Democrats and allies are jumping on John McCain for telling NBC's Matt Lauer that "it's not important" when troops return from Iraq. Period. There's no because. There's almost never a because when one side seizes on the comments of another. The context makes it clear that McCain is reiterating his position that the presence of troops isn't the issue; instead, it's the casualties they receive. The differences between McCain and Obama are clear enough; Obama wants a bare-bones U.S. presence in Iraq, and McCain is willing to tolerate a much larger one; Obama believes that the presence of U.S. troops exacerbates the tension and gives Iraqis a crutch to delay political reconcilliation. McCain does not. One would think that those differences are a sufficient basis upon which to launch a political attack. Instead, though, in a conference call with reporters, in remarks by Democrats like Joe Biden, in a blistering statement by Rep. Rahm Emanuel, McCain is being portrayed as, inter alia, not caring one whit about casualties and deaths and chaos and certainly not about the families of troops who dealt with deployment after deployment. That's my reading, anyway. See for yourself:
« Why Ron Paul Will Never Vote For Jim Johnson | Main | Supporting Obama: A Different View » It's Not Important? Context Is Always Important11 Jun 2008 11:19 am Comments (92)
Respectfully, I'd suggest that you didn't seem as concerned about context involving Obama's "bitter" comments earlier this year... 
Even with these qualifications, it's still callous. From a strategic point of view, McCain can certainly say that a lasting US troop presence is not necessarily bad, it may even be in our national interest. That's a debatable point, but not offensive. However, the big debate today is about the specific US troops who are in Iraq NOW. To simply ignore the fact that it is very important for them, their families, and for the health of the US armed forces that they return home ASAP, is both callous and reckless. Yes, it's a sin of omission, but a big one. A (characteristically) tone deaf gaffe.
Marc-- In order to make his position politically palatable, McCain has introduced an important caveat -- he's willing to "tolerate" a large long-term presence in Iraq only in a magical make-believe world where the US force is casualty-free. Well, I'm OK with my marriage being open if Hollywood starlets are lining up at my door to sleep with me. But they're not. So my question then becomes: In the real world in which we live (i.e., an open marriage means my wife would be having wild and crazy affairs while I sat at home watching Battlestar repeats), am I OK with an open marriage? The answer for me is no. The question for McCain, then, is IN THE REAL WORLD, is he OK with an American presence in Iraq that is taking casualties? The answer is clearly yes. The next question concerns the length of time he is willing to have an American presence taking casualties there before he decides that enough is enough. He professes to believe that the answer to this question is not important. How can you possibly say that McCain gives one whit about casualties, deaths, etc. when he has not given any thought whatsoever as to what he plans to do if they continue (as they certainly will)?
I think what this comment betrays is that McCain is perfectly willing to stay in Iraq forever. He gave that speech a couple weeks ago that said he wanted the war to end by his first term, but didn't say how that would happen. Basically, this just shows his and Bush's true desire. They both want to stay in Iraq open-ended. Thats the main point that McCain has been trying to obscure. Of course we'd all like the Iraqis to start hugging each other and to actually be greeted as liberators, but that is not what has happened. I don't think you or the media should allow him to keep blurring what he wants to do. The fact is, McCain wants to stay in Iraq, and is perfectly willing to stay a long time. Sure he wants it to be "won" sooner, rather than later, but he has never stated on what conditions, besides an elusive victory, on which he'd be willing leave. This mis a recipe for open-ended war.
You don't think that leaving troops in Iraq is important in and of itself? If it is Obama's contention that maintaining the current number of troops in Iraq is not necessary (and, in fact, potentially harmful), then certainly leaving troops in Iraq is important to some. Like, say, their families. Or, as Biden indicated today, all of us, for the sake of our national security. But even assuming that Obama is dead wrong on the premise that we do not need to maintain the current number of troops in Iraq, don't you think it is slightly insensitive to proclaim that we don't care about leaving troops there as long as they don't die? Even if there are zero casualties (which is highly unlikely, if not laughable), it seems to me that leaving troops in Iraq could be "important" to a number of people.
Okay, a few things: 1. The idea that a giant, indefinite casualty-free occupation would be fine is false. Whether they're engaged in combat or not, 150,000 troops over there means 150,000 troops that aren't ready to deploy somewhere else. To the extent that American military might is our most powerful deterrent, McCain is willing to sink it entirely into Iraq. Casualty-free or not, that's some pretty poor strategic thinking. 2. Regarding the comment itself, there's a difference between "context" and simply "more words." The "...as long as they're not taking casualties" addendum doesn't modify the basic fact that he doesn't care how many troops we have to keep there. Indeed, the logical consequence of his statement seems to be that if our troops do continue taking casualties -- which seems, uh, likely -- he will begin to care about the overall size of our commitment. Is that true? 3. Finally, can someone PLEASE ask John McCain exactly what his plan is to produce this magical 150,000-American-troops-in-the-Middle-East-but-with-no-casualties scenario? Those aren't exactly things that can just be decoupled from one another. The idea that we're going to turn it into Korea or Germany is pretty laughable. The fact that McCain would find Iraqi versions of those scenarios acceptable seems to distract people from the fact that he has no earthly idea how to achieve them.
I struggle to find the words to adequately express my exasperation at the coverage of McCain on Iraq. I am angry and frustrated by it. Yes, it is abundantly clear that John McCain believes that a long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq similar to our ongoing presence in South Korea or Germany is in the best interests of America. That is the entire context of statements like this one and his repeated "100 years" comments. What I find so discouraging is that appears to be then limit to which virtually the entire national press corps is willing to take this story. No one ever asks if that is a strategy we should be pursuing. A very reasonable argument can be made that permanent US military bases in Iraq would exacerbate our problems in the region. No one ever asks how long is it going to take before U.S. casualties in Iraq are at zero. John McCain himself in November 2007 said on Charlie Rose that he didn't think that was possible in a Muslim country in the Middle East. No one ever asks exactly why we need to have so many U.S. troops in Iraq for so long - in Germany and So Korea, they were there explicitly to defend those countries from external threats. What external threats exist to Iraq that would require such a large U.S. troop presence? The Saudis? I suppose possible, but unlikely. Iran is the only regional power capable of invading Iraq but the governments of Iran and Iraq are very close allies. The bottom line is John McCain's focus on zero casualties should disqualify his own plan for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq forever. If US troops are required to defend the Iraqi government from internal threats, then it is impossible to argue that Iraqis would accept US troops and not be trying to kill them. Does anyone think that a permanent, large U.S. troop presence that is not necessary for the defense of Iraq from external threats ever going to be accepted to the level that would eliminate U.S. casualties? John McCain wants to keep US troops in Iraq indefinitely. No one ever asks him what that means. That should be the story.
Marc-- Let's say that Obama argues in favor of expensive universal healthcare by saying: "I am in favor of raising taxes and spending tons of money on my health plan because ultimately it will result in an America where everyone is healthy and health costs will be drastically lower, thus allowing us to reduce taxes again."
Let's say that the Republicans attack this plan as massively increasing taxing and spending. Would you take them to task for omitting the "context" -- that Obama explains his support for a plan with political unpopular consequences in the real world by arguing that in another make-believe world, the consequences aren't nearly as bad as they seem?
Does anyone else think this is a dog whistle to the military industrial complex who are doing just fine financially? Think Blackwater, Halliburton & other mega million military contractors. He's basically saying, "Don't worry; you'll continue to profit as long as a Repub is elected." It also adds to the 'callous' narrative that is beginning to form about him, esp. when he refused to back the Webb GI Bill.
As the folks over at TPM have pointed out, the Obama camp is hitting McCain over the remarks as *defined by the McCain campaign*. In other words, McCain is contending that the quote in question was with respect to the timing of when troops are brought home. Obama's team has hit back at this, suggesting that for the families, the timing is certainly important. This really was a brain-dead/tone-deaf statement by McCain. He is proving to be an incredibly mediocre candidate. And yes Marc, in fairness you had something ridiculous like 10 or 11 back-to-back posts over the bitter remarks. Your track record on this kind of thing is far from stellar.
You cover politics dispassionately, or so you make a big show of claiming. You ACTUALLY EXPECT the opposition not to jump all over comments like these? In the wake of '100 years'?
I'd be fine with staying in Iraq for a hundred years if gravity ceased to exist. If we were floating in the air it would not be important when troops come home. Is this context or shockingly stupid magical thinking? And also, they haven't been hitting him out of context. Even if there are not casualties and gum-drops fell from the sky and we were viewed as liberators, soldiers would still have to do long tours of duty away from their families. Tell me that's not important and tell me how Kerry's statements (which were largely about the family toll) take this out of context. With posts this asinine its no wonder you turned your comments off for so long. I would probably try to avoid all feedback too if I ever put out a work-product as bad as this post.
This makes about the 30th time since becoming presumptive that McCain has botched, mangled, or been careless with language when discussing important issues. Since we have already had nearly 8 years of this kind of talk from our current president, doesn't this constitute a considerable millstone around McCain's candidacy--yet another confirmation that his election means a continuation of the Bush presidency by other means?
This makes about the 30th time since becoming presumptive that McCain has botched, mangled, or been careless with language when discussing important issues. Since we have already had nearly 8 years of this kind of talk from our current president, doesn't this constitute a considerable millstone around McCain's candidacy--yet another confirmation that his election means a continuation of the Bush presidency by other means?
The problem here isn't really that McCain phrased something the wrong way, much less that it was taken 'out of context'. It's that his position on Iraq is made entirely out of hypotheticals and bad analogies ("Iraq is just like South Korea, and no one has a problem with our troops being in South Korea"; "If no troops were being killed in fighting, Iraq would be just like post WWII Germany") So it stands to reason that whenever he has to discuss his position in any detail, and explain how it accords with the real world (in which Iraq is nothing like South Korea, and in which troops still are dying), he ends up getting tangled in nuance and sounding out of touch. Until his position changes, he's going to continue to say stupid stuff.
The contrasts on their positions are clear. Yet McCain and the GOP commonly mischaracterize Obama's position as a hasty, immediate, chaotic withdrawal and commonly use the word 'surrender', as if we are going to give a Saddam Hussein-led Iraq California and Oregon. The issue is that John McCain can not define the enemy we are fighting in Iraq or what the mission is for our soldiers. He makes misstatement after misstatement, but because he was a POW in the 60's in Vietnam, he can not be questioned or doubted in his all knowing lectures on the Middle East. He argues against all timelines then releases an ad (2013) claiming that everything will be peacefully in 5 years. The treatment he is receiving from the press looks exactly like the coverage of the 2006 Lieberman/Lamont race, where the establishment candidate got away with boldly mischaracterizing his position (JL: No one wants to bring the troops home more than me) but the weirdo insurgent was held to a standard of defining every detail of their withdrawal plan. Lastly, as Dems have learned the very hard way, being fair gets you nowhere. And it is the very same pundit class who lambast Dems for being 'unfair' before the election who then lambast Dems for bring a knife to a gunfight after. It's up to John McCain to correct his statements and the press to cover it, not for the press to actively do the work of the McCain camp. If only if Obama had barbeques for the 'dying to be with the cool kids" press....
McCain does not have a plan or necessarily a desire to keep American troops in Iraq forever. He has never said that is a goal or a desirable end point. McCain is contrasting the value of "withdrawal" vs. "casualties", a debate even Obama supporters should be interested in. A quick withdrawal, or even a phased withdrawal, as Obama seems to support, does not come with the promise of being casualty-free. I have never heard Obama say how many casualties he would find tolerable in his effort to get the troops home quickly. Certainly a withdrawal done incorrectly would lead to increased vulnerability of troops left in Iraq. Obama could have that debate with McCain, but his people instead continue to misrepresent McCain's actual position. FWIW, everyone is talking about the families. McCain compares the *possibility* of a long-term presence with South Korea, Japan, and Germany. In all of those countries, families live on the bases with their service members.
Your reading is more than a little bit biased, as your blog has been trending recently.
Your reading is more than a little bit biased, as your blog has been trending recently.
John McCain is "willing to tolerate" leaving troops in Iraq? That's an awfully biased way of describing McCain's position, especially since no one has ever hear him describe his own position in those terms. The way Ambinder phrases it, McCain comes across as reluctant to continue the Iraq occupation, when he's clearly anything but. I guess this is just another example of McCain's base (the press) working for him.
FWIW, everyone is talking about the families. McCain compares the *possibility* of a long-term presence with South Korea, Japan, and Germany. In all of those countries, families live on the bases with their service members. Yeah, and telling all those families to just move to Tikrit is no biggie. I've heard the public school system over there is pretty decent.
McCain is suffering from pointing out the truth. That the US has soldiers all over the world and that we have invested significantly in Iraq and as long as we can win the fight there and win peace we should keep some sort of military presence in Iraq for quite some time, just like we have elsewhere and kept the peace in various parts of the world. It's hard for Germany or Japan to start World War III if the US military is stationed there. It's hard for Soviet tanks to come crashing through into Germany if the US military is stationed there. It's hard for extremists to arise to global power in future Iraqi and -future- Middle Eastern governments if the US is stationed there. This is not bad. Now if the US is stationed there and getting bombed for 30 years, that is bad. But what's the alternative? Would they suddenly stop bombing each other if the US wasn't there? If you think the answer is "no" you're wrong. While I can agree that some resentment is had based on the US being there -- in some cases. It is also true that some resentment is created between me and the US government everytime I - get a ticket, have to go to the DMV, have to pay taxes, have to pay for a passport, etc. Resentment is ok. Blowing yourself and others up is not. The presence of credible force helps prevent the rise of extremists once those extremists understand their fight is useless. If the extremists see that its working to blow themselves and others up they will keep doing it. It's a catch 22, and there is no easy way out. The sad answer seems to be, as long as we can make some progress, and beat some bad buys, it's worth the costs. Sounds cold to talk about death and injury as "costs", but I don't know how else to phrase it. Just because terrible things happen doesn't mean we run away and go home.
I am more than willing to consider context. I think that McCain's comments make no sense because there is no reasonably foreseeable world in which our troops are there without taking casualties; because our army is overstretched and badly needs time to reconstitute itself; because troops might be needed elsewhere; because our presence in Iraq is a standing incitement to violence and is doing harm to our foreign policy goals in the region, and so on and so forth. Which is to say: *in context*, what he said is awful. But speaking as someone who spent a lot of time during the past year talking to a soldier in Iraq (thanks, internet!): it is also a completely callous thing to say. People are stuck over there, in the back of beyond, counting the days until they come home. Their families jump every time the doorbell rings. Their kids are growing up without them. Granted that McCain didn't *mean* that it's unimportant to *them*, the fact that he doesn't think in these terms as a matter of course bothers me. He claims to be someone who looks out for the troops, has their interests at heart, etc. If that were true, he would not talk this way. Suppose, by analogy, that you had a kid who was waiting on tenterhooks to see whether or not she'd get into college, and one night over dinner, in her presence, you said "well, it really doesn't matter who gets into college and who doesn't." And suppose you really did mean this in some non-objectionable way (maybe you were talking macroeconomics.) That would not get you off the hook for insensitivity and callousness; just for deliberate cruelty.
Yeah, and telling all those families to just move to Tikrit is no biggie. I've heard the public school system over there is pretty decent. American children of soldiers abroad don't go to the public schools. They have base schools.
McCain thinks that the billions spent on keeping troops in Iraq isn't really important. Certainly there's better that we could be spending our money on. Our economy is great!
kaybeel, I was hoping you'd say that. So now we're building an American public school system in Iraq so we can keep the troops there indefinitely until they can somehow turn the nation into Germany-and-or-South-Korea and stop taking casualties? It is all academic anyway- this isn't a plan McCain is proposing. He is simply pointing out the very relevant fact that Iraq is different than Japan, Germany, and S Korea because there are casualties and combat. Right, it isn't a plan, because McCain doesn't have one. It's gracious of him to go around telling everyone what versions of the future he would and would not find acceptable, but it's unclear whether he understands that, as president, he would actually be in charge of the military and thus responsible for bringing these scenarios to fruition. And I don't even know what to say about the rest of that paragraph.
It is all academic anyway- this isn't a plan McCain is proposing. He is simply pointing out the very relevant fact that Iraq is different than Japan, Germany, and S Korea because there are casualties and combat. If Iraq were as peaceful as they are, I very much doubt even Obama would be arguing we need to get the troops out now. Shorter kaybeel (and McCain): Violence, troops must stay. No violence, troops ought to stay. Let's just boil it down to a bumper sticker: Troops stay.
But while we're all focused on timelines, the McCain Report wonders what ever happened to Obama's Iraq "strike force," which he first proposed back in March? What I said is I would have a strike force in the region, perhaps in Iraq, perhaps outside of Iraq, so that we could take advantage of--or we could deal with potential problems that might take place in the region. That's very different from saying we're going to have a permanent occupation in Iraq... McCain has always insisted that conditions on the ground, and our commanders in Iraq, would necessarily inform any timeline for drawing down U.S. forces. Meanwhile, Obama would keep U.S. forces in Iraq with no discernible mission, at undisclosed levels, and for an indeterminate amount of time. Isn't anybody else curious if Obama has determined a "better estimate" for their withdrawal over the last three months?
Sorry, mccain can't have it both ways. even putting his remarks in full context, he fails. He says that when they come home isn't important, but then says that Patreus, in July, will tell us all when the troop can come home. How nice, right before the election. So now they're are coming home, but this really isn't important. To McCain, what's important he tells us later - again in context - is keeping troops out of harm's way. How best to keep US troops out of harm's way . . . ah, yes, keep them in Iraq for 100 years. Here's a news flash for all you real patriots out there - keeping 300,000 US troops / American paid contractors riding dirty in a civil war zone they helped start is not going to keep US troops out of harm's way. It just makes them fodder, strengthen the hands of Iran and make the Chinese very happy when they get their interest payments. Let those that live in the neighborhood spend their lives and treasure (oil is at what today?) rebuilding Iraq. We can supply the blueprints (if Cheney and Bush don't shred them all before they leave).
Ambinder, you tendentious piece of shit, do you really expect your readers to believe your affected inability to get the point of this clip?
Kudos to Marc Ambinder for being perhaps the most honest political writer I've seen yet on this issue. Dems want to withdraw quickly, McCain wants to withdraw timely. That's the entire crux of the Repub argument. The notion that McCain doesn't care about military families, or the military, or the stress on our military is ridiculous and unworthy of response. McCain has argued all along that Dems want to withdraw without regard to the situation on the ground, i.e., without regard to the appropriateness of the time - they merely want to withdraw as soon as possible. McCain, on the other hand, has always argued that we should withdraw AFTER achieving victory, i.e., a timely withdrawal at the appropriate time. It truly is not too important WHEN the troops return relative to achieving victory. Achieving victory before withdrawal is the important thing, else we lose everything we have fought for to this point. Unfortunately this won't go over too well with the general(ly uninformed) public, and with the MSM ably helping the Obama campaign to make their points, this one's a loser for McCain.
The war costs American taxpayers over $200,000,000,000 a year. A YEAR. If Marc thinks this "isn't too important", then I can see where he gets off writing this post. But anyone who thinks $200 Billion a year is important, might read McCain's remarks less generously. Obviously Marc and McCain think over $200 Billion a year is "not too important". Even if there were going to be no troop deaths, the American economy will be a casualty. We can't expect McCain to know this. He doesn't care about such trivial topics.
1. McCain's remark was tone deaf and offensive, and we can expect more such utterances until his landslide defeat in November. Keep 'em coming, Johnny Straight Talk. Keep 'em coming.
sbj,
Sometimes these references by McCain are treated as gaffes but they're not. This is what McCain believes: that we should have a long-term troop presence in Iraq to guarantee the survival of a pro-U.S. government and assert power in the region. That's not a crazy position. That's the position of the current administration. That's why we're currently trying to secure an agreement with the Iraqis to ratify that goal. The problem isn't that McCain's position is incomprehensible. It's just not popular. Most Americans think reducing casualties is important too. But they'd like to do both -- reduce casualties and leave too. The problem for the McCain campaign is that he keeps stumbling into clear statements of his actual policy, which is close to lethal since the vast majority of Americans disagree with his policy and Iraq is virtually the only thing he's running on. The context the McCain campaign keeps trying to put forward after the fact is what they wished he'd said rather than what he did. And even that, when you push deep, isn't that different from McCain's actual policy, which is that he doesn't think we should be leaving Iraq for years to come, most likely decades. - Josh Marshall
tinisoli: I can't control Senator McCain but I will answer your rather silly question. You, of course, are being disingenuous when you seem to claim that victory has never been defined. It has repeatedly: Executive Summary OUR NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IN IRAQ: Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces. Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential. So I will again - with your permission? - continue to use the term 'victory.' Now, can I make a request of you? Stop pretending that victory has never been defined and don't be such a disingenuous poster. I think that what you really want to say is that victory is not achievable. You ably make Marc's point with this post. There are real differences that can honestly be argued. It is completely dishonest to pretend that victory has not been defined. Stop that nonsense before you ever post here or anywhere again. (sarcasm)
It's funny how the media suddenly rediscovers the importance of context when it's a John McCain gaffe. For example 99% of the coverage of bittergate ignored the fact that Obama was saying that small town voters were not racist for not voting for him. Obama was being exceedingly generous because there is a ton of racism in those small appalchian towns. But Obama chose to cover for the racist small town voter and the media chose to make sure that no good deed goes unpunished with a full blown feeding frenzy. But when John McCain says something, suddenly context is important again. Dear traditional media...if you wish to stop your profession from extinction in the next few decades, here is a novel idea...treat candidates according to the same standards...don't try to fit the facts into the narratives you think will sell the best. The narrative building you do turns nonfiction into fiction and while you may get some short term ratings out of the feeding frenzues, in the long run, nobody believes what you say and this has created the demand for new media by those tired of old media BS.
Tinisoli, I can already tell you how your question will be answered. Victory means "a stable and democratic Iraq with a pro-American government." At least that's the answer I've gotten every time I've asked the question. They'll also point to the surge as working towards that goal even the the obvious implication of the surge is that the only way to achieve any degree of stability is with an overwhelming military presence. Given that the terms of this "victory" appear to require us to have a large and continuing military investment, it does seem a bit disingenuous to suggest that we'll be brining troops home once victory is achieved. It's like saying that you can stop juggling once the balls are in a stable pattern.
At http://www.brookings.edu/saban/iraq-index.aspx p53 Do you believe the security situation in Iraq will become better or worse in the immediate weeks following a withdrawal of multi-national forces? p50: Do you support the presence of coalition forces in Iraq: So here's my question: why are we spending $12 Billion /month keeping troops in Iraq, when 3/4 of the people want us to leave, and the overwhelming consensus is we are doing no further good? If I were Obama, I'd be running TV adds trumpeting those poll numbers and asking when McCain was going to face reality.
sbj, That's the White House's strategy for victory in Iraq, not McCain's. Or are they one and the same? Good to know. So much for the "I'm not running for George Bush's third term"/maverick theme.
OUR NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IN IRAQ: Helping the Iraqi People Defeat the Terrorists and Build an Inclusive Democratic State So, sbj, which stage are we in? How long will it take to get the "longer term?" How much will it cost? How will we pay for it? What if the "medium term" Iraqi government asks us not to hang around for the "longer term?"
What McCain said is outrageous. He does not give a damn to soldiers and their families. Why would McCain care if he is living in his 9 mansions around the country earning $55,000/year in disability claims from taxpayers. What McCain cares about is how to be crazier than Cheney on this war and continue it. McCain probably lives in his own little fool's paradise propogating the wrong foreign policies. It is all about judgement. McCain voted for the war and wants more war while Obama and Ron Paul voted against the war and want our troops home. McCain = more of same old = Bush Cheney
tinhead: Nice moving of the goalposts! You must be learning from Obama's campaign - nice distraction. "That may be what victory is, but look over here! Shiny keys! [jingle jingle] McCain is just like Bush!" I now know at least one commenter who doesn't deserve a response - at least not if this is any indicator of the level of honesty you'll bring to a discussion. You claimed that victory was not defined. I offered one. You jingled your keys. Nice work.
SavageView: I could answer your questions with my opinions, but why would my opinions on those issues even matter? Which stage are we in? late innings of 2nd or first few pitches of 3rd Did that help the discussion at all? I don't understand why my answers to these questions matter. Could you flesh out your thinking a bit?
so sbj and andrew, how exactly are 300,000 US troops and contractors expected to give the Iraqis this victory of which we've heard so much about . . . how many more years, how many more lives, how many more dollars, how many more atrocities? keep talking that victory -- following y'all down this rabbit hole what the whole world will get is victory for Iran (but then that just sets them up for round 2 anyway - the point all along, no?)
The context makes it clear that McCain is reiterating his position that the presence of troops isn't the issue; instead, it's the casualties they receive. But that's a bogus position, since the presence of troops is directly related to taking casualties.
sbj, But in any event, if McCain's strategy is the same as Bush's, WHY IS IT THE SAME AS BUSH'S? And if it's not, why are you saying it is?
Marc, This post is infuriating. Of course we're all concerned about casualties. But most people accept that there's a causal relationship between how long we stay in Iraq and the number of casualties we'll take in Iraq. Given the history of the Arab region and the strategic interests of Iraq's neighbors, we quite reasonably belive that the longer we stay in Iraq, the more casualties we'll end up taking. If McCain believes otherwise, journalists like yourself need to make him explain that position. You ought to make John McCain conform his statements to objective reality (Iran's strategic interests, Iraqi's history of resistance to foreign occupation, etc.). Instead, you're asking the rest of us to embrace McCain's magical thinking: (1) Elect John McCain Without a lot more explication, I'm not buying it. I think it does matter how long we stay in Iraq because that will directly impact the number of casualties we end up taking.
"McCain is being portrayed as, inter alia, not caring one whit about casualties and deaths and chaos and certainly not about the families of troops who dealt with deployment after deployment." I think that many would argue that he doesn't care as much as he should. Voting against Webb's deployment amendment from 2007 seems like
tinisoli: I respond but know not why. I gave you the Bush definition of victory, actually, our government's. It is also mine. Now you ask, "if McCain's strategy is the same as Bush's, WHY IS IT THE SAME AS BUSH'S?" I don't even know how to respond to this. It doesn't make any sense. We weren't discussing strategy, we were defining victory. Strategy is completely different and I guess I need to remind you that McCain has at various points prior to this disagreed with Bush's and Rumsfeld's strategies. McCain supports the current strategy as laid out by Patreus, but you ask me why McCain's strategy is the same as Bush's. Hmm. I'll have to guess. Because it is working?
This is about using the wrong words and appearing insensitive. The Democrats, however, aren't taking that approach. They are saying that his choice of words shows that he doesn't care about casualties and deaths and chaos or the families of troops. That is wrong.
We have troop all over the world, what's another 150,000 troops in a desert then?!?! Do you people really believe what your slinging? Our troops in Japan and Germany have been there only since the Germans and Japanese, nation states, surrendered. Same with Korea - they stayed thanks to an cease fire resolution that is still in place. We don't regularly explode tons of munitions a day or have handfuls of GIs killed by roadside bombs anywhere but . . . Iraq. We don't spend billions on mercenaries. We don't allow billions of dollars to go unaccounted for. We don't allow no-bid contracts to supply this or that. We don't do a lot of things all over the world that those who support this little peacekeeping exercise in Iraq support doing - all so we can save a little face. Got news for you. Your unitary executive has sullied the face of the US more than any "little terrorist organization that got lucky while the Commander in Chief vacations" could ever do. Your just too blind to see it.
Commenters have already correctly pegged many of the key problems with McCain's statement today, but one thing I haven't seen mentioned is the very issue of the context of the original question. Lauer asked the quite-reasonable question that if the surge is working, it should be temporary and we should be able to scale back troop strength over the short term. That's how the surge was defined and sold, and it shows an important inconsistency in the current Bush/McCain position which wants to define the surge as an unqualified success yet also wants to leave a very large occupying force in Iraq indefinitely. McCain dodged this question the way he always has, by invoking his magical future where we have an indeterminate number of troops in a stable and peaceful Iraq, yet not answering why we can't bring home the additional troops we deployed for the surge.
sbj, Yeah, the Bush/ strategy is working really well, isn't it? McCain's logic and his own definition of victory (no troop casualties) require that we be in Iraq indefinitely and for mutable, hazily-defined purposes. Hertzberg put it most succinctly: McCain's wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal—that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we'll stay. He'll see your fifty years and raise you fifty. But the cards are blank.
So now we're building an American public school system in Iraq so we can keep the troops there indefinitely until they can somehow turn the nation into Germany-and-or-South-Korea and stop taking casualties? No. However, if Iraq were more like Germany or South Korea, people would be much less concerned with getting out of the country. The problem isn't that people don't want to see troops in other countries, the problem is that people don't like to see troops getting killed. It's the casualties.
If you or Obama feel that McCain doesn't have a plan, feel free to argue that. Better yet, argue what Obama's plan is in comparison. Rather than taking that tack, however, Obama has chosen to act as if McCain's plan is to leave troops in Iraq for 100 years. Shorter kaybeel (and McCain): Violence, troops must stay. No violence, troops ought to stay. No. Just that if there is no violence, troops staying isn't a terribly bad thing. It's the violence that's the problem.
How long are people going to allow McCain to equate Iraq with Korea and Germany? The naivete that is required to make such a comparison is startling and you wonder how long the media will ignore it.
tiny: "John McCain believes it is strategically and morally essential for the United States to support the Government of Iraq to become capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people. He strongly disagrees with those who advocate withdrawing American troops before that has occurred. "It would be a grave mistake to leave before Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated and before a competent, trained, and capable Iraqi security force is in place and operating effectively. We must help the Government of Iraq battle those who provoke sectarian tensions and promote a civil war that could destabilize the Middle East. Iraq must not become a failed state, a haven for terrorists, or a pawn of Iran. These likely consequences of America's failure in Iraq almost certainly would either require us to return or draw us into a wider and far costlier war. The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists. When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home." I don't see "I define victory as no troop casualties," in there anywhere.
How long are people going to allow McCain to equate Iraq with Korea and Germany? The naivete that is required to make such a comparison is startling and you wonder how long the media will ignore it When has McCain equated Iraq with Korea and Germany?
1 - FWIW, I read McCain's remarks as being definitely along the lines of Germany/South Korea/Japan route as noted above. I'm all ears to hear Senator Obama thoughtfully take issue with this analogy vs. having surrogates take cheap shots at it.
Given his family's record of making a career out of the military, the son can be expected to stay in the Marines with the possibility of returning to Iraq in specific, or back in harm's way in general.
After hearing McCain's statements on the subject, it's very clear that he means a continued troop presence similar to the ones we have in South Korea, Germany, etc. Those who either believe or pretend to believe that McCain is willing to engage in military action in Iraq for decades are either dishonest or dumb.
Cute how McCain's people are so willing to link to the similarly delusional. I didn't see him do this live, but it's very clear what he is dismissing. Efforts to rewrite him yet again aren't worth the keystrokes. Worse, what a poor lack of judgement to avoid admitting a mistake, if that is what his statement on the Today show is. Just say you messed up, JM. That might have worked better if you meant something other than what was said. If it was meant, that is.
Re: T"hose who either believe or pretend to believe that McCain is willing to engage in military action in Iraq for decades are either dishonest or dumb." I'm neither and that is exactly what i think. McCain has said as much. He doesn't want to lose, therefore, to win you must stay as long as necessary. Sure, he'd like to see Iraq become Japan or Germany, but to become Japan or Germany Iraq must have stability. Since no one in Iraq is really going to step to the stability table while the US is there supporting all 4 legs, as well as all of the tables and chairs, as long as we're their, we're the stability. So, we stay, forever, to keep it stable, thereby, perpetuating the very problems we claim to be there to stop. So who is being dishonest and dumb again . . .
Marc, I have heard you say this for many weeks now and I am no more convinced now than I was at the start. If I tell my parents that I really don't want to burn the family home down yet keep playing with matches and proclaiming that I will keep on playing with them what are my parent supposed to think? Of course I don't want to burn the house down, but obviously it isn't a very high priority, and anyway, whatever my professed intentions, my actions are going to lead to these consequences anyway. If political discussion is going to mean anything then it is ridiculous that the Democrats can't accuse McCain of being in favor of perpetual war. His defense is as disingenuous as it is self deceiving as it is absurd. From the POV of someone who has always opposed the war McCain's appeal rests on continuing to fool ourselves about the nature of this occupation.
McCain said today, as part of the "not important" statement that is the buzz of the media this afternoon: "The key to it is that we don’t want any more Americans in harm’s way." He couldn't be more clear. And he has made similar statements, over and over and over again, about how he cares mainly about the level of troop casualties and not the "academic" arguments over WTF we're doing in Iraq in the first place or WTF he proposes to actually do to make his Iraq fantasies come to fruition. We know he cares about troops in harms' way. A lot. YET HE REFUSES TO ACTUALLY MOVE THEM OUT OF HARM'S WAY, because, for some reason, that would be "surrendering". The troops must stay and stay and stay until, magically, IEDs are no longer laid along roadsides, mortars are not fired, troops are not shot, Al Qaeda and other terrorists are either no longer in Iraq (why go anywhere else to kill Americans when they're so easy to find in Iraq?) or they are dead or captured, and all Iraqis are happy to have tens of thousands of troops and 50+ permanent bases occupying an Arab nation for an infinite number of years. Oh, and by the way, don't ask McCain how this magical new Iraq will appear. Ask Petraeus, since he's the real Decider these days. Yes, Petraeus "will tell us in July" what do to. Yay. Our military is exhausted, we are not wanted in Iraq, our talk of respect for Iraq's sovereignty is exposed as utter bullshit by our clear desire to turn the country into a U.S. military base, and the costs of being there have long since outweighed whatever fantasy benefits McCain and others have dreamed up. You guys can continue to point out that McCain's "100 years" comments aren't about Iraq as it is now (violent and deadly) but a rather they're about a wonderful, peaceful Iraq in the wonderful future where the troop presence is like that in Germany or South Korea. But that's the problem. Like someone commented above, McCain is simply saying 1) vote for me, 2) wait for something awesome to change innumerable circumstances and realities about Iraq and the Arab world at large, 3) and then VICTORY WILL BE OURS! The problem is not that people are failing to understand that McCain isn't talking about Iraq today but about Iraq in the future, it's that people are realizing that McCain is talking about fantasy rather than reality. We need a president with a grasp on, and respect for, reality——not an impressive ability to present "In the year 2012" fantasies.
The context makes it clear that McCain is reiterating his position that the presence of troops isn't the issue... It's certainly an issue for the Iraqis: U.S. security talks with Iraq in trouble in Baghdad and D.C. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/40549.html
tinisoli: It is impossible to reason with a fool. sbj drank the kool-aid and is convinced that victory in Iraq is all about defeating the terrorists. Just like McCain, sbj does not know the difference between Shia and Shiite. Ambinder is just tone deaf on this one; sbj is just dim.
Could you flesh out your thinking a bit? No need. You have all the ponies.
sy: I think perhaps you meant the difference between sunni and shiite? [snort, guffaw] And please show everyone where I wrote that victory in Iraq is 'all about defeating the terrorists.' I'll wait here .... ? Once again, another commentor proves Ambinder's point. There are plenty of real disagreements. There's no need to resort to distortions to prop up your candidate. This is about using the wrong words and appearing insensitive. The Democrats, however, aren't taking that approach. They are saying that his choice of words shows that he doesn't care about casualties and deaths and chaos or the families of troops. That is wrong.
I'm neither and that is exactly what i think. McCain has said as much. No, actually he didn't. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/14/mccain.king/ "Maybe 100," McCain replied. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day." Since McCain qualifies his statement by stipulating that no Americans are being harmed or killed, he obviously means a troop presence in military bases in a non-combat role, exactly what we have in South Korea and Germany. Now, what exactly about this statement mystifies you and others so that you claim McCain intends to continue US combat operations in Iraq for the next century?
"As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me" Yes, and no doubt the Easter Bunny will also visit McCain regularly to talk about policy issues. Sorry, but you don't fight wars without casualties, you don't fight wars without money, and you don't fight wars and expect not to pay the price at home. McCain and his apologists have no real plan for Iraq. They simply hope that wasting the US army and the treasury will produce a pro-US democracy that keeps Iran in check. Well, that sounds great, but there is no credible evidence that Iraq is a viable state, and certainly not under a weak version of democracy. The US will waste blood and money there, achieve nothing, go home, and within a year, you'll see that Iran can pull the strings, while Iraq begins its inevitable splintering back to where it was before the creation of a monstrous unity from three diverse elements. What Bush achieved was to destroy the counter-balance to Iran, created by Saddam, and put nothing but chaos in its place. As for sbj and sde, assuming you are different, which I tend to doubt, you really ought to read up on strategy and the current situation in the Persian gulf region. This is an unwinnable war, which is why McCain can only fire blanks on it, as Bush has been doing for years. Even with a full surge in operation, the US is doing no more than hold a failed state in place. That's not going to magically change into a version of South Korea, which had a long tradition of political unity, which was more or less pro-American, and feared becoming its northern neighbor. Likewise, West Germany. If you think it worth wasting lives and money on a fool's errand, get your backsides to the recruiting office and sign up. Otherwise, leave the glib arguments about wasting the lives of others to McCain. By now the old fool probably believes them, when he's not babbling about vetoing beers.
sde, are you joking? He "qualifies his statement" by suggesting something that will not happen will magically occur? What can we expect next? That McCain doesn't need a healthcare plan b/c he "qualified his statement" to note that everyone will get perfect healthcare thru the market in his first term? That he doesn't need a plan to address the mortgage crisis because he "qualified his statement" to note that everyone will own their own mansions free and clear? That his age isn't a concern because he's going to grow younger from this point on? Stupid predictions are what got us into this mess in the first place. "We'll be greeted as liberators." "Iraqi oil will pay for reconstruction." And, finally, "I believe success in Iraq will be fairly easy" from McCain himself. The fact is that if McCain becomes President, he's going tie American troops to Iraq just waiting and hoping on that day when his fantasy becomes reality. And while that doesn't happen, American soldiers will continue to die for his mistake. And, sde, even if this magical fairyland came to be, the troops still couldn't come home. To describe this policy as callous toward the lives of American soldiers and their families is an extreme understatement. And Ambinder, you are once again an example of the famous quote, "The media loves McCain. We're his base" from Chris Matthews. Or Scarborough's suggestion that a lot of reporters would like to to Massachusetts with McCain and get married.
JoshA, do we have any reason to believe that Ambinder is not secretly married to McCain? I mean, they would be such a perfect match: huggy bear and baby bear. Perhaps we should ask Andrew Sullivan.....
I live in Missouri, formerly of Illinois, and have been an Obama supporter for the past four years. I am working at home this summer and began noticing yesterday the new McCain 'war' ad. It is being played almost once every two hours. This is the ad in which McCain discusses his views on war and reminds his viewers of his family's service in the military. Yet, the ad says nothing of HOW he will 'protect this country' that he loves. Nothing. McCain offers no plan, no clear vision. It sounds similar to the 'rhetoric' Bush used to lead us into Iraq, and like Bush, McCain offers no real solutions--just stay the course.
Marc totally mischaracterizes Rahm Emanuel's remarks...he doesn't say that McCain doesn't care about the troops, but is fundamentally wrong and out of touch. And the criticism of McCain does capture the essence of his thinking on this issue: he really does want our troops there indefinitely, no matter the cost. He keeps making these flippant remarks regarding our troops being there, like the famous 100 year remark. Then he backtracks and keeps on explaining that he meant keeping our troops there without casualties. But McCain never explains how long until there are no casualties, at what cost in terms of life or money. Nor does McCain even consider if the Iraqi's want us there indefinitely, or if we can afford it, or if it is healthy for stability in the region. In short, on this issue, McCain is a moron, just like Bush.
I got tired reading the comments. I enjoyed your post. I overwhelmingly support Obama and his position on this issue. I've been supporting him and even donating money since December as I am able. If the commenters agree that the tenor of these rebukes of McCain are out of step with the entire appeal of Obama's candidacy, then I think they miss the point of civilized dialog that doesn't misrepresent the other side. If they think the critiques are fair, then again they miss the point of the bitter partisanship for which Obama offers a solution.
You may be academically right, but when Obama is under the microscope, you focus on all the ways in which his statements are going to get him in trouble, instead of making exculpatory explanations of the context of his remarks. You come close to blaming the Obama campaign for the mote in the eye, while Republicans are calling him an American-hating Marxist black radical. Which of these two issue sets is more unfair, may I ask? Where's your stalwart defense of what candaidates *really* mean then? In reality, this statement hurts McCain. Be an objective analyst and post something that admits that this was a dumb-a** thing he said and how it will choke him. Don't be his spin doctor.
"Those who either believe or pretend to believe that McCain is willing to engage in military action in Iraq for decades are either dishonest or dumb." Then please answer, and please be specific: FOR EXACTLY HOW LONG is John McCain willing to engage in military action in Iraq? If not for decades, then for how long? Three more years? Five more years? Nineteen more years? Exactly how much longer, short of decades, is John McCain willing to have the American military suffering casualties in Iraq? American voters deserve an answer to this very simple, direct question, and it hasn't been answered yet. Not one single time. Patrick Meighan p.s.: Please do NOT answer: "until victory comes," because that is a non-answer. My question, again, pertains to the hypothetical statement: "If victory has not been won in Iraq within X more years, John McCain will agree that it is time to depart." I would like a McCain supporter to please solve for X. Please. Please. Thank you.
Ahmadhi-Nejad is going to get very cocky and agressive once he gets a working and deliverable atomic bomb. Which should be rather soon (I'm not one of those fools who took the NIE report seriously; reasonable people treat CIA work product with, let us say, a jaundiced eye....). Unfortunately, you Democrats may convince the electorate that it's a good idea to vote a candy-ass into office. Until the Iraqi Army is strong enough to defend their national frontiers, nimrod. Petraeus has every intention of continuing his pullout in the Fall. The Iraqi Army has become that good. However, given the Iranian investment in nuclear weaponry which has every prospect of being fulfilled within the next year into a working atomic device, I suspect you'll find between 15-30,000 troops in Iraq as a tripwire force to place a check on Iranian ambitions. Democrats are so invested in Failure and hatred of Bush that they can't see the forest for the trees.
Mr. Meighan wants to know "for exactly how long should we engage in military action in Iraq." Supposing Abraham Lincoln had said "If victory is not won by ______, we will recognize the independence of the Confederacy." That would admit defeat; he would be telling the enemy that all they have to do is hold out till that date and victory would be theirs. The only intelligent, indeed the only possible answer to Meighan's simple-minded non-question is 'till victory comes.' What kind of mind cannot grasp this? McCain's meaning was always perfectly clear. He said that if no fighting is going on we can keep a military presence in Iraq indefinitely, as we do in Korea, Japan, etc. This was clear the first time he said it. He never backtracked. Obama has said much the same. It is unbelievable to see how Obama's partisans distort McCain's words.
Mack is in tank for McCain. Keep excusing his comment. I guess this is what you guys did to Bush prior to the invasion of iraq. If Obama had said the same thing all hell would have gone loose. Please give me a break.
SECTION9 writes :However, given the Iranian investment in nuclear weaponry which has every prospect of being fulfilled within the next year into a working atomic device" There is no chance that this will happen in the next year as even the Israelis acknowledge.
McCain is being portrayed as, inter alia, not caring one whit about casualties and deaths and chaos and certainly not about the families of troops who dealt with deployment after deployment. This is an accurate portrayal. You have to remember that McWAR is the GOP nominee.
"Mr. Meighan wants to know "for exactly how long should we engage in military action in Iraq." Supposing Abraham Lincoln had said "If victory is not won by ______, we will recognize the independence of the Confederacy." That would admit defeat; he would be telling the enemy that all they have to do is hold out till that date and victory would be theirs. The only intelligent, indeed the only possible answer to Meighan's simple-minded non-question is 'till victory comes.' " So then, John McCain is not in favor of sustaining American casualties in Iraq for decades more, but if the war happens to continue to rage in Iraq for decades more then John McCain is in favor of sustaining American casualties in Iraq for decades more. Is that accurate? "He said that if no fighting is going on we can keep a military presence in Iraq indefinitely, as we do in Korea, Japan, etc. This was clear the first time he said it. He never backtracked." I understand that. My question (the question you STILL have not answered) is how long we can keep a military presence in Iraq if fighting IS going on. Sounds like the answer is: forever, if the fighting happens to continue forever. If that's not the answer, then please give me the answer. "It is unbelievable to see how Obama's partisans distort McCain's words." I won't be voting for Obama and I'm not a member of the Democratic Party. It is unbelievable how McCain's partisans assume a nefarious agenda in a questioner in order to avoid answering that person's genuine query. Patrick Meighan
Patrick, Surely you are aware you are trying to force your opponent into saying, "I am in favor of more fighting and death". When clearly your opponent is not "in favor of more fighint and death". But rather is in favor of a positive outcome in Iraq, whatever way that is brought about. You genuine inquiry is not one that can not be answered. How long? You want a timetable for beating the bad guys? I'll ask you this question, in answer to your question. Can you name a global conflict in the past, where one side declared they will continue to fight until X amount of time has past? If you can manage to find such a case, can you tell us which side won? The only scenario I can come up with is Vietnam and Korea, neither of which were victories for the US, both of which led to millions of deaths over the years after the US pulled out, and one of which is still a major threat for nuclear war.
Not to mention in both Vietnam and Korea, neither of those countries had expressed a willingness and a capability to hit us "at home" in the States. So even if you think the US shouldn't care about Vietnam and Korea cause they were doing their own thing, which is an argument you can make, the US spent 30 years not caring about the Middle East unless something flared up here or there and it led to the two tallest buildins in the United States being flattened, the Pentagon in flames, and thousands of deaths at home. Should we wait another 20 years so the next time it's a nuclear bomb?
"Surely you are aware you are trying to force your opponent into saying, "I am in favor of more fighting and death". When clearly your opponent is not "in favor of more fighint and death". But rather is in favor of a positive outcome in Iraq, whatever way that is brought about." I genuinely have no interest in hearing/seeing someone say/write the words: "I am in favor of more fighting and death." All I want is a genuine answer to the question: "Precisely how long, in years, is John McCain willing to keep us fighting the war in Iraq?" As a voter (and an undecided one at that) being asked to speak at the polls in November as to the direction our nation will choose for said war, I believe I'm entitled to an answer to that simple question. We've all been told that it's a terrible distortion of McCain's position to say that he'd be willing to have us continuing to wage war in Iraq for 100 years. And then we're told in the very next sentence, with differently ordered words, that John McCain would indeed be willing to have us continuing to wage war in Iraq for 100 years (if that's what's necessary to achieve what he and his supporters define as victory). I'd be more more inclined to vote for John McCain (and would maintain much more respect for John Mccain's supporters) if they'd simply say the flat truth in simple words: John McCain is willing to have us continuing to wage war in Iraq for 100 years, if that's what's necessary to achieve what John McCain and his supporters define to be victory. It is, at least theoretically, a position for which an honest defense could be made, and it's an intellectually honest positon, besides. My guess, however, is that it's not a particularly politically popular position, and so that's my guess as to why those words just simply won't be said by John McCain or one of his supporters, despite the fact that it's very clearly the truth. The only other possible interpretation I can think of for the argument that is being made by McCain and his supporters (and, I mean it, I'm not trying to put my thumb on this scale, here, I'm genuinely trying to consider all the possible explanations for this rhetorical impasse) is as follows: "John McCain has determined that he is willing to have us continuing to wage war in Iraq for X longer, if that is what's necessary, and X is a period of time less than 100 years, and less than 'decades,' but John McCain will not publicly reveal precisely what what X is, because to do so would give strategically useful information to our nation's enemies. Thus, the American voter has no choice but to simply trust that John McCain's secret X is reasonable secret time period, not an unreasonable secret time period." Is that, this second argument, closer to the argument that is being made? And if so, does it remind you even just a little bit like Nixon's secret plan to win the war? And does it not seem even just a tiny bit silly to be asking voters to trust that politicians have reasonable secret numbers in mind rather than unreasonable secret numbers? "Not to mention in both Vietnam and Korea, neither of those countries had expressed a willingness and a capability to hit us "at home" in the States." a) This is what I mean when I say that, theoretically, an honest defense could be made for the position that we should keep our military fighting a war in Iraq for 100 years, if that's what's necessary. Now all John McCain and his supporters need to do is simply state that position (the position they clearly hold) in plain language, and we can then go about debating the defense for the position as rendered. b) NOW you tell us that Vietnam and Korea had neither the willingness nor the capability to hit us "at home" in the States. I thought that we were to believe that Vietnam and Korea were key dominoes that, if fallen, would trigger a chain reaction of communist domination across Asia and the pacific rim, ultimately threatening us "at home" in the States. Oh for a time machine for you to go back to 1959 and inform Dwight Eisenhower and his Democratic successors that Vietnam had neither the willingness and capability to hit us "at home" in the States. You could've saved 55,000 lives. b) I was not aware that the nation of Iraq had expressed a willingness and a capability to hit us "at home" in the States. Could you please provide a link? Patrick Meighan
"the US spent 30 years not caring about the Middle East unless something flared up here or there and it led to the two tallest buildins in the United States being flattened, the Pentagon in flames, and thousands of deaths at home." I've seen the US accused of many things over the past 30 years, many of the accusations baseless, many of them of merit. But I've never before seen the US accused of being insufficiently involved in the Middle East. I challenge you to name one single non-Middle-Eastern nation which has been *more* involved in the affairs of the Middle East over the past 30 years than the United States of America . Patrick Meighan
McCain thinks it doesn't matter if we're there 100 years, 1000 years, or 10,000 years "as long as the casualties are low" ? That's absurd. It doesn't matter if I illegally hack your blog / The Atlantic's site, as long as I don't mess up the way it looks, right? Come on. The context is he wants us there indefinitely. Period. If injuries and casualties INCREASED what then? Time for Surrender? Of course not. I know this is a novel idea, but we don't even have to worry about the # of casualties when we're not in a perpetual war, Marc. You may be sick of hearing Dems hit back, or not hit back in ways you think are not effective, but these comments "in the context" of how the majority of Americans on all sides feel, are indefensible.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
What McCain never explains is what happens if there continues to be "too many" casualties, whatever that means. He has said we will stay until we win. Does that mean 100 years?
McCain and his allies in the media, like yourself, think it is unfair that Democrats jump all over him for his 100-year comment, but the truth is, John McCain, is trying to pull one over on the American people, just like Bush. It's a game of redefining winning and victory, changing tactics, etc... .
Ask McCain if he will pull the troops out if there continue to be American casualties. He won't answer, he'll just recite some ridulous pap about victory and never surrendering and terrorist celebrations.
The logical conclusion of McCain's "victory" madness is that he is willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years. He's willing to stay 100 years to achieve "victory" with no more American casualties so we can then stay for another 100 years.
Posted by jjmckim | June 11, 2008 11:34 AM