Over Soon But Then Lasting Forever

I find this new John McCain take on his remarks about staying in Iraq for 100 years pretty confusing. Formerly, we weren't supposed to worry about his commitment to a war of indefinite duration because, you see, the 100 years was tacked on with the proviso that no Americans would be killed. How this kind of open-ended commitment was supposed to get us to that zero-casualty point was unclear. But now we learn that "the war for all intents and purposes, although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years, but it will be handled by the Iraqis, not by us, and then we decide what kind of security arrangement we want to have with the Iraqis."

This, to me, is baffling. If the insurgency is still going on "for years and years and years" then either the insurgency is taking place but U.S. troops have left Iraq (which McCain opposes) or else the war is continuing. I guess the McCain alternative is that the insurgency keeps fighting, and our troops stay in Iraq, but the insurgents forget we're there and generously decide not to attack us. Or something.

Comments

It's called moving to the center after the GOP primaries are (for all intents and purposes) over.

Not so baffling Matt. Yes, it doesn't cut it for consistency, but this is McCain. The maverick. Remember?

Posted by Jake | February 25, 2008 3:51 PM

Rubber soldiers, baby. Rubber soldiers.

Posted by McAllister | February 25, 2008 3:51 PM

What's not clear?

McCain is talking out of every orifice so he can try and confuse the subject. Then when anyone attacks him for something he said he can rightly point out that he also said exactly the opposite.

Posted by Myrtle Parker | February 25, 2008 4:06 PM

I never agreed with calling it a "war" anyway...it's an occupation, not a war. The "war" part was over several years ago.

Posted by ed | February 25, 2008 4:08 PM

McCain has no coherent foreign policy views other than that opposing a perfectly juicy war when one presents itself makes you a pussy

Posted by Jack | February 25, 2008 4:13 PM

I don't know why this is so implausible. All he has to do is sit the insurgents down and tell them to quit the BS and they'll stop targeting American troops.

Posted by ibid | February 25, 2008 4:34 PM

We focus way too much on the casualties. This is a volunteer army and this occupation has lasted way longer than anyone's enrollment period. So if you're in Iraq- you signed up for it. So I don't really think the casualty rate is a cost that we need to consider as a society.

OTOH, the financial costs are enormous. Whether soliders are dying or not, keeping 100,000 men in Iraq is going to cost a few hundred billion dollars a year. That is ridiculous, and that's what I object to.

Republicans bitch all the time about how the government takes money out of the economy. But the government can also invest directly in the economy. Imagine if over the next 8 years we pulled out of Iraq and invested half the money we saved in our infrastructure. This would be something like half a trillion dollars or more. Ports, highways, airports could all see huge upgrades- from middling to poor to the best in the world. Heck, even high speed rail could be implemented with that kind of budget. It would pour money into domestic business and actually provide tangible benefits to the average American and businessman.

Posted by mpowell | February 25, 2008 4:44 PM

"OTOH, the financial costs are enormous. Whether soliders are dying or not, keeping 100,000 men in Iraq is going to cost a few hundred billion dollars a year. That is ridiculous, and that's what I object to."

So dead US soldiers don't bother you, but feeding and housing live ones do. Please tell me you're a republican.

Posted by John | February 25, 2008 4:50 PM

I think this is fairly clear, it's just that he has an unstated magical pony premise. The idea is that the insurgency will be weakened enough that it's not so much a war as an ongoing intensive police action like in Israel or Northern Ireland -- this will be achieved because we're going to find the magical pony any day now. Once the insurgency can be handled by police force of the magical pony Iraqi government (or more likely the brutally authoritarian and repressive Iraqi government) the security duties of US soldiers will only be the protection of the world's giantest and most badass embassies and military bases. We will stay in those bases for a hundred years, or a thousand years, and use them for securing Pax Americana, probably in part by using them as a staging ground for war with Iran. This is all entirely consistent with the original late-90s New American Century doctrine.

Posted by Galen | February 25, 2008 5:33 PM

So dead US soldiers don't bother you, but feeding and housing live ones do. Please tell me you're a republican.

Frankly, no. And I'm very much a Democrat. Why should I care about a 1% casualty rate among a group of volunteers that signed up to go to war in Iraq ? There are plenty of legal activities that are comparably harmful to your health. I think it would have been a good reason not to invade, but that's a different story.

At the same time, it's a mistake to focus on that issue b/c it opens up opportunities for lines of argument like McCain's. The financial costs are born by the entire country, against the wishes of what is now a majority. The risks to health are born by a small subset and everyone single one of them chose to take that risk. If that was the only cost of the war, how could it be considered a cost? All of those people thought it was worth it to them personally, or important enough to their country to take the risk to go.

Posted by mpowell | February 25, 2008 5:38 PM

I think I agree with mpowell, with the caveat that it's not at all that the deaths (and permanent debilitating injuries) of soldiers - even volunteer soldiers - aren't horrific.

It's just that even this cost pales quite a bit next to the massive good that could potentially be done with those hundreds of billions of dollars a year. (And of course, if those billions were not being spent to transport, supply and house soldiers in Iraq, they wouldn't be there to die in the first place, so it's really win-win.)

Posted by jack lecou | February 25, 2008 5:52 PM

never agreed with calling it a "war" anyway...it's an occupation, not a war. The "war" part was over several years ago.

Those two terms are not mutually exclusive. When Germany occupied Poland or France or Yugoslavia in WWII, was the war over in those countries? Not to the partisans who were fighting to expel the Nazis. When the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan in 1979, was the war over? Not to the mujahideen who were fighting to expel the Soviets.

Similarly, in Iraq the US conventional war against Saddam Hussein's government was over years ago. But the guerilla war continues, in the form of the Iraqi rebel's effort to expel the foreign invader who occupies their homeland, and the US effort to resist being expelled.

Posted by Stefan | February 25, 2008 5:55 PM

If the insurgency is going on, then ipso facto the war isn't over. It's like saying "the fire is over, even though the flames will continue to burn for years and years."

What a sad, confused old man.

Posted by Stefan | February 25, 2008 5:59 PM

It's not hard to see why you're baffled, Matt. You've got all your definitions wrong. As pointed out above, "the war" was over a long time ago, about when we pulled Saddam out of his hole. "The occupation" is also over, ending as it did when the elected Iraqi government took over from the CPA. We are currently in Iraq to support this government at its express request, under a unanimous UN mandate.

Finally, there is no "insurgency". There is a power struggle between various factions in Iraq, some connected to political parties in government, some not, with most of the harm being done by an apparently tiny and increasingly marginalized clique of fanatics with no program for governance, little popular support, and no chance of actually taking power.

The main goal of the most important groups still fighting is to carve out a piece of the action in Iraq, not to fight Americans. To the extent that we are identified with one faction or another, we run some risks. But these risks are currently not significantly higher in statistical terms than serving on active duty in other places, and figure to go lower as Iraqi forces pick up more of the load. Stop being baffled.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 25, 2008 6:03 PM

As Robert Powell said, if you simply change the from "war" to "occupation" to "requested consultative visit" and change "insurgency" to "power struggle," the problems go away, the deaths desist and the costs magically get accounted away. Viva Orwell...

Posted by z adura | February 25, 2008 6:40 PM

Can't we compromise here for once? Democrats want to leave now. Republicans want to stay for a hundred years. How about we stay 50 years? That sends a message to the Islamofascist that we mean business without ensuring that our great-great grandchildren will still be fighting this war.

Posted by Exile on Ericsson St. | February 25, 2008 7:19 PM

If you call it an occupation, you can advocate ending it without being charged with advocating surrender -- because occupations are not thought of as contests that have victors and vanquished. So, as soon as the "war" is declared over, we can leave, right?

As I've posted elsewhere, calling him John "100 year" McCain ought to be damaging -- he can't explain what that means other than a long, long, very expensive and bloody stay where we're not wanted.

Posted by Barry | February 25, 2008 8:07 PM

Robert has it right, as a matter of legal terminology: the US does not occupy Iraq.

But the more interesting thing is that I've finally figured Matt's position out! He agrees with Rumsfeld--he supported the war, and thinks it ends as soon as the US leaves Iraq, and the sooner the better. So, on MY's account, Bush's blunder in Iraq was his not leaving immediately after the fall of Baghdad. As MY says, as soon as the US leaves, the war ends. So, obviously victory is just around the corner--peace is at hand, if only we'll quit trying.

As for McCain's point: there are several countries I can think of with large US troop positions, and in most of those the US troops aren't intended to act as a deterrent to domestic insurrection. I'm not sure what's so complicated about the other possibilities, but I'm not clever enough to have written a book about foreign policy.

Posted by Thomas | February 25, 2008 8:40 PM

Thomas-

There's only one and half countries that have US troops to deter internal strife: Afghanistan and (this is the "half") Korea.

I say one and a half because we *used to* have troops in-country to provide backing for Rhee and Park, and not just, as currently, to serve as a firewall for a larger "internal" dispute.

Posted by Greg | February 25, 2008 8:57 PM

It's actually very simple: McCain, the "straight talker," is not being very straight with us. He is trying to use vague, indefinite phrases and platitudes to confuse the voters and hide his very unpopular position on this issue.

He knows he cannot win a general election on the platform of keeping us in Iraq indefinitely, esp. against Obama.

In short, McCain is little by little selling his soul for what he perceives to be a chance at winning the general election. It's a Faustian bargain, pure and simple.

It's ironic because I've always respected McCain, if not always agreed with him, for being someone true to his own compass no matter what. Now that I've seen him pander in different ways in this election, and lower his standards, I just can't quite give the guy the same respect.

Posted by cm | February 25, 2008 9:51 PM

The question in the general election will be: which McCain can you believe? The "100 yrs" McCain, or this more rational sounding one? The "bomb...bomb...bomb Iran" McCain...or perhaps the one who disavows that comment?

McCain will have a lot to answer for in a general election, and his credibility will come under fire.

Posted by cm | February 25, 2008 9:58 PM

C'mon Powell, be fair. McCain's campaign really is baffling.

First, there's his general 'well, we're all screwups, especially my party, but elect ME, I won't be a screwup, I promise...'

Second, he weirdly co-opts HRC's 'don't be fooled by false hope' meme....

and now finally, it's 100 years in Iraq but w/o real U.S. casualties, the 'insurgency' (his word) will go on for a long time.

It IS baffling.

Posted by mike | February 25, 2008 11:45 PM

Powell: "Finally, there is no 'insurgency'."

Unbelievable.

""The occupation" is also over, ending as it did when the elected Iraqi government took over from the CPA. We are currently in Iraq to support this government at its express request, under a unanimous UN mandate."

OTOH, one can read Nir Rosen's insightful piece here on "The Myth of the Surge" for the real situation:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18722376/the_myth_of_the_surge

Powell has a serious DMT issue for which he has evidently refused treatment.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 26, 2008 2:53 AM

mike-
McCain's position is that we can fulfill the UN mandate and support the stabilization of Iraq without endless combat operations, much as we have done in places like South Korea, Germany, and Japan. As near as I can tell, that's the position of Clinton and Obama too. What's baffling?

In any case, I'm more prepared to write off McCain's chances of actually getting into the White House than any other candidate since Bob Dole. What's really baffling is why he even wants to run in what looks increasingly like a kamikaze operation. After Tuesday, with Hillary out of the way, Obama will be able to ignore the weenies on the Democrat left and begin explaining why he wants to add 96,000 infantry soldiers to our military establishment, and how his proposed "ending the war" leaves about half the number of troops now in Iraq there indefinitely.

Once the voters have confirmed that Obama's "end the war" doesn't mean "lose the war", he wins. I don't see anything McCain can do about it.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 26, 2008 3:22 AM

McCain doesn't know what he is talking about, but he doesn't care because his blather serves its purpose. He has his position on the matter, and he will say any combination of words necessary to support his position whether it is true, false, sensical, or non-sensical.

Posted by josephdietrich | February 26, 2008 5:03 AM