Those are the words of a politician of yesteryear. Today we have the sagacious words of John McCain, Vietnam veteran and Republican presidential candidate, speaking to a crowd in New Hampshire yesterday:
Transcript as follows:
Q: "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years --"
McCAIN: "Make it a hundred."
Q: "Is that. . . ."
McCAIN: "We've been in South Korea ... we've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans ..."
Q: (Tries to say something)
McCAIN: "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That's fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day."
Q: "Is that. . . ."
McCAIN: "We've been in South Korea ... we've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans ..."
Q: (Tries to say something)
McCAIN: "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That's fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day."
--End demented blathering--
I can't for the life of me recall North Koreans kidnapping and beheading American soldiers in Seoul or Tokyo jihadists planting roadside bombs outside a U.S. base. It's a totally different dynamic there, silly! We're willing to keep a small amount of soldiers on foreign soil, but how many men would it take to stabilize the country? Obviously more than 150,000. Recruiting goals would have to be bolstered to meet the new demand for the next century. How they plan on making those numbers, I'm not sure. Thanks to the pocket veto by Bush, the most powerful government of all time can't pony up the dough for re-enlistment bonuses because the Iraqi government objected to the bill.
Think retention is hard with soldiers deploying two or three times and wanting to get out? Try a tour every other year for the rest of your life, if McCain gets elected. Try to imagine it: every other time a new edition of Madden comes out, you're whisked away for yet another fifteen month tour.
Sometime, in the future...
Dude 1: Hey, remember Baghdad in the summer of '18? It wasn't as hot as this.
Dude 2: Yeah, but the hover-craft IED threat wasn't that bad then. I'd do anything for the fair weather of Mosul in 2010.
Dude 1: Good call! Remember when President McCain sent us a video greeting on Thanksgiving?
Dude 2: Yeah, yeah.
Dude 1: What's the matter? You voted for him didn't you?
Dude 2: Shut the fuck up.
Likely scenario? I hope not.
AH
(Thanks to Brandon Friedman of Vetvoice for the video and transcript.)
21 comments:
Found your site through a comment featured in a Matt Stoller post on Open Left. Going to spend some time reading through your stuff. Perhaps I can use some of it in class; I teach a high school senior elective called, um, Peace Studies. Seems to me your perspective might be helpful for the wide-eyed to read.
Hi Alex -- I'm a big fan of your blog. While I don't necessarily support everything McCain advocates, I think he's saying something slightly different than what you're interpreting.
McCain seems to be assuming that, like Japan and South Korea, we will eventually reach a point in Iraq where we can maintain a military presence WITHOUT our troops sustaining frequent casualties. I think that's what he means when he makes the caveat "...as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."
This case assumes the Iraqis can establish a functional government (like the Koreans and Japanese were eventually able to do post-war). In South Korea, this process took many years and required the direct support and leadership of the United States.
The U.S. has maintained a presence of roughly 30-35,000 troops in South Korea to deter a North Korean invasion and maintain regional stability since the end of the Korean War. The threat to our soldiers there is minimal.
If this scenario were duplicable in Iraq -- and McCain seems to believe it is -- then he is correct: I wouldn't have a problem with the U.S. maintaining a presence in the Middle East indefinitely.
I think that's where your actual disconnect with McCain is -- he seems to believe this threshold of stability can be reached in the near future, and you probably don't. I honestly don't know who's right.
But if your prognosis is correct, and we need to keep 150,000 troops in the region for the next 100 years just to maintain the same level of "stability" we have now while sustaining consistent losses, I don't think McCain (or any other rational U.S. citizen) would be supportive.
--Rob
Thanks for writing Rob. While I do see the point of your assessment, I fail to see any logical reasoning to maintain bases in Iraq long term. If it's for stabilization, we have Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Why be in Iraq with a hostile population against us? What we found time and time again was the insurgents were of local color. That is, their decision to fight is directly connected to our presence and they took up arms against us because of their perceived threat. What we saw in post war South Korea and Japan were rational people taking hold of the government. Thanks to Saddam fermenting sectarian hate when he came to power, I don't see any kind of reconciliation, at least in the next few dozen years. And I don't see a reason to keep troops there for the next 100 minutes, not to mention 100 years. The real fight is Afghanistan, and we have more soldiers in Baghdad than that whole country. Iraq doesn't fit into this war on terror, the Taliban and al Qaeda networks do. And there's nothing more crucial to their success than 1: a foreign occupation in a Muslim country and 2: bogged down forces where they don't matter. The first is a recruiting tool. The second is a byproduct of one, which allows them to roam freely in a country with a third of the coalition forces in Iraq. That is the injustice that McCain willfully ignores.
You're still blogging great, Alex.
I have to take McCain's remark in the context of the other explanations we have been sold so far by the deciders on this war:
1. Retaliate for 9/11
2. Secret nucular weapons which Saddam could give to al Qaeda, chemical weapons, biological weapons, mobile labs, unmanned aerial delivery systems
3. Get rid of a terrible man, a "threat"
4. Bring democracy to Iraqi people
5. Defeat unexpected post-war insurgency
6. Defeat recently arrived al Qaeda
7. Venue to struggle with and contain Iran
8. Permanent Korea-like presence in a pacified country in an important part of the world
These guys keep swinging, but they are not hitting the ball. It's la-la land with blood at this point. They are making shit up as they go along.
$4 billion a week is flowing from the US treasury into the pockets of people who support these explanations, each one, as it is phased in.
I've always respected McCain, but he's just babbling with his Iraq speech.
IMHO
coming out of arizona i can speak directly to the mcCain thing. the dude is full on batshit crazy. he allows ambition (he really really REAALLLY wants to be preznit) to overcome any restraint or curbs on his behavior. he got beat by bush in south carolina (and remember the most historically significant contribution they made to our country was that they started the civil war) by having lies about his family spread by religious racist assholes, instead of grabbing the nearest firearm he could find, or a baseball bat to knock some heads mcCain instead has spent the last eight years sucking up to those bastards. back when the S&L scandal was breaking mcCain was right there at the keating trough feeding with all the other pigs.
he has let his ambition for power diminish the huge amount of honor he accrued during his impressive service as a pilot and his astonishing courageous leadership and resistance while a POW.
i am shamed and sorry for him.
Excellent analysis, Alex. While I don't think McCain is certifiably nuts, I think his other domestic policies are screwball. See the misbegotten McCain-Feingold bill for a prime example. For a lot of us moderate Republicans, this year's race will boil down to voting for who we dislike the least. If McCain gets the nomination (God forbid a thousand times) I won't bother to vote.
Love,
Dad
Looks like you’ve got a good thread going here.
Although McCain’s comment has the same bad joke aspect as his “Bomb bomb Iran” comment, he clarified his statement on today’s Face the Nation. In this instance I believe his comment is based on reality. Yes, we can all agree that being stationed in Japan or Kosovo would be desirable over Iraq. I don’t believe the Big Three Democrats are being honest that they will pull all the troops out of Iraq by the end of 2012. Simple reason is based on why America has been in the Middle East for decades. American politicians view is that as the world’s superpower, it wants to be in charge and have the respect of the countries in the region. America wants to decide who is allowed to do what … Saddam was in trouble when he took Kuwait without America’s approval. Similarly, America allowed Turkey to bomb Northern Iraq last month without a voicing a complaint … when obviously, Turkey could not enter the air space with US Air Force being aware.
In my opinion, America will have armed forces in Iraq for decades … but as McCain said on Face the Nation “in a support” role and not engaged in combat. If armed forces are not there, it can only mean that America has been pushed out by the ruling powers … which would not be good as then we would have armed troops on the ready in Kuwait, etc.
If I may make a case for John McCain as the Republican nominee, it would be that he would be the best for America as an alternative to the Democratic nominee. First off, I am an independent and thus want the political parties to offer the best possible candidates. Being in Minnesota, we have seen elections take strange turns. For example, Democrat Paul Wellstone (whom I supported) was elected after the Republican incumbent Senator issued a letter to supporters referencing that Wellstone was a Jew. Wellstone won. After Wellstone’s death, the memorial service had such a partisan tone that Republican Norm Coleman won (and we in Minnesota and the country have suffered ever since.) Minnesota has also been impacted by third party candidates … I am sure that you heard that Jesse Ventura was an Independent Governor … but he actually replaced a governor that had ran as an Independent.
Why do I mention that? Simple. Ron Paul. Paul’s most vocal criticism is that America needs to get out of world affairs. Paul has raised millions and a third-party run (or even another run as the Libertarian nominee) could have a Nader/Perot/Buchanan effect. He will appeal to people that otherwise may support a Democrat candidate. Under normal circumstances, my vote as a Minnesotan in the Presidential Election would be irrelevant , but if Ron Paul runs in Minnesota and McCain selects Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty as VP, Minnesota could come in to play. Without Paul, there is no debate … Minnesota’s electoral votes would be Democratic.
Now, presuming that the Republican nominee is viable (because of the Paul effect), don’t you want the best possible nominee since a Republican could win ?
I vote based on the issues … and if look at McCain, he does not move in sync with the Neo-cons or Theo-cons. Just prior to the 2006, McCain came to campaign for the local incumbent Republican Congressman. I offered this comparison on my blog. (Incidentally, McCain and Pawlenty came, and the District went Democratic.) Look at those issues, and think about President Romney, Rudy or the Huckster … no, I want McCain.
With regards to his statement on Iraq - taken way out of context.
I agree with him completely. As long as no harm is done, who cares if Americans are in Iraq?
They've been in Cuba for 100 years...
Kurt Vonnegut said something about never trusting air force pilots when it comes to decisions about war.
That's a good thing, Peteski, because McCain was a Navy pilot.
Alex's Dad
In response to Jeff,
You may not care, but you should acknowledge that the Iraqis do care. Poll after poll has shown that the vast majorities of Iraqis of all ethnicities and sects want U.S. troops out of their country. John McCain's insistence that they should stay in Iraq clearly shows his blatant disregard of the Iraqis' wishes for the complete withdrawal of the American forces from Iraq.
As for Cuba, I really don't see how this is applicable to Iraq given that the situation between those two countries are completely different.
I would expect better from someone who has fought in a war.
South Korea has a clearly-delineated border secured by thousands of U.S. troops, backed up by the defending army who were sympathetic to the U.S. troops, and hundreds of thousands of mines to keep the sides apart. How is that model similar to Iraq?
Japan's military and government were soundly beaten down and ultimately surrendered after massive sacrifice and expense. There was dissent among some of the population about whether to accept surrender, but there weren't dozens of religious/tribal/sectarian factions looking for an opportunity to wipe out their competitors by civil war or ethnic cleansing. Again, how does he see this situation as proof that occupation will be peaceful?
America can do without Republican leadership, period, at this point. None of the candidates on the right are sane if you ask me; not a single one is distancing himself from George Bush, the most monstrous buffoon the west has ever seen (and that's saying a lot!).
Oh yeah, and regarding the various interpretations of John McCain's hundred years in Iraq scenario... I think you'll find those other areas (like South Korea, for example) simply incomparable to Iraq. There are no civil wars in those zones...they are essentially peacekeeping. Iraq is a constant civil war zone and the US created this situation. You (commenters) simply can't say that Iraq is anything like South Korea and be taken seriously.
Jeff said:
You may not care, but you should acknowledge that the Iraqis do care. Poll after poll has shown that the vast majorities of Iraqis of all ethnicities and sects want U.S. troops out of their country. John McCain's insistence that they should stay in Iraq clearly shows his blatant disregard of the Iraqis' wishes for the complete withdrawal of the American forces from Iraq.
If you actually believe that, you're oblivious.
Of course the people of Iraq wish we eventually withdraw from their nation and that's all the ridiculous polls will confirm, but they also are considerably appreciative of the help we continue to provide. We work with them, volunteers from both sects who wish to repel foreign fighters, insurgent forces, from Iraq. They also want as much help as they can get, restoring infrastructure we helped decimate, whether it's electricity, running water, sewage or trash removal. These basic services have often been disrupted and sabotaged by insurgents; and we continue to restore and protect them.
The greater majority of Iraqis are concerned that we will just ditch them and leave their country in shambles after we've torn it all apart. Most do fear we'll leave the nation a chaotic battlefield for insurgent forces to fight out in their city streets. Immediate withdrawal not only would confirm their fears, but at this point, would be an egregiously stupid move, after the considerable successes we've had in the past year.
The violence levels in Iraq have returned, in most areas, to levels in 2003. The stability is still tenuous, but we have been able to reduce our presence and return partial or full responsibility to Iraq's own security forces in many areas. Our surge has been a success, but we're by no means all through, where we can pack up and leave and expect that peace to continue.
Michael wrote:
I would expect better from someone who has fought in a war.
South Korea has a clearly-delineated border secured by thousands of U.S. troops, backed up by the defending army who were sympathetic to the U.S. troops, and hundreds of thousands of mines to keep the sides apart. How is that model similar to Iraq?
Japan's military and government were soundly beaten down and ultimately surrendered after massive sacrifice and expense. There was dissent among some of the population about whether to accept surrender, but there weren't dozens of religious/tribal/sectarian factions looking for an opportunity to wipe out their competitors by civil war or ethnic cleansing. Again, how does he see this situation as proof that occupation will be peaceful?
Where do you get the idea that the people in Iraq are hostile towards us and vice versa?
First off, folks, this idea of a permanent Korea-like situation is being woven into public awareness like it's an afterthought.
It's not. We began constructing permanent bases shortly after the invasion.If the Iraqi people wanted this, then everyone would be happy and we wouldn't have any problems or violence to deal with, would we?
All we want is a friendly, peaceful government willing to host 6 or 8 permanent strategic military bases, and a chance to run the oil business with US companies.
This goal is not being achieved. Gen. Petraeus says it takes 10 years to defeat an insurgency, and you can bet the neocons are comfortable with thinking we are about halfway through this process, heading for success. If Americans are willing to go along and foot the personal and financial bill, then they are going to get the next five years.
But I can't stand the rhetorical swindle that just goes on and on, morphing from one thing to the next, all demonstrating "success".
The fingernails-on-chalkboard thing today is people virtuously pointing out that the surge is a success.
So far, the surge is a complete failure. Military pacification was not the goal of the surge, only the means. The goal of the surge was government reform and domestic peace and cooperation. Five years after the invasion, it's not happening.
It's like having to rush your pregnant wife to the delivery room, and calling it a "success" because the car started right up and ran well. And now here you are, pulled up in the grass on the freeway onramp, delivering your kid in the back seat and your wife she is a-screaming. Oh boy, that worked great!
To quote Sergeant Victor:
Where do you get the idea that the people in Iraq are hostile towards us and vice versa?
A great deal of the Sunni insurgents we captured were locals that reacted to the invasion with hostility. They weren't international thugs. The thought that we could operate a minimal amount of FOBs with a 'peacekeeping force' in Iraq without mortar, rocket and suicide attacks is ludicrous. That is assuming another point is reconciled: the IA/IP becoming professional organizations working independently from American forces going out to patrol/recon/snatch and grab on their own. I don't know what part of Iraq you're in, but half our time on raids and patrols was taken up by instructing the IA to do simple things like keep their AKs on safe and to look upstairs in all the houses. They're still low-motivation, squabbling thieves and would collapse if they we gave them a little more responsibility. I believe there is not a point in five or ten years where Americans would be relegated to a support role, far from daily casualties. The Iraqis are simply not ready for it. It'll be a time where we simply say "screw you guys, we're going home." Up to my deployment, we were constantly told we were going in a support role, where the ISF would be leading the way. We'd be there to guide them. I think the surge pretty much squashed that idea between its thick, buttery thighs. Our successes were not reciprocated.
AH
I wonder how, in McCain's scenario, the United States is supposed to benefit from 100 years in Iraq. Our presence in Iraq is already a great financial drain. As far as Iran is concerned, we are only providing them with big opportunities.
We cannot defeat al Qaeda or other international terrorists by permanently fortifying ourselves in Iraq. They are willing to travel.
In Japan and South Korea, there were pretty obvious reasons for maintaining a large presence for many decades in the context of the Cold War. I don't think that logic applies in this case.
The Republicans claim to be the "pro-family" party. That doesn't mean the families devastated by the long war the Republicans caused, with some combination of arcane motivations but no reason.
the ex army infantryman solder HOOAH says: you'll never live to se a radical islamic militant change...as the bible says, can the leopard change his skin...we know the answer to that is no...these folks live to bring havoc into the world. If we haven't learned anything from Somolia, then we never will. Fortunately I was smart enough to get out of the Army before we started policing the Islamic world full time, but the answer isn't a long term military presence... the answer is guarding America within its actual borders...Go AMERICA GO!!!
you readers need to go as quickly as you can to the comments left on april 3 at other posting areas at this site.
Post a Comment