The 100 Years Defense Makes No Sense

John McCain has been insisting that his 100 years in Iraq comment is being taken out of context. That in fact what he meant is that American troops can stay in Iraq for fifty or 100 years if American troops are no longer being attacked. This assertion leads to a whole new set of questions that reflect McCain's lack of understanding of what is going on inside Iraq.

First of all, how exactly does Senator McCain envision getting to a point where there are no American casualties in Iraq? The idea of a large American troop presence in Iraq that does not draw any fire is far-fetched. What we have in Iraq today is some odd and complicated mix of numerous sectarian conflicts with Americans stuck in the middle. This isn't Korea. There will be no armistice or Demilitarized Zone. Senator McCain has not laid out any kind of a roadmap or strategy for how we get to this idealized scenario where American forces are no longer being fired upon.

Second, how long does he think it will take to get to this end state that he envisions? Will it take 10 years? Will it take 20? 30? When under his plan do American troops stop taking casualties? It would be good to know.

Finally, there is the question of a permanent presence in Iraq and the strategic costs to the United States. One of the Bush Administration's premises for the war in Iraq, was the idea that we needed to eliminate Al Qaeda. But one of the major inspirations for Al Qaeda, was the American presence in Saudi Arabia. In a similar way, creating a large permanent troop presence in Iraq would act as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and draw anger and suspicion from all over the Arab World.

In the end, whether it's fighting in Iraq for 100 years or just staying in Iraq for 100 years under some fantastical scenario where our troops stop being targets, neither idea really makes much sense.

Comments

[rrafiringa]

Since the dawn of civilization, the current location of Iraq on the world map has always been an excellent strategic position if you wanted to keep an eye on the middle East. Besides the oil. I understand that's what McCain is hinting at.

Although I tend to agree with him on that regard, I completely disagree with him on ethical grounds. And if we are going to be a country that will hold others to high ethical standards, we ought to be out of Iraq yesterday already.

Rumsfeld, Cheney and their clique botched it. They pushed a policy for the war and built evidence around it to get a shaky casus belli, not the other way around. That makes this war unethical no matter what good intentions we are trying to derive by staying there. Our stay there have only resulted in more hatred and bloodshed than ever in the region, and has contributed in smearing our reputation as well as blowing up out economic strengths.

[Overd0g]

So you don't think the local savages can be civilized? I tend to agree.

[Stirner]

No one seems to ask WHY are we in that bloody religious cesspool in the first place. WHY not get out NOW? --- Oops!, sorry, forgot to remember that we must continue fighting over there until everything over there becomes peaceful. Now, since history began, that wretched place in and about Israel has been at war with itself. If we have to wait until it become something it never was, i.e., "peaceful" then McCain's "100-year option" seems quite optimistic.

[JohnnieP]

McCain is so out of touch with reality it's pathetic. The reason why Dick and W. dragged the U.S.
into this farce was to line the pockets of Halliburton Inc. and to exponentially increase the profits
of the oil industry. McCain, being the relic that he is, is towing the Republican line in an effort to
gain the favor of the ass-backwards GOP.

[willo]

Iraq will work our rheir own problems once American troops leave. Knowing how the US secret agencies work, you have to wonder how much of the violence is a result of their machinations behind the scene. Iraq might have to find another strong man replacement for Saddam Husein. What ever the case they will have to work it out on their own. Foreign troops with a mission to subjugate will never be accepted by these people.

[edresearcher]

The trillions of dollars that we have already spent, rather, charged to our USA Mastercards and Visas, will eventually bankrupt us. All this superficial talk by Bush of "national security" fails to recognize the most important aspect of our security -- our financial stability and dominance -- and it is coming to an end very quickly.

[Uselessboy]

It only fails to make sense if you presume the primary interest is US national interest.

It actually makes quite a bit of sense if assorted other interests rank higher.

[Rog49Thomas]

You're not supposed to think that much less say that.

[Rog49Thomas]

You are not supposed to think this much less say it.

[pennst1143]

"He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

this is actually from barack obama's website, not mccain's. i see on it no qualification for exactly how long he will keep our troops either in or around iraq to do the exact same mission john mccain has proposed: keep our people safe and keep terrorists out. based on this statement, for all i know obama could also be in favor of 100 years in the region

so i have the same questions: First of all, how exactly does Senator Obama envision getting to a point where there are no American casualties in Iraq?
- id imagine you'd have to accomplish this to justify keeping troops in iraq to protect our interests and fight off terrorists

Second, how long does Senator Obama think it will take to get to this end state that he envisions?
- Here he makes no mention of any sort of timetable for keeping the troops in and around Iraq.

Finally, there is the question of a permanent presence in Iraq and the strategic costs to the United States.
- Keeping troops "in Iraq or elsewhere in the region" to prevent terrorists from setting up a base also sounds quite open ended to me.

[RogerHWerner]

These questions could be asked about Clinton. Her web site indicates she'd withdraw troops within 60 days of her presidency and offers ideas nonmilitary solutions but what she doesn't state is obvious: What happens if the UN doesn't get involved and nonmilitary solutions bring no respite to violence? Her public statements mirror Obama's. She's not leaving Iraq and letting it devolve into Afghanistan. She won't turn over $100B of military bases to a government allied with Iran or leave our embassy exposed.

No candidate can walk away from 25% of the world's oil. How many Amedricans are willing to ride bicycles or experience rationed heating oil? If faced with dire circumstance, people will demand government "provide a solutions," which may involve our becoming extremely violent. Our leadership began moving us away from petrol in the1970s but the electorate didn't like it and elected Reagan who ignored oil dependence. Those born after 1980 represent the children of parents who voted for Reagan twice; they might ask how they could be so collectively blind. The world, not only America, is screwed. We are rapidly approaching the point where humanity will have to give up its consumptive based lifestyle. I wish this wasn't the case. Leave Iraq? I doubt we''ll be able to pull out. We might see changes including major redeployment but our collective leadership boxed us into a corner. The imbecilic Bush chose Iraq to redeploy US troops based in Arabia when he should have occupied Kuwait.

[dogman44]

And as long as we remain as occupiers the resistance will continue. There is no way
our continued presence in Iraq is going to ease their social scisms. Meanwhile the
superpowers that can actually threaten our existence grow stronger and ally themselves
against us. As our military is being worn down and bled dry the Russians and Chinese
are building their's up.

[mamacat]

Every U.S. embassy has U.S. military gaurds, as far as I know. It makes sense that that is what Obama is talking about. He is not advocating having U.S. troops based in Iraq, other than embassy marines.

The U.S. has a base in Kuwait, and in Qatar, the same bases used to invade Iraq. It is reasonable to assume that if al Qaeda ever attempted an open presence in Iraq, such as a training base, it would be practical to launch an airborne strike from Kuwait, Turkey, or an aircraft carrier.

The time it would take to set up this scenario is the same amount of time that it would take to withdraw American troops and mercenaries from Iraq, because the bases are already operational.

What Obama and/or Clinton are proposing is far different from what the White House is doing, and from what McCain is proposing continueing.

There is no context within which McCain's 100 year statement makes any sense, and that is as frightening as he is sincere.

[newworldman777]

McCain tries to defend his troubling statement by proclaiming that we have had a military presence in post-WW2 Japan and Germany, and post-Korean conflict South Korea for over 50 years now. Hmmm...if he wants to compare Iraq (which isn't post-anything, considering the fact that their Civil War continues to be fought, with our troops caught in the middle) to Japan, Germany, and South Korea, then let's do just that.

How many American troops have been shot in Japan, because of Buddhist and Shinto sectarian violence? How many car bombings or IED detonations have blown their, and our, people to smithereens? Does anyone outside of Japan even know what their differing religions are? No, because it's a non-factor with our presence there.

How about Germany? Do we have to continue to design and produce new ultra-expensive troop transport vehicles, because those Protestant Evangelicals, including those pesky Lutherans, are forever battling the Roman Catholics in the streets, with our troops caught in the crossfire?

What about the Koreans? Are the Buddhists, Christians, and Confucianists (had to Wikipedia these religions) killing each other, as well as our troops? A resounding NO! No comparison exists with our post-war presence among these countries and Iraq. None...nada...zilch...

[cla62]

I don't think you really give a crap about our honorable troops serving any where in the world. I think the left wing stooges are just using it as a way to drum up votes so they can get Dems. elected so they can work on their real agendas. Come on boys, oops is that a bad word now, do really care when Joe Blow from Mazon, Illinois comes home? I think not!!

[23000Days]

Where'd you get that?
I read NWM's post twice and found nothing but sympathy for our troops caught in the middle of a civil war.
Have you served in the military, or are you just another raving chikenhawk.

The Dems foreign policy agenda centers around bringing the "boys" home, and hell yes, we are garnering votes to work on that agenda.

[newworldman777]

Your post is a bit confusing, cla62. Your notion of our troops "serving" seems to conflate the completely different ideas of our troops "defending our nation" with our troops "being stationed during 'peacetime' in countries whose citizens don't want our ubiquitous presence violating their land," such as Saudi Arabia. The fact that 15 out of 19 of the 9-11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia was no coincidence. That's what happens when you force troops to "serve" in countries whose citizens don't want us there. The Japanese are sick to death of our presence in their country, as I am sure that the Germans are, as well. It's a new world, a new era. You arrogant, old-style, ethnocentric dinosaurs with your coldwar-mentalities (a.k.a. right winger conservatives) need to get a clue. And grow some cahones, while you're at it. A bogeyman is not hiding under every bed.

Additionally, I was once one of those honorable troops. That's right, cla62, I served my country in uniform. Did you serve your country? Perhaps you had "other priorities," like your "honorable" vice president, Dick Cheney. Perhaps you were like your "honorable" president who used his dad's pull to get him into a "champagne outfit" of the national guard to avoid Vietnam, and then simply went AWOL. Really "honorable" stuff, indeed.

[Henry]

I tend to agree that when McCain stated "up to a 100 years" he was clearly using the hyperbole. You know "til the cows come home" type of assertion with respect to being successful or winning or whatever it is we're going to be. Maybe it will be another "peace with honor" like Vietnam. Whatever, but the idea that he conceives a 100 year occupation from the exaggeration he made in the answer to a question goes a bit far and should be dropped.

[newworldman777]

"You know "til the cows come home" type of assertion with respect to being successful or winning or whatever it is we're going to be."

Rather presumptuous to assume that we are going to "be successful" or "win," don't you think? How about phrasing it "or whatever at is that we are attempting to be." To presume that we will "win" in this conflict is a stretch, to say the least, judging how badly things have gone so far. We are fighting a smart, evolving, determined "enemy," and we may not be able to finance a long-range conflict to "win" anything against them -- even if we have a citizenry who is willing to support such a difficult, time-consuming, and very costly (in money and blood) endeavor, considering that our "leaders" have yet to offer us a satisfactory reason why we are there to begin with.

As far as dropping his "100 years in Iraq" assertion...hmmm...should we drop a statement that the man made, a statement that could very well cost him the election? ARE YOU KIDDING, OR WHAT?

[richw23]

I don't know what you're basing that on. He clearly envsions a world with American presence as ubiquitous as in our glory years. Under that scenario, why would we ever leave? It's mutual protection, vigilance, whatever you want to call it, but he pretty clearly envisions us being there and probably other places in the world ffor what amounts to perpetuity.

[noamjunior]

How about the times he REPEATED IT
if you are not a paid GOP poster you are not very bright

[Rog49Thomas]

And when he sang "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran", it was just a comdedy routine.

And when he said', "My friends, there will be more wars".

Guy's got a fixation on war.

Well, if you liked Iraq, Iran will be a real knee slapper! And I suppose a post graduate academic debate.

[moderationsmuse]

Your background, you "also served on the homeland security task force of the Kerry-Edwards campaign"? Wow, another reason why I'm glad I voted for Bush.
Maybe you should do a little reading in military history before making any more observations.

[newworldman777]

Evidently, you continue to try to justify your disturbing choice for president by searching for reasons why you voted for Bush -- however weak those reasons might be -- because I, along with most other Americans, cannot see one single reason why anyone should have ever voted for that idiot...period. Unless, of course, you are a glutton for punishment, or a masochist, and you love to have punishment inflicted upon you and your fellow countrymen -- in which case, you hit the jackpot when Bush was selected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Scurvybro]

How does serving on the Kerry-Edwards campaign invalidate Mr. Goldenberg's criticisms? Rather than address their substance, you serve up an ad hominem, uh, argument. Of course, you're a Bush supporter, so it's unrealistic to expect anything else.

What military history do you suggest reading that would justify McCain's 100-year occupation?

[noamjunior]

Meanwhile America wins the war on terror as long as we have brave men like yo- typing insults for freedom

[Rog49Thomas]

Only if the typist has both an American flag lapel pin and a yellow ribbon lapel pin.

I for one have two sets.

One for my day clothes and one for my pyjamas.

Of course with respect to the latter, you can tell the really true patriots during the summer (when many sleep commando). These colors do not run!

[Rog49Thomas]

Yes, of course, one can hardly count the many imagined accomplishments of President Pan for our national security.

First, let's start with careful implemenation of the recommedations of the 9-11 commission on improving domestic security.

Second, let's consider the strategic genius of invading Iraq, destroying the one country which blocked Iran's influence in the region.

Third, let's give credit where credit is due for straining our armed forces to the breaking point by repeated prolonged tours of duty in Iraq.

Fourth, let's note with admiration the lasting positive effects on our international power by throwing half a trillion down the rat hole of choice that is Iraq.

Fifth, let's remark with pride on how his careful stewardship of the US economy has led to the best of times for our citizens and strengthened the US dollar to unprecedented levels.

Sixth, let's look at the tactical brilliance of fighting our putative enemy AlQaeda by a masterful misdirection of efforts from Afghanistan to Iraq. Even George Washington our revered first President wouldn't have been this smart - otherwise he would have attacked Spain instead of England to secure our independence.

Seventh, one of the most successful campaigns on record to improve our international standing - morally and politically.

This is just a short list of the many imagined national security successes that Pan and his dead-enders can claim credit for.

Heck of a job!

[SubparDude]

:

You fail to understand The McCain Military Mind [894th in Class of 899]:

1. If we take casualities, obviously they have not stopped shooting, so we must stay.

OR

2. If and only if we stop taking casualties can we envision a long-term occupation-- and stay.

: