Senator may have lost the battle for the White House but he still wants to win Afghan war his way, writes Dan Balz
SENATOR JOHN McCain says his exchange with US President Barack Obama at a White House meeting last week has been vastly overblown.
“There was no sharp exchange whatsoever,” he said in a telephone interview. “To say that there was anything to it – it’s so insulting and so outrageous.”
It was just a year ago when Obama and McCain were trading sharp words, by long distance on the campaign trail and face-to-face in three presidential debates.
McCain now describes their relationship as “respectful,” but respectful as part of “the loyal opposition”. They have parted ways on healthcare and the stimulus package. They are now sparring over Afghanistan. The issue is whether to send 40,000 more troops there, as Gen Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US forces, has proposed.
Obama has not tipped his hand, though talk of seeking a new strategy suggests he is not yet ready to embrace such a sizeable troop increase. McCain has emerged as the most visible advocate for more troops, just as he was when former president George W Bush was considering a troop surge in Iraq almost three years ago.
That history colours the current debate and the current Obama-McCain relationship, which is why every word between them is examined for any hint of discord and why their brief exchange at last week’s White House meeting between the president and about 30 members of Congress drew the attention it did.
“I said I don’t think we should have a leisurely process,” McCain recalled.
The president did not respond immediately, but when he was later wrapping up the meeting, he came back to what McCain had said. According to several people in the room, Obama said, “John, this won’t be leisurely. No one feels more urgency about getting this right.”
McCain described the exchange as respectful, not contentious. Others at the meeting, from Congress and the White House, endorse that description.
Of Obama’s leadership in the meetings with members of Congress, McCain said, “He makes it very clear he is the president. He seeks advice and counsel but [makes clear] that the decisions rest with him.”
McCain respects that.
But he added, “Where I disagree with him is that I think he is considering all options with equal weight and I don’t think that should be the case.”
Why is he so attached to the number 40,000 as the right answer in Afghanistan?
“It is the considered opinion of those who are in position to know best . . .,” he said. “I was there right after the fall of Kabul. I continue to be immersed.”
McCain’s voice now took on a noticeable edge. “I don’t claim to be as knowledgeable as Gen Petraeus,” he said, referring to the commander who oversaw the surge in Iraq and now heads the US central command overseeing Iraq and Afghanistan.
“I claim to be very knowledgeable. And I was right about the surge and . . . the president was wrong,” McCain said.
“He said it wouldn’t succeed. The vice-president wanted to divide Iraq into three parts.”
To McCain, the history of the surge is a settled issue. “It’s not a belief of mine. It’s a historical fact.”
In response to McCain’s criticism, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said: “The reason we’re at a point where we are in Afghanistan . . . was because for so long we were distracted with our resources, our troops and our thinking in Iraq.
Obama will continue this week intensive discussion about what to do next in Afghanistan.
McCain is watching. “I still think the president will make the right decision,” he said.