John McCain told a crowd in New Hampshire today that he's "fine" with the US military occupying Iraq for a hundred years:
God help us, I completely believe him. I don't know that Huckabee is any better on this point, but he certainly can't be worse. This gives Huck an opening. Even though GOP primary voters are a lot more devoted to the Iraq War than most Americans, I believe that degree of commitment -- 100 years?! -- will strike most Republicans as nuts. You want to talk about unelectable in November? Try the candidate who wants to fight a Hundred Years War in Iraq.
(H/T: Yglesias).
UPDATE: A reader writes:
I am with you on the Iraq war stuff, but I don't know that your assessment of McCain's comments is entirely fair or accurate. The youtube clip has him comparing Iraq to keeping troops in Japan and Korea as a peaceful presence. He specifically says that it would be fine with him as long as Americans aren't getting hurt and killed. That seems to be a very different thing from a 100 years war. I took him to mean a similar presence of troops as in Germany for instance.
I missed the conditional part of McCain's statement (it's a lame excuse, but I'm fighting a sinus infection, and I can't hear all that well right now). I appreciate the clarification, but even so, I'm not placated. I don't want to see American troops babysitting even a peaceful Iraq for the next 100 years (and I'd like to see them come home from Europe too).
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
We are not leaving Iraq until we hear that slurpy, bottom-of-the-milkshake sound coming from the bottom of the oil wells, no matter who gets elected.
Amen, brother. I haven't been watching Iowa and NH that closely, but I'm not hearing much talk about Nigeria from the hopefuls, or oil nipping at $100/bbl.
You can talk about high-minded democratic ideals and Islamofacism all you want, we're in the ME for one reason - oil. And we will remain in Iraq, Afghanistan and most likely Pakistan and Iran for as long as we can recruit and equip high school dropouts and immigrants to do the dirty work.
The is a perpetual resource war. It's been named the Global War on Terror, but for all intents and purposes its an oil war. Alan Greenspan has admitted as much in his book. Even Dick Cheney has said on multiple occasions that we cannot allow extremists to control the US economy by controlling the Persian Gulf.
Jaybird, you're right. The US imports 2/3 of its oil, and Saudi Arabia is now our number two supplier. Mexico's fields are in decline. WE're in the Middle East because the US economy is completely and utterly dependent on cheap imported oil and that party is nearing a close.
Even if the more gentle interpretation of McCain's statement is correct, he is endorsing President Bush's construction of (I believe eight) permanent military bases -- which will be eight permanent terrorist targets from here on out.
Which helps American security at home how, exactly? Oh, what President Bush says -- drawing the terrorists to Iraq rather than the mainland U.S.
As we say in New Jersey, "YEAH, RIGHT ..."
There's a fundamental difference between troops in safe places and unsafe places. Even 'safe' places like the border to South Korea.
We left troops in countries after WWII because a) the fighting had stopped, so they were safe, b) their government was actually in control of the country, and c) the conquered countries had more worrisome enemies looking at them with greedy eyes, so them keeping our troops safe was a good idea for them.
And no one cares about troops who are not getting killed or having to kill. No one would care if we left 10000 soldiers in Iraq if Iraq was not lawless with people trying to kill us, anymore than they care about the troops in Kuwait. Troops have to be somewhere.
The problem isn't where troops are standing, the problem is whether troops are fighting. And everyone knows that, except apparently McCain.
"And we will remain in Iraq, Afghanistan and most likely Pakistan and Iran for as long as we can recruit and equip high school dropouts and immigrants to do the dirty work."
I don't have a problem with voicing opposition to the administration's war policy. I do have a problem when it's done in such a way - as you do here - which is fundamentally unfair and mischaracterization of who joins the U.S. military and why.
Because, believe it or not, immigrants and high school dropouts compose a pretty damned small percentage of military personnel.
Come on. We can do better than this.
Because, believe it or not, immigrants and high school dropouts compose a pretty damned small percentage of military personnel.
I'll wager that the percentage of poor and immigrants in the armed forces will rise with every year we remain in the region and we're talking about permanent occupation of a hostile region. Six enormous bases in Iraq and the largest US embassy in the world. We've been in Germany for 60 years and Germany's no threat whatsoever, unlike Pakistan with nuclear weapons AND extremists next door to the world's largest reserves of oil.
Who will want to enlist in an all-volunteer armed force 10 years when our economy has slid into the ditch and it's 100% certain they will serve multiple tours in the midst of a bloody, unending sectarian war? Mercenaries and dropouts. I don't expect the sons and daughters of crunchy cons to fight these wars, that's for sure.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.