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,...
You might be projecting here, Rod. Iraq's been largely quiet, and we still have troops in Germany and Japan, right? I don't think we should have gone in the first place, but now that we're there...if I'm thinking in terms of US national interests, I sure as heck wouldn't want to give up a hard-won foothold in that region of the world.
Just my devil's advocate $.02.
Bugg
January 3, 2008 11:02 PM
Only Ron Paul is questioning this debacle. We got rid of the bad guy in Iraq. We will not go to war with Iran since they don't have a bomb. We should search out and kill Bin laden. But beyond that, the idea that Americn troops should be the guarantors of "(Insert Middle Eastern/Muslim Country Here) yearning the breathe free and exercise democracy" is batsheet crazy. Saying American soldiers should stay forever is lunacy. And while we're at it, why are we still in Korea, Germany and Japan? Question becomes whether any GOP candidate other than Paul takes a stand over this insanity.
jaybird
January 3, 2008 11:06 PM
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.
As you were.
godisaheretic
January 3, 2008 11:08 PM
I'm sure there's a daily quantity of American soldiers who return home with head injuries...
the physical kind and that of PTSD...
the damage to their lives is huge...
it's sad to consider how these soldiers of today will soon be the homeless of tomorrow...
yes...
the Iraq War...
supplying America with mentally-damaged homeless men for 100 years...
that's just...
wait for it...
nuts...
faith hope love joy peace to all...
PetRock235
January 3, 2008 11:29 PM
Rod, McCain did not say fighting a war for 100 years, but just the opposite. He said maintaining a US presence for 50 or 100 years, like South Korea, as long as US troops are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Iraq borders Syria and Iran and Kuwait.
godisaheretic
January 4, 2008 12:21 AM
"... fine with him as long as Americans aren't getting hurt and killed..."
but aren't they even now?
or do head injuries and PTSD not count?
sure...
they don't come home dead...
just mentally disabled...
the future homeless generation...
and McCain says it's "fine with him"?
oh right...
bring 'em home disabled but alive for the next 100 years...
that's not a plan for the good of America...
is it?
faith hope love joy peace to all...
rombald
January 4, 2008 2:40 AM
The only point of occupying Iraq, for a month or a century, is to de-Islamify its society, just like Germany was de-Nazified. That doesn't seem to be happening, so it's a waste of time, money and lives.
Will
January 4, 2008 8:59 AM
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.
Larry Parker
January 4, 2008 12:17 PM
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 ..."
DavidTC
January 4, 2008 12:19 PM
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.
Richard
January 4, 2008 7:55 PM
"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.
Will
January 4, 2008 9:52 PM
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.
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Sign Up: Receive Crunchy Con in your in-box every day
You might be projecting here, Rod. Iraq's been largely quiet, and we still have troops in Germany and Japan, right? I don't think we should have gone in the first place, but now that we're there...if I'm thinking in terms of US national interests, I sure as heck wouldn't want to give up a hard-won foothold in that region of the world.
Just my devil's advocate $.02.
Only Ron Paul is questioning this debacle. We got rid of the bad guy in Iraq. We will not go to war with Iran since they don't have a bomb. We should search out and kill Bin laden. But beyond that, the idea that Americn troops should be the guarantors of "(Insert Middle Eastern/Muslim Country Here) yearning the breathe free and exercise democracy" is batsheet crazy. Saying American soldiers should stay forever is lunacy. And while we're at it, why are we still in Korea, Germany and Japan? Question becomes whether any GOP candidate other than Paul takes a stand over this insanity.
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.
As you were.
I'm sure there's a daily quantity of American soldiers who return home with head injuries...
the physical kind and that of PTSD...
the damage to their lives is huge...
it's sad to consider how these soldiers of today will soon be the homeless of tomorrow...
yes...
the Iraq War...
supplying America with mentally-damaged homeless men for 100 years...
that's just...
wait for it...
nuts...
faith hope love joy peace to all...
Rod, McCain did not say fighting a war for 100 years, but just the opposite. He said maintaining a US presence for 50 or 100 years, like South Korea, as long as US troops are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Iraq borders Syria and Iran and Kuwait.
"... fine with him as long as Americans aren't getting hurt and killed..."
but aren't they even now?
or do head injuries and PTSD not count?
sure...
they don't come home dead...
just mentally disabled...
the future homeless generation...
and McCain says it's "fine with him"?
oh right...
bring 'em home disabled but alive for the next 100 years...
that's not a plan for the good of America...
is it?
faith hope love joy peace to all...
The only point of occupying Iraq, for a month or a century, is to de-Islamify its society, just like Germany was de-Nazified. That doesn't seem to be happening, so it's a waste of time, money and lives.
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.