It’s true that McCain was talking about 100 years of occupation, but that doesn’t make the quote any more palatable. It means he thinks the occupation is independent from the violence, or that it could be. I don’t see any reason to believe that is possible. Unless you believe it is possible for us to eliminate all terrorism, or for us to heal the rift within Islam, then you shouldn’t believe we can keep troops in Iraq without getting them killed for at least the next few decades–and that’s assuming the non-Jihadist, merely nationalist insurgency can be taken care of, about which there is also very little evidence. It’s like saying, “So long as CO2 stops causing climate change, I’ll be OK if we keep massively increasing our CO2 output for 100 years!” If he said that, I’d be entirely OK with the paraphrase that McCain wants “100 years of climate change.”
This is not splitting hairs at all, or else you’re deliberately ignoring what he said. He specifically said a presence in that region, similar to that in Korea, one that stabilized the region was fine with him, so long as there were no U.S. casualties. If this is meaningless politically, then ISTM you’re conceding that any political point made, regardless of its actual relationship to what someone said, is A-OK with you, so long as it hurts your opponent. I don’t think you really mean that.
elucidator, thanks for recognizing the point. And the fight ain’t over yet.
This is tortuous. There is certainly precedence for a stabilizing, largely peaceful U.S. presence in hot spots throughout the world. Give it up. McCain’s comment–this specific statement–was innocuous, as much as the Dem talking points would suggest otherwise.
Since the Republicans have always been forthright about not misquoting Democratic candidates or taking their words out of context or repeating the misquotes endlessly, I would hope the Democrats would conduct themselves with the same class and honesty.
Expecting Iraqi insurgents to respect the outcomes of previous occupations is like saying if we hold our mouth just right, and nothing goes wrong, everything will be OK. There are too many variables to think it is reasonable that Iraq will play out like Japan/Korea/Germany.
The analogy to Korea and the qualification “as long as nobody gets hurt” is absurd. First of all, it’s impossible. It’s like saying it’s ok to stick your arm in boiling oil as long as it doesn’t get burned. secondly, it’s self-negating. If Americans aren’t getting hurt then what would they need to be there for?
That qualification is also evasive because Americans ARE getting hurt. How long is he willing to stay there while Americans ARE getting killed? Saying “If they stopped killing us we could safely stay there forever,” while technically true is also not answer to any real question.
Beyond all that, I was speaking in terms of how McCain will be framed during the election (the same is true of my comment that he will be the “anti-hope” candidate). That “100 years” bravado is going to sink him, no matter how much he tries to back peddle during the GE. It was not an acceptable thing to say. There’s only a hardcore of about 30% of Americans who want to continue the occupation of Iraq. That one statement was the best gift he ever could have given to Obama.
I suspect you’re right.
I don’t think it’s the Obama Democrats that they need to worry about as the Obama Independents and the Obama Republicans. As an independent voter, I’ll hold my nose and vote for Clinton, if she wins the nomination fairly. Lots of independents and Republicans who are enthused about Obama simply won’t vote for her at all. And why should they? They have no party loyalty that compels them to do so. As for the Obama Democrats, I think they’ll vote for her. The question is whether they’ll volunteer for her or donate to her.
What precedent? All of the precedent is distinguishable by a nine-year-old with Google. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re not talking about S. Korea or Japan, like McCain. Your best argument would be something like The Philippines or Bosnia. But even that argument is incredibly weak. Even a cursory understanding of what’s going on in Iraq reveals at least three independent sources of conflict with no end in sight. The influence of surrounding countries, the lack of any multi-national support, the larger dynamic in Islam, the unique insult of occupation of holy land, the modern nature of asymmetric warfare, and a dozen other factors make Iraq the only good model for Iraq. And that model suggests that it isn’t tortuous at all to suggest that occupation is not severable from violence.
Entirely legitimate points, and I wouldn’t hesitate to make them. But the construct that suggests that McCain favors 100 years of war is dishonest.
If I sincerely believed that supply side economics and trickle down tax structures would actually help the poor, then it would be dishonest to claim that I seek to further impoverish the impoverished. It would be wholly legitimate to point out that would be the probable result of good intentions gone bad, but it wouldn’t be fair to ignore those good intentions, however mistaken.
That would be an amazingly foolish move on McCain’s part. For a lot of conservatives, the only reason to vote for him is to vote against the Democrats. For Obama to accept the spot would be the end of his credibility, as well.
I think you have to consider McCain’s words in the context of everything else he’s said, or declined to say, on the issue.
And his remarks are completely consistent with respect to Iraq: he’s Mr. Don’t-Back-Down. If he’s ever even hinted at what circumstances might force a U.S. withdrawal, I’ve certainly missed it. And given what we’ve already been through, it’s clear that the casualty levels our soldiers have endured so far have been insufficient in that regard.
He’s not gonna back down as long as there’s a fight, and he’s not gonna leave if we somehow get lucky and bring peace to Iraq. If we had a succession of McCains in the White House, is there any reason to believe “100 years” wouldn’t mean 100 years, regardless of how things turn out?
If he wants to say we’d only stay for 100 peaceful years, then he’s free to spell out what level of non-peace he’s regard as sufficient to make us withdraw. He hasn’t.
That’s a fair argument. “McCain wants a policy that will cause 100 years of war” is different from “McCain wants 100 years of war.” It is, I suppose, the difference between an objective and subjective assessment (in the true sense of those words). If McCain said he wants to put botox in the drinking water to make us all wrinkle-free, it might be inaccurate to say that, subjectively, McCain wants to kill us all. But objectively speaking, he would be wanting to kill us all.
You could argue that “want” or “support” are always a subjective terms. But we’d still have to ask what is meant by “war.” I’m not sure that anyone is saying that McCain subjectively wants 100 years of thousands of American casualties. There are other things encompassed in the word “war,” not the least of which is the money we spend and the troops we commit there instead of Afghanistan. Those last two aspects of “war” are things that McCain subjectively wants, or at least would tolerate as part of his Iraq policy. And, not incidentally, those are the two things Obama emphasizes when he speaks about McCain’s policy (the massive cost and the diversion from Afghanistan).
I guess that sounds like a lot of semantics, but we are arguing about the semantic match for two statements, so I think that’s fair.
McCain does say that a 100 year presence in Iraq is entirely acceptable. I understand this to mean military bases and uniformed soldiers. Gee, this will help our reputation in the Muslim world.
The U.S. needs to examine its priorities in this new world order. The gargantuan U.S. military complex is running on debt overload. Current military spending is at the expense of economic and social health. Is this country going to use brute military force in lieu of economic power to plot foreign policy? While the U.S. spends and spends on defense, other developed countries are investing in areas that aid economic strength and real long term global power.
Guys, the US has already been heavily positioned in the middle east for the past 50 years. There have been thousands of servicemen and women in Saudi Arabia since 1990. At any given time, there is at least one carrier group operating in the region, with over 10,000 sailors in the group (currently I believe there are two or three carrier groups in the Persian Gulf).
McCain was clearly talking about a situation in which Iraq stabilizes and becomes relatively peaceful, but needs the presence of the U.S. military to prevent border problems and the re-infiltration of terrorist groups. If the Iraq economy improves and the middle class recovers, it’s not at all outlandish to suppose that they might actually welcome a stabilizing force in the country - especially if it’s clear to everyone that America is not occupying or dictating to the government in any way, other than by threatening to leave. Exactly the kind of relationship the U.S. has with Germany, Japan, and South Korea.
Furthermore, this could be a very good thing for U.S. interests. If the Iraqi people want it, why in hell would you want to squander the opportunity to build new allies and win new friends in a very troubled part of the world?
Of course, I’m sure almost all of you believe that this could never happen, and that the Americans will be nothing more than a magnet for terrorists and hatred, and therefore will never be in a position to stop taking casualties. In which case, McCain’s statement clearly doesn’t apply.
Spinning his statement into, “McCain wants 100 years of WAR!” is downright dishonest.
Sam as someone who, if HRC is a nominee by hook or crook (as opposed to straight up) wil be seriously considering voting for McCain, what do you see are his critera for substantial force reductions? If any sizable reduction is matched with an elevation in violence, will he reduce any way or stay ad infinitum?
I am concerned that his plan that
leaves little hope of getting out in any foreseebal future, as I see little hope of achieving anything like a “victory” over global terrorism. We will not lose the battle, but this war is not a way to win it.
Wrong.
Most US troops were withdrawn from Saudi Arabia almost five years ago:
On the contrary, it is very outlandish. Our occupation of Middle East has been anything but peaceful and casualty-free. From Beirut to the USS Cole, even our troops outside Iraq have not been free from violence and mass death.
Comparing Japan to Iraq is absurd. Japan is an island nation, homogenous, lacking a civil war, free from insurgency, and whose top spiritual leader surrendered. Iraq is the complete opposite. It is surrounded by interested and unethical neighbors, it is a hodge-podge of nationalities, engulfed in civil war, wracked by insurgency, and whose top spiritual leaders are calling for death to the US.
South Korea and Germany are only slightly more analogous, but many of the same systematic issues apply. Occupying S. Korea is like occupying Kurdistan. We could probably do *that *without as much chaos. Europe is not the Middle East. We aren’t seen as infidel invaders when we build a base in Ramstein.
It’s apples and oranges. Indeed, it is the same kind of thinking that got us into this fool’s war in the first place. We’ll be welcomed as liberators, just like in Europe!
As I said above, I think it might be right that quoting McCain as wanting 100 years more of war is misleading. But I’m not sure the other interpretation of the quote–he actually thinks peaceful occupation is plausible, is not outlandish–speaks any better of his foreign policy vision.
That and the Bomb Iran song.
I would love to hear Obama close out a debate with, “Would you sing that Beach Boys song for everyone one more time.”
That would set McCain up nicely to sing, “Baa Baa Black Sheep,” which people knowledgeable of the Beach Boys’ deep tracks would appreciate, but the rest of America unfortunately just find racist.
But, Sam Stone, the U.S. has made enemies not friends, most notably Iran, and Iran will make sure its influence is felt in Iraq. After all, it is Iran’s neighborhood. The Saudis also have an interest in the outcome in Iraq. All of the countries in the region have a deeply personal connection to the Iraqi people that the U.S. lacks. The Iraqi people will choose regional influence over U.S. influence. The post WWII/cold war thinking needs to be replaced with a new vision. The U.S. no longer has the economic strength. New economic powers can outspend the U.S. into bankruptcy.
I think it is short sighted and irresponsible that the U.S. government has allowed oil interests to triumph over the R&D of an alternative energy source. The U.S needs to focus on alternative energy, so it can end military presence in Southwest Asia.