News & Observer | newsobserver.com | McCain: More troops key to Iraq

Published: Dec 02, 2006 12:00 AM
Modified: Dec 02, 2006 06:04 AM

McCain: More troops key to Iraq

Story Tools

Advertisements
Editor's note: Most political insiders think that Arizona Sen. John McCain is the front-runner in the Republican primary for president in 2008. McCain became a national figure after he was shot down in Vietnam and spent more than five years, much of it in pain and under torture, in a Communist prison. McCain, 70, was elected to the U.S House and later to the Senate and battled George W. Bush for the GOP presidential nomination in 2000.

McCain was in Charlotte and Winston-Salem on Friday. He met with Wachovia executives and helped U.S. Sen. Richard Burr raise $100,000 at a fundraiser at Wake Forest University.

Before the Burr event, McCain sat down with Rob Christensen of The News & Observer. This is one of a series of interviews The N&O is conducting with potential presidential candidates.

Q: President Bush has rejected the idea of a quick withdrawal from Iraq. What should be the U.S. policy in Iraq right now?

A: U.S. policy should be to send significantly increased troop presence in order to stabilize the deteriorating situation in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq including Anbar Province. We must clear and hold, not clear and leave. That requires additional troop strength. I am aware that is not a popular position. But the status quo in Iraq is steadily deteriorating. The military situation, in my view, cannot stand.

Q: Do you think the American people would support additional troops?

A: If they believed it would be successful. Americans are very ambivalent about this issue. If they simply wanted us out immediately, they would have never re-elected Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. It's a very liberal state, and he is a supporter of the war. They are very frustrated. Understandably so. Many of us who knew they needed more troops from the beginning watched this scenario and watched this train wreck. The consequences of failure in Iraq are chaos in Iraq and in the region. And I am convinced that, unlike the Vietnam War when we came home [and] it was over, if we left Iraq in disarray, it would follow us home."

Q: We keep hearing all these reports about the military being stretched so thin. Do we have the capability to send more troops to Iraq?

A: We needed a long time ago to increase the size of the Marine Corps and the Army by at least 100,000 -- 80,000 Army and 20,000 Marines. It would be a tremendous strain on the Guard and the Reserve as well as active duty forces. But nothing is compared to the consequences of a defeated Army. I saw a defeated Army once after we lost in Vietnam. It took us a long, long time to recover ..."

Q: How do you feel about a draft?

A: I don't think it's practical from a military standpoint. ... Politically, Americans would not accept it.

Practically, it takes a long, long time to train these men and women because of the sophistication of the technology associated with weapons systems. Finally, in my opinion, this is the finest military we have ever had, an all-volunteer force. So why would we want to go back to a draft? If I could say, with a little cynicism, if we went back to a draft, I think rich people would always be able to find a doctor to certify that they have a bad knee."

Q: Why did the midterm elections turn out so poorly for Republicans?

A: Frustration over the war in Iraq. Some pundits say that is the whole reason. ... The Republicans lost our way. We came in in '94 to change government and government changed us. We came to value power over principle. We presided over the greatest increase in spending since the Great Society. Of course, there was corruption, scandals that caused the independent vote to swing heavily Democratic."


Next page >

All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published, broadcast or redistributed in any manner.

Hosting Partners of
newsobserver.com

Member of the
Real Cities Network

A subsidiary of The McClatchy Company