In an interview on NBC’s Today Show, host Matt Lauer asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) about his support for the war in Iraq. Noting that violence has decreased in Iraq, Lauer asked if McCain has a better “estimate” of when he would withdraw troops from the country. “No, but that’s not too important,” McCain responded:
Q: A lot of people now say the surge is working.
McCAIN: Anyone who knows the facts on the ground say that.
Q: If it’s working, senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?
McCAIN: No, but that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany. That’s all fine.
Do you disagree? If violence went to zero, would you have a problem with US troops being in Iraq on the same terms that they are in Japan, Germany, Korea, etc?
Originally posted by We need Tom Tupa: Do you disagree? If violence went to zero, would you have a problem with US troops being in Iraq on the same terms that they are in Japan, Germany, Korea, etc?
Or as long as Al Queda is there?
That was one Obama quote no? WSS
Posts: 5264 | Location: Norton Ohio USA | Registered: Mon September 15 2003
The problem is framing it like that, I think. Iraq isn't anything like Japan or Germany after WWII, or today, and neither is Korea. Neither is the Middle East anything like Europe or the Pacific Rim.
The fundamental difference between the two candidates is that one seems to understand what the implications of maintaining a large American military presence in Iraq are, and the other one seems to think leaving American soldiers there like we have in Germany and Japan is a great idea. One thinks it's not in America best long-term interests, and the other one does.
It's nice having such clear distinctions in an election.
And that's also ignoring whether the Iraqis want us there. If you've been following the debate about long-term security arrangements over the last few days it's pretty obvious that they don't want us there long-term, or in many cases even in the short term.
One thinks we should pull out immediately no matter what...except for some troops that would need to stay behind.
The other thinks that we are maknig progress in minimizing the violence there, and that that makes the deicision to pull out less urgent - one that can be made based on new information as it is received rather than regardless of changes for better or worse.
Originally posted by heckofajobBrownie: And that's also ignoring whether the Iraqis want us there. If you've been following the debate about long-term security arrangements over the last few days it's pretty obvious that they don't want us there long-term, or in many cases even in the short term.
He said that he didnt have an estimate yet; he is focused on the success of the surge before focusing on pulling out troops. So he talks to the Iraqis, works on a long-term agreement, yadayadayada, and makes a decision based on what they say, how things change...I'm looking for the beef.
I think the best contrast between the two was what they said about the war before it started. Obama's predictions, against the grain at the time, were a lot more on the mark. And more importantly, he wouldn't have fought this war.
McCain's predictions were wildly off the mark, and though he should get some credit for opposing the strategy once it had become clear it wasn't working, starting this war was a decision he was fully behind.
And that's a contrast that is probably even more relevant than their different approaches to what we'd do now.
So many people talk about experience. Not enough people talk about judgment.
I just watched the video Alo posted. That's going to be in a campaign ad very shortly, run together with the clip of him saying he doesn't mind if we're going to be there for 100 years.
That one is going to hurt, mostly becomes it reconfirms the earlier 100 years comment, but also because it expresses indifference to the idea that the soldiers should come home at some point.
And remember, when some administration official or spokesman says they don't have designs on "permanent" US bases in Iraq, they're being completely dishonest.
It just depends on what the definition of "permanent" is. It's another one of those "we do not torture" lines, where the meaning of the word is changed so they feel they can say it and not be liars. They're very much interested in "permanent" bases in Iraq.
I think permanent bases in Iraq would be in our best interests. Why? Oil of course. Also to keep Iran and Syria in check. Like it or not, thats the way it is.
Posts: 1679 | Location: Cuyahoga County | Registered: Mon September 18 2006
I agree that McCain will get hammered politically with these soundbites. I disagree that he is eager to permanently place troops in Iraq regardless of the outcome and that his judgment is worse than Obama's. I also think his soundbites are being treated here a little too much like they would be treated on Olberman, which is out of character. But I assume it is the result of what you read between the lines as opposed to an attempt to prove how much angrier than OReilly you can get every night.
I'm just stunned that he thinks this is a winning argument. Also because both he and his campaign backtracked heavily from the 100 years comment, and then he went out and basically said the same thing again.
And we'll just have to disagree on the judgment issue.
As for this war, do you think John McCain's ideas about Iraq in 2002 and 2003 were better than Barack Obama's? How about his foresight?
In short: McCain's comment fits into the Sadrist "the Americans are staying forever" narrative, which hurts Maliki.
The Middle East has a long history of colonial rule. As a result, the long-term stationing of US troops is impossible. Even suggesting a long-term presence is politically damaging to Maliki.
al-Maliki has been maneuvered by the Bush administration into a position where he has virtually no popular or party support, and is left with Washington has his only anchor.
As for this war, do you think John McCain's ideas about Iraq in 2002 and 2003 were better than Barack Obama's? How about his foresight?
Obama gave a great speech that seems to have been right on. 1 point for him. Of course, Ron Paul gets that point too, plus a bonus point for doing it when he had a vote.
Here's Andrew Sullivan today, talking about what we're talking about, linking to the McCain video:
"A Question Of Empire
That's the critical question in this campaign: do Americans want a neo-empire in the Middle East? Do they want US troops permanently stationed in Iraq with up to 60 permanent bases? That's what the Bush administration wants to foist onto Iraq; and that's what McCain believes in. The viral video now buzzing on the Internets is not a gaffe, it's the truth. McCain would love to see US troops stationed peacefully in Iraq for the foreseeable future. To him it does not matter when they come home. What matters is that the casualty rate get low enough to persuade Americans they shouldn't care about another expansion of American empire. In fact, the entire debate about bringing them home is puzzling and frustrating to McCain. After all, why should we bring them home when being there for ever is the point? It wasn't WMDs or Saddam's threat that motivated this war, we now understand, so much as the capacity to forward station US troops in an oil-rich region and help contain Iran. Is this a good idea? That's what the Iraqis are now furiously debating. And it's what Americans should be furiously debating in this campaign. It's the biggest difference between the two candidates and it couldn't be more important."
I think voting for the war should give you -1,000,000 points.
I just don't get what McCain's metrics would be...when would we say that it's time to withdraw? If the Iraqis hold a national referendum and demand a withdrawal, will we obey their request?
Furthermore, how will our presence in Iraq affect our attempts to halt Iran's nuclear program?
I'm afraid that McCain's focusing on Iraq would only strengthen Iran, the country both Israel & Saudi Arabia are scared of.
