McCain did not actually every say anything about seriously attacking Iran. His official view is no different from the President’s. Nothing is off the table, but force is not imminent.
He certainly “joked” about attacking Iran, but considering his and Graham’s rhetoric over the past few years, nothing short of bombing Iran would have appeased them. Unless they just oppose Obama no matter what (no, couldn’t be!).
Further, he would have kept us in Iraq much longer at the cost of thousands more dead Americans.
And ISIS wouldn’t have been able to gain a foothold in Iraq. American forces would not have thrown down their weapons and run away.
I’m not trying to say you’re wrong, only that it’s a counterfactual that’s impossible to prove. Maybe McCain would have just bombed in every situation where it was remotely plausible, from Iran to Syria to Libya, but as a big fan of both of those men, McCain and Graham, I pay attention to what they advocate and it hasn’t been outright war, just a much tougher stance. I do agree that McCain would have stayed in Iraq longer, but I’m not so sure that’s a bad idea. Especially since despite your argument that more Americans would die, the American death toll had already been reduced a ton, from 961 pre-surge to 60 by 2010. ISIS only invaded Iraq because they saw an opportunity, which was provided by the decision the President made.
From sanctions on Iran, which are supported bipartisanly but opposed by the President, to pulling out of Iraq too soon, to a response against ISIS that is ineffective, this President’s policy is not smart, it’s just weak. The good thing about the 2016 race is that it features no candidates other than Rand Paul who are likely to be more dovish. Clinton will wipe those bastards from the face of the Earth and any Republican will too.
How do you know? There were plenty of areas we didn’t control. They also could have gained power in another country in the region – Syria, Yemen, etc. And even if they did, the only way to prevent something like ISIS from taking control would be to commit decades or more (and probably tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives) to staying in Iraq. Not even close to worth it.
This “decision” you speak of was Bush’s, not Obama’s (and I’m not just talking about the Status of Forces agreement – I’m talking about the decision to invade Iraq). Once Saddam is gone, ISIS or similar will take power as soon as they can – the only way to avoid it is to stay nearly forever. And that’s just not even close to worth it.
Further, it’s nuts that you still pay attention to McCain and Graham. Their track record is awful. They still refuse to admit that Iraq was a massive blunder (and maybe the biggest strategic mistake in American history!). Anyone who thinks Iraq was a good idea has less than negative credibility.
We already have sanctions on Iran. Further sanctions would be counterproductive to the ongoing negotiations.
Too late, in my opinion – every month we stayed were more dead Americans for nothing good.
It’s much, much stronger than McCain/Graham’s policies. Fighting ISIS on the ground would strengthen ISIS (and similar fundamentalists) and weaken America. Any further, deeper involvement would weaken America.
This is opinion, of course – but the fact that you’re sticking with McCain and Graham when they refuse to admit how massively wrong they were is telling.
You can’t “wipe those bastards from the face of the Earth” (short of, perhaps, nuking all of the Middle East, most of Asia, and much of Europe). That’s not how the real world works. Graham, McCain, Palin, and Trump are just incredible fools on this.
What you can do is sweep them from the field, which the President’s air strikes are supposed to do but not actually doing. What’s unusual about our current strategy is that we are dictating the means to be used rather than the objective to be achieved. That’s malpractice.
Which was also the administration position as the end of 2011 approached. The withdrawal was remarkably apolitical one the 2008 election was complte. Obama basically followed what was the Bush administration’s conditions based strategy once he took office …after the professionals actually briefed him. OND ended when Iraq would not approve a SOFA that met US conditions to continue. I can’t see McCain ignoring the lack of SOFA protecting US troops from Iraqi civil prosecution. A theoretical third Bush term, McCain, or Obama seems like a non-issue with respect to the finishing of Iraq to me.
Thousands more dead is hyperbole unless you’re assuming much higher rates of violence than existed during the Operation New Dawn phase or in the last year of OIF. In 15 months of OND the US lost 66 total dead including non-combat related deaths. It’s hard to judge what changes to the security conditions would have happened. Like it would have been somewhere between the slow rate of insurgent operations waiting for the US to leave and the higher rate after they did. It would have taken multiple Presidents in the chair to keep troops there long enough for “thousands” at the OND casualty rate.
Except that that’s not the current strategy.
I’m trying to imagine how we would have prevented an ISIS-like group from developing when we leave – and I can’t, unless perhaps we stay for decades. If we stayed for decades, insurgencies would dwindle and swell periodically, and we would periodically lose lots and less people.
It’s really simple: we can’t go into a country where we can’t tell friend from foe (and, hell, don’t even speak the language) and act as its internal security force. We couldn’t do it in Vietnam, we couldn’t do it in Iraq during the Bush years, and we can’t do it in Iraq now. Or in Syria, Libya, or Yemen.
And similarly, we can create and prop up some pretend army for awhile, and give them lots of training and weapons, but if they’re largely our creation, they’ll be worthless when push comes to shove, and all those weapons will wind up in someone else’s hands - almost surely the hands of someone we don’t like.
Remember when, back in early 2006, Condi Rice said we had built up a force of 227,000 ‘quality’ Iraqi troops? We know how well that worked out. Is our GOPers learning?
Are, me hearties! Are! Are!
The difference is that the Viet Cong weren’t coming to our shores. ISIS will.
How will a land war in the Middle East prevent that?
It doesn’t totally prevent, but it does deny them sanctuary and a government funding them. If we’re attacked, we invade anyway. Might as well do it before they can get dug in. We don’t even need large numbers of ground troops for this. Just enough special forces to stiffen the Iraqis’ spine and call in airstrikes. Worked great with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.
Well, then, where are they?
So let’s fight them here so we don’t have to fight them there. Seriously, if they come to our shores, it’ll make it a heck of a lot easier to fight them, and probably for lower cost in both money and lives. Plus, if it should turn out that they don’t actually come to us, then that’s even better, right?
There’s no chance ISIS could ever kill more people and cost us more money attacking us here than if we had forces there. ISIS is not WWII Japan or Germany. They’re not even North Korea or Iran. They’re a few tens of thousands of uneducated, belligerent assholes.
Play on Bushism-
“Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?”[4] — Florence, South Carolina; January 11, 2000
This walks right up to the line between attacking a post and attacking poster and then sticks one foot over it.
Let’s back off on the personal attacks.
[ /Moderating ]
Elizabeth Warren: “If Scott Walker sees 100,000 teachers & firefighters as his enemies, maybe it’s time we take a closer look at his friends.”