McCain doesn’t want 100 years of war. What he wants is for us to stay until we bring peace to Iraq, then stay for a long, long time after that. Then the question becomes, what would it take to convince him that our bringing peace to Iraq through means involving large numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq is impossible?
Given the extent to which he’s supported this war through thick and thin (with his main criticism, pre-surge, being that we needed to send more troops there), the presumption has to be: it would have to get a lot worse than it’s been.
I think the difference between the simplified characterization of McCain’s Iraq position, and this more nuanced version, is pretty minimal. YMMV.
True, but on the whole, there isn’t a whole lot of daylight. On some issues, he’s to the left of Bush, and on some issues he’s to the right. On some issues where he’s to the left, he’s likely to be constrained by his own party. But mostly, they’re pretty much in the same place: if you’re among the 28% that are happy with Bush, you’ll probably be satisfied with McCain.
Nonetheless, that’s the basis on which people are being asked to reject his candidacy.
Meanwhile, his policy proposals are at least honest attempts to grapple with difficult issues. McCain’s positions pretty much boil down to militarism, tax cuts that dwarf Bush’s, and the free market as a solution to the very things it isn’t taking care of now.
Let’s just say that I take it for granted that Obama easily wins an honest policy comparison between the two men - that if the American people don’t fall into the trap of deciding this thing on the basis of Jeremiah Wright or other matters that are far more trivial than the problems we face as a nation, McCain hasn’t a chance. But we can’t seem to get to that debate because of garbage from Wright to lapel pins to bowling to orange juice.
There’s going to come a point at which America’s willingness to decide elections on the basis of sighs and brown suits, nutty pastors and Swiftboaters, is going to get us into a lot worse trouble than we’re in now. And it isn’t that far off.
In what way would he be constrained by his own party? If you mean constrained by the Senate, then Obama or Hillary will be, too-- even more so.
And yet McCain polls about equal with Obama or Hillary, so you’re clearly missing something. Unless, of course, you’d like to place a little wager on whether McCain will get more than 28% of the popular vote.
No, not the basis. You’re trying to tell us that the only negative Obama has is Rev Wright. Sorry, but that’s just incorrect. You may be on board with all of Obama’s position, but plenty of Americans aren’t.
Yes, I guess MM does V. McCain said he’d support a long-term, peaceful presence in Iraq, akin to South Korea or Japan, so long as there are no U.S. casualties. He also has a position on how to achieve that peaceful state, a position I acknowledge reasonable people can agree or disagree with.
His position bears no resemblance to a preference for “staying in Iraq forever, no matter how it goes.” To sum his position up thusly, as it so often has been, is a grossly simplified, politicized, unsupportable assertion. It is not a difference of nuance between these positions; they are contradictory (according to my mileage estimates, anyway).
Well, it’s persuasive in the way that speculation on another’s motives can be. If we accept as givens that, (1) McCain cannot possibly achieve a peaceful state in the manner he suggests, and, (2) “So there exists in the McCain Doctrine, … absolutely no level of violence, no level of stability, no turn of events under which he would advocate leaving,” then, yeah, what an awful guy that McCain is. Surely you’re not suggesting that this is the only reasonable supposition one can make though, right?
I think it is a fair presumption that McCain does not have a vision of a level of violence or instability which would cause him to advocate withdrawal. He seems to be tied to the Bush doctrine that “victory”–undefined–is an absolute necessity and withdrawal is simply not a strategic option. So I think it is entirely fair to say that, in the context of the 100 years quote, while he would like for that 100 years to be peaceful, there is no indication that he would withdraw before then if it were not.
I agree that people can disagree as to whether a peaceful state is possible. But since many, many Americans do disagree, the question is what bearing they are to believe McCain’s hypothetical has on what he will actually do.
Why? Why do you conclude that “there exists in the McCain Doctrine … absolutely no level of violence, no level of stability, no turn of events under which he would advocate leaving,” if in fact you do? Why does anything except an immediate withdrawal strategy equate with a position of limitless violence and unquestioned carnage, when McCain’s words contradict this notion?
Do you believe there is no change in events that would lead McCain to withdraw? For that matter, is there nothing that could lead Obama to postpone withdrawal?
I believe that because it is consistent with what he has said about Iraq. McCain has never said he would withdraw if, on some set amount of time, the surge has not achieved its goals. To the best of my knowledge, McCain has never outlined a scenario in which he would withdraw. McCain has said that withdrawing means the terrorists win, and has not qualified that statement by saying that he’s only talking about immediate withdrawal (whatever that means).
So, like I said, I think it is a fair presumption that he has no such level in mind.
If, as you say, he has said something to contradict this notion, I’d love to hear it.
No, I don’t believe either of those propositions. I think that is a bit of hyperbole. I do think it entirely fair to believe that McCain would remain in Iraq at the current levels of violence and political divide for an indefinite period, and that is reinforced by the 100 years quote. That is what troubles most Americans.
Then most Americans are misunderstanding what he proposes. He does not propose never-ending violence. In fact, he has specifically disavowed it.
He does believe that setting a date for withdrawal is a recipe for chaos and increases the possibility that we’ll need to go back into Iraq as a result of the effect this would produce. You can disagree with this conclusion, of course, but it does not, to me, equate with, “I would never, ever, ever withdraw from Iraq.” It is not equivalent to “staying in Iraq forever, no matter how it goes.” It just isn’t.
Sorry, we’re doing the same dance, it seems. He believes it’s foolish to state a withdrawal date, foolish strategically for the effect that will produce. That’s not the same as saying, “I am OK with this level of violence going on indefinitely.” That may seem like splitting hairs to you, but I don’t agree. Again, it’s a different question, IMO, to argue whether or not the current level of force will result in a peaceful end in any reasonable time frame (or at all). But asserting that it can produce such a result, while refusing to identify the time frame, is not the same as saying, “forever.”
He has also said that the long-term presence he would support is a peaceful one, akin to Japan, where there are no U.S. casualties.
It’s one thing to say you believe his strategy unwise, that it won’t produce the success he envisions. It’s another thing entirely to say that McCain wants 100 more years of war in Iraq (as Obama did), or that he’d prefer “staying in Iraq forever, no matter how it goes.”
Well, if we’re not making any progress in this hijack, I’ll make this my last post on the issue and give you the last word (but not O’Reilly style where I jump back in :D).
I don’t think it is splitting hairs to distinguish between withdrawing and setting a date for withdrawal. But there is also a difference between setting a date, and discussing the general tactical/strategic concerns that might lead to withdrawal. It is his failure to do the latter, while simultaneously arguing that withdrawal would be catastrophic, which suggest very strongly that he has no vision of when withdrawal would be appropriate. If he has no vision of when it would be appropriate, then it is accurate to say “there exists in the McCain Doctrine, … absolutely no level of violence, no level of stability, no turn of events under which he would advocate leaving.” That isn’t the same as saying McCain would never withdraw no matter what. It is saying that under his stated doctrine, there is no level of violence or stability under which he advocates withdrawal.
But where, like S. Korea and elsewhere, we continued to spend billions of dollars. How much do you think 100 years in Iraq would cost? The answer is trillions. It also commits troops to the region that are needed elsewhere. Those are entirely legitimate point to bring up even if you read his comments in the most charitable light. And that is what Obama has emphasized when discussing the issue.
I think that the 100 years thing is being mildly unfairly used, and that it’s a lie of omission. However, it’s true that McCain is essentially saying NOTHING when you see it in context. He’d be fine with 100 years in Iraq as long as nobody is getting killed. OK, great. I’d be fine with 100 years in Iraq as long as nobody got killed, too. I’d be even better with 100 years in Iraq if nobody got killed and also every few days a fully formed American Soldier burst forth from the ether, served his tour honorably, and came back to invent a cure for a major disease.
It’s a valid question to ask- how do we get to this hypothetical future point in which nobody is getting killed? Will people get killed on the way to that? It would seem so. So his answer avoids a realistic question about how long we stay in Iraq. MCain essentially invents a strawman war and then tells us how he will fight it.
Has McCain ever outlined conditions under which troop withdrawal would begin? If not, is it that big a leap to say that there are none? And if there are no (acknowledged) conditions under which withdrawal may commence, is that not effectively “staying forever”?
I’m not really making an argument here; it’s simply that I’ve not heard of any such conditions. I would be greatly relieved if you might bring them to my attention.
ETA: effectively what RP says, but I think I’ve been more succinct.
McCain’s position is that success is defined by conditions in Iraq, not by arbitrary domestic timetables. Success is a function of political and military stability in Iraq, achievable via added troops employing specific strategies. Among other things, he advises that…
His point is that the time to withdraw is not a function (or shouldn’t be) of how much Hillary or Obama dislike our presence, it is a function of conditions on the ground, conditions that he has a pretty specific vision for, however likely you might think it that he’ll realize that vision.
Again, he does have a vision for what constitutes success, but he will not assign a timetable to that success, considering that an unwise strategic decision.
Obama has flat-out mischaracterized McCain’s position. That said, this is a different debate, isn’t it? Whether a long-term peaceful presence in Iraq is strategic and cost-effective is not the same question as to whether or not such an objective amounts to “100 more years of war in Iraq.”
