy, and where was he?

The debate has always been over U.S. troop strength in Iraq. According to departed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, he gave the generals and planners all they asked for. He didn’t say, though, what guidelines or parameters he gave the generals and planners before they drew up their manpower request.

Rumsfeld was a vocal debunker of the Colin Powell doctrine of "overwhelming force." The feisty Defense Secretary, derided by critics as one of the most dangerous know-it-alls that has ever been given charge of a historic war, was a firm believer in high-tech "modern" warfare, where field casualties could be kept to a minimum.

A skilled and practiced Washington bureaucrat who well knew that casualty statistics don’t encourage good poll ratings, Rumsfeld has had to weather claims by media and Congressional non-admirers (including Senator John McCain who, more than once, called for his resignation) that his own policy, contrary to the Powell doctrine, was one of "underwhelming" force.

Addressing the 2004 Republican National Convention, he urged that the sacrifice of soldiers be honored "by seeing this mission through to victory." Although a firm supporter of Bush foreign policy, he has also lately been a staunch critic of that policy, calling for "significant policy changes." While openly declaring his lack of confidence in Rumsfeld, and asking for his resignation, he went no further, explaining that the President had the right to "pick his team" and "stay with that team if he wants to."

Now that Rumsfeld has gone, McCain, who takes pride in his reputation as a "maverick," albeit a conservative maverick, cannot be expected to abandon either his belief in eventual victory in Iraq, or his commitment to honor soldiers who are called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice, regardless of the "thumpin’" the Republicans suffered earlier this month.

The McCain proposal of more troops in Iraq is reminiscent of Lyndon Johnson’s escalation of forces in Vietnam, a build-up which history now regards as wooden-headed and which only resulted in greater resolve by the Viet Cong and North Vietnam to resist.

The difference is that Johnson decided to increase troop strength at an early stage of the war. McCain makes his proposal very late, against a background of deep public discontent with the handling of the war, and of an impending Democratic Congress which is not likely to give him the funding necessary to finance an increase in troop strength.

Thus, all the earnestness and savvy McCain can muster may not fly with a weary public that will probably scoff at a step which seems to suggest a much longer commitment in Iraq with no clear end.

That may trump national pride or military honor, even the impeccable credentials of an authentic hero. McCain may just have to realize that victory, sometimes, is simply no longer possible.