Senator John McCain’s (R-Arizona) said that he is satisfied with President Bush’s plan of sending 21,000 more U.S. forces into Iraq.

On January 5, along with Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut), expressed reservations of the rumored number of forces and their proposed length of deployment. He called for a “substantial and sustained” escalation of American forces.

CNN’s Political Ticker:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, who had advocated sending as many as 35,000 troops in order to Iraq to make a so-called “surge” successful, said Wednesday he is satisfied with President Bush’s decision to send in just over 21,000.

“I think so,” McCain said when asked if it was enough. “Because of the number of brigades.”

[...]

The president’s plan reportedly calls for five Army brigades to be sent to Baghdad and 4000 Marines to Al Anbar.

I think it meets our criteria,” McCain said. [emphasis added]

McCain’s endorsement of Bush’s plan will shift plenty of blame onto his shoulders in 2008 when it, inevitably, fails.

2 Responses to “McCain Endorses Bush’s Troop Increase”

These statements are particularly important because when this whole thing goes straight to hell, as it will, Senator McCain cannot lay claim that “if only” his plan were put into place, we’d be picking flower petals out of our muzzles in Tehran.

McCain’s explicit endorsement on the implementation is the confirmation that yes, the McCain Doctrine was officially adopted by the Bush administration, and is now U.S. policy.

No qualifying statements or discrepancies. The McCain Doctrine is now official U.S. policy as of January 10, 2007. (Or earlier, given the advance forces from the 82nd Airborne that were already sent.)

[...] Fast-forward to 2007 where McCain is the biggest supporter of Bush’s war — neck and neck with Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Connecticut). McCain’s ownership of the escalation policy adopted by President Bush earlier this month should give Americans pause considering the senior senator’s track record on Iraq: length and difficulty (Iraq won’t be an issue in 2008?), endorsement of the escalation plan and his reservations that it is too small (see: “numbers game” on escalation, including his initial request for 20,000 more U.S. forces and his belief that an increase would “risk broken army” and put a “terrible strain” on military) and incorrect prognostications by his own admission. [...]

Something to say?