100 Years

It seems to me that John McCain's campaign doth protest far too much when they whine about being portrayed as the ticket that wants the war in Iraq to last for 100 years. Of course John McCain would prefer the war to magically end ASAP and then move into his vision for 100 years of peaceful occupation. But as Joe Klein says that vision "betrays a fairly acute lack of knowledge about both Iraq and Islam."

Meanwhile, McCain has made it clear that he believes the war in Iraq ought to continue indefinitely. He would prefer that the fighting end sooner rather than later, but he has no intention of bringing it to an end nor does he see any limit in terms of time spent or resources expended beyond which it would make sense to end the war. Since McCain can't serve in office for any more than eight years, he clearly can't commit the country to 100 years of continued fighting in Iraq. A McCain administration would mean not 100 more years of war in Iraq, but 8 more years followed by a new President taking office. But if McCain lived forever and stayed in office forever, the war would continue forever -- he doesn't want it to continue forever, but he does regard all realistic means of ending it as unacceptable. That means endless war.

Comments

War: The force that gives life meaning.

Posted by John McCain: More of the Same | April 3, 2008 2:48 PM

When McCain says he is willing to stay for 100 years, he means 100 years after all the fighting stops. And he is willing to stay indefinitely until we reach THAT point. Or not? He hasn't said how long he is willing to stay until the fighting stops. Or has he?

What is the end game, McCain? Do you have an exit strategy?

Posted by blah | April 3, 2008 2:52 PM

When McCain says he is willing to stay for 100 years, he means 100 years after all the fighting stops. And he is willing to stay indefinitely until we reach THAT point. Or not? He hasn't said how long he is willing to stay until the fighting stops. Or has he?

What is the end game, McCain? Do you have an exit strategy?

Posted by blah | April 3, 2008 2:52 PM

It's a mistake to misrepresent his "100 years" statement, because then they get to whine about the misrepresentation and distract attention from the real issues. Just forget about "100 years" thing, unless you're specifically discussing whether we should have permanent bases in Iraq on general principles.

Posted by Swift Loris | April 3, 2008 2:54 PM

Well, McCain has said he's fine with the US troops staying in Iraq 100 years as long as no US troops are being killed.

But he says the US troops can't leave Iraq *because* US troops are being killed.

Sounds like a recipe for never leaving Iraq.

Posted by McKingford | April 3, 2008 2:54 PM

McCain really is dumber than W. And, let's be frank, he really does have a good chance of becoming president. I don't know whether to laugh or to take a long, long ocean voyage.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 3, 2008 2:58 PM

Does anyone closely watching and listening to McCain wonder if he's maybe mentally unbalanced? Pre-dementia? Possessing an abstruseness he's incapable of discarding? Sort of a "Big Lots" Reagan on steroids?

Posted by steve duncan | April 3, 2008 2:59 PM

A McCain administration would mean not 100 more years of war in Iraq, but 8 more years

Unless, you know, the war is won before 8 years elapsed.

Duh.

Posted by Al | April 3, 2008 3:00 PM

Meanwhile, McCain has made it clear that he believes the war in Iraq ought to continue indefinitely.

I also think Matthew is playing word games with the word "indefinitely" here. McCain doesn't want the war to continue forever, he wants it to continue until it is won. To be sure, we don't know the exact date that it will be won. But that's no different than any other war.

It's like Matthew is saying that, in 1944, FDR believed that WWII "ought to continue indefinitely". Or that, in 1864, Lincoln believed that the Civil War "ought to continue indefinitely". No, they couldn't predict the end date of the war either. But they both wanted the war to end, just as McCain wants the war in Iraq to end.

Posted by Al | April 3, 2008 3:05 PM

Just forget about "100 years" thing, unless you're specifically discussing whether we should have permanent bases in Iraq on general principles.

I agree. It dimishes the point of the 100 years comment, which is precisely to keep permanant bases in Iraq.

However, if one wants to protect said permanant bases, then it becomes necessary to continue fighting for however long the fighting lasts.

Posted by AKBY | April 3, 2008 3:06 PM

but he does regard all realistic means of ending it as unacceptable

And, WTF does this mean? "All realistic means of ending" the war surely includes, um, winning the war.

Posted by Al | April 3, 2008 3:07 PM

Matt hit the nail on the head. The media eventually needs to distinguish between McCain's rhetoric and the practical working out of his policies.

Sure McCain can say all day long that he hates war, and I believe he does. But that doesn't change the fact that on policy he favors involvement in wars.

McCain is the candidate of "just words" where the words do not match the substantive policies.

There is no denying that the practical consequence of a McCain presidency would be an indefinite military occupation of Iraq. And this occupation would not be a peaceful one like in SK, Germany, etc...but would involve more US deaths, as well as a ton of money.

So sure McCain has good intentions, but so did GW Bush too. Most failed politicians start out with good intentions. That doesn't change the failure.

Posted by cm | April 3, 2008 3:11 PM

Al - Define "won" and "winning."

Posted by Dungheap | April 3, 2008 3:13 PM

Unless, you know, the war is won before 8 years elapsed.

Duh.

The war was won when our brave troops defeated Saddam on the battlefield in 2003. Indeed, the 2003 invasion was merely the completion of a war started by Saddam in 1990. So what does Al mean by this posting?

Posted by Happy Conservative | April 3, 2008 3:14 PM

Winning has been defined so far as "resisting the call to leave". Mission Accomplisheding.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 3, 2008 3:15 PM

Recently Al seems to be constantly on the verge of bursting into tears. I sure hope I'm not here to see it when it finally happens.

Please don't cry, Al!

Posted by 23456 | April 3, 2008 3:15 PM

EIGHT more years!!!???

Are you crazy? If the Democrats in Congress allow this travesty to continue one more month into 2009, the barbarians should be at the gates of the Capitol.

If Uncle Harry and Aunt Nancy had gonads, this should no longer be in the hands of the president. Cut funding now!

NOW!

Posted by Grodge | April 3, 2008 3:31 PM

Al -

Have you served in the military? Or have any family members who served in the military?

I'm always amazed by individuals who are so eager for this war to continue, ad infinitum, without the ability to define "victory," after having made no sacrifice or contribution whatsoever. We have faced no additional taxes to finance this war. We've had no rationing of important materials.

Most Americans go on - fat, dumb & happy - while someone else fights and dies, while the cost of the war is passed on to their grandchildren. And for what?

MY said it best - the justification for a continued presence in Iraq is meaningless. We have no more influence over there, Shiites are battling Shiites (all of whom are backed by Iran), who are all being opposed by Sunni militias. But, we are told we have to stay, only because the people who want us to leave are shooting at us.

The soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.

Posted by Trigger | April 3, 2008 4:05 PM

Matt Yglesias, had he been alive in 1864:

"Meanwhile, Lincoln has made it clear that he believes the war ought to continue indefinitely. He would prefer that the fighting end sooner rather than later, but he has no intention of bringing it to an end nor does he see any limit in terms of time spent or resources expended beyond which it would make sense to end the war."

I suspect Matt would also have backed the Democratic plan in 1876 to end the occupation, and allow the "redeemer" governments in.

It's nice to see that Matt can trace his bad ideas back through solid Democratic party roots.

Posted by James Robertson | April 3, 2008 4:16 PM

Matt Yglesias, had he been alive in 1864...

You make an excellent point. A foreign occupation on soil thousands of miles away, where the occupied state hasn't an opposition that could unilaterally surrender and a populace that doesn't speak our language nor wish our presence is EXACTLY the same as the war between the states. We can assume that anyone that is now against the war would have been against the Civil War.

Further, we can safely assume that Abe Lincoln, if alive today, would have been staunchly pro-Iraq occupation, and anyone that feels differently must therefore hate Abe Lincoln, and probably wishes they were a slave-owner themselves.

Posted by Brad L | April 3, 2008 4:24 PM

All these references to past wars as justification for our stay in Iraq are insane (or gangster-talk). We knew why we fought past wars, even in the crappy War of 1812, the crappier Mexican-American War, and the just-as-crappy Spanish-American War. We have no idea why we're fighting in Iraq or what the end result of the war is supposed to look like. Bush RESISTED all hints of benchmarks since to hit them all would mean that it was time to leave. He'd tell us when. Meanwhile, let's build humongous permanent bases. We didn't get into the war in Iraq to bring democracy there. We got into the war to get rid of Saddam and his (ha!) WMDs. Jokes on us. (And Saddam, of course.) It's a "gingham dog and calico cat" situation over there since our presence ignites the fighting that we're supposed to be suppressing. Meanwhile, gangsterism flourishes in high places (and elsewhere) in this country.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 3, 2008 4:39 PM

"Al -

Have you served in the military? Or have any family members who served in the military?"

I'm no military expert, but I believe that corrupted bits of automatic response software are ineligble for service.

Posted by John | April 3, 2008 4:51 PM

Why haven't we left? There's still money to be made.

Posted by 55 | April 3, 2008 4:56 PM

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=11655

proves how much of a fool is Matt

Posted by BA | April 3, 2008 5:14 PM

It is idiotic to evaluate our position in Iraq as if it appeared miraculously, out of thin air, sometime in the early first Dubyah term.

Most folks commenting here don't seem to have a clue about how this war started, why, or what's required to bring it to a reasonable conclusion.

Fortunately, Matt and those in the amen corner with him, are unlikely to have any significant influence on policy. As usual.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 3, 2008 5:24 PM

The real problem with the situation in Iraq stems from the fact that we have no moral imperative being there. This was an elective war; one we chose, and that's just plain wrong.

When you take the wrong actions, there are consequences. The consequence in this case is that we have no clear definition of victory, no exit strategy, and are not particularly liked or wanted there by the local population.

Instead, we are kind of in the middle of a civil war. And it is especially egregious that McCain dares to compare the Iraqi state with those in Japan, Germany, or South Korea.

In all 3 of those countries, there was no civil war or divide in their society. With Japan and Germany, we had the moral imperative, having won WWII against their agression. With SK, we were there by invitation.

When you start the war, it is not the same morally as when you are defending yourself. It's time to stop pretending that we not only made a strategic mistake, but a moral one as well.

Posted by cm | April 3, 2008 5:59 PM

Spot on Matt. I do hope that McCain's opponent (Obama we hope) manages to package what you are saying in a way that gets the message across. I am not all convinced that what you are saying won't apply to HRC too, to be honest. Her 'bring the troops home' message smells of political opportunism and I can't see her or her team making the hard decisions necessary to bring it about: it is going to be difficult enough for Obama who understood the lunacy from day one with his team of (rational and realistic) war-skeptics.

Posted by Chris Dornan | April 3, 2008 6:00 PM

Here's also what I think is scandalous: that so many pastors and preachers of conservative evangelical churches did not speak out strongly against the Iraq war.

These are the same churches that by and large have supported Bush all along. Where were they? Do they think choosing to wage war is so Biblical? Did they criticize Bush over Abu Ghraib or any of the torture issues?

It is rather sickening to think that so many churches and pastors rolled over just because Bush is a Republican and opposes abortion and gay marriage.

Their attitude must have been one of "hey, whatever Bush does must be morally right, because he's against abortion and gay marriage."

I really think so many conservative religious leaders would vote for anyone, no matter how morally reprehensible, as long as that person said they opposed abortion and gay marriage.

I say again, the problem with Iraq stems from the fact that the very basis of waging this elective war was at its root immoral. That puts us at a huge disadvantage.

Of the 3 remaining candidates, only Obama would cleanse us of our sin in this regard, because he is the only one willing to admit that it was a mistake.

Posted by cm | April 3, 2008 6:19 PM

from swimming freestyle:

"The U.S., up to this point, has viewed Iraq through a prism of it's own objectives, ignoring an Iraqi perspective: When will our involvement end? How do we define "victory"? It would not be in U.S. strategic interests to set withdrawal dates. Should we have a long term presence in Iraq? How do we stem Iranian influence in Iraq?

Following next week's march, the Bush Administration could find itself caught between it's own high minded proclamations about the Iraqi people's quest for democracy and an unmistakable expression of Iraqi democracy: an Iraqi call for U.S. forces to get out of Iraq."

http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com

Posted by Jay McDonough | April 3, 2008 6:32 PM

Are you serious, Matt? Good Lord, man - you're smarter than this! This is Oliver Willis-level analysis.

Posted by sbj | April 3, 2008 6:43 PM

It's like Matthew is saying that, in 1944, FDR believed that WWII "ought to continue indefinitely". Or that, in 1864, Lincoln believed that the Civil War "ought to continue indefinitely".

Or maybe, it's like he is saying that in 1337, Edward III believed that the Hundred Years' War "ought to continue indefinitely". Well, it didn't-- it only lasted 116 years.

Really, this has already lasted longer than American involvement in World War II or the Civil War, and those were considered long, arduous conflicts. At some point, war supporters are going to have to get some new analogies.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 3, 2008 8:09 PM

McCain said
(a) it would be fine to stay for 100 years if Americans were not dying -- but he also said that (b) the war was just about over and
(c)the insurgency would continue for a long, long time.

We just saw what happens if there's an insurgency that the Iraqi government can't put down by itself -- American troop have to pull the Iraqi chestnuts out of the fire, risking American deaths.
So -- think it through: McCain acknowledges that the end of the war doesn't mean the end of the insurgency or the end of the risk to Americans unless he thinks we won't help fight said insurgency. Is he advising us to withdraw to safe havens within Iraq (which looks like surrender) or saying we should leave if the Iraqi government asks for help (which also looks like surrender) -- or is he admitting that he's fine with risking American lives for the next 100 years? Given the impossibility of his making this hash coherent, I think it's fair to call him "100-year McCain" and let him try to explain all the nuances.

Posted by BarryG | April 3, 2008 8:22 PM

Of course John McCain would prefer the war to magically end ASAP and then move into his vision for 100 years of peaceful occupation. But as Joe Klein says that vision "betrays a fairly acute lack of knowledge about both Iraq and Islam."

I'm intrigued by this Joe Klein quote that Matthew cites approvingly. So: People with 'knowledge' about Iraq 'and Islam' know, I gather, that for the United States to ever have a peaceful garrison in Iraq for an extended period of time is (physically? metaphysically?) impossible. What sort of 'knowledge' is this, really? Is it distinguishable from bigotry?

Is this ironclad law traceable to something intrinsic about Islam, or Iraq, or both? Are you saying that Muslims are just inherently violent, or merely Iraqis? Meanwhile, the United States has had a largely peaceful garrison right next door in Kuwait for several years now. Perplexing. How has that been possible exactly, according to your and Joe Klein's vaunted 'knowledge' 'about Islam'?

Meanwhile, McCain has made it clear that he believes the war in Iraq ought to continue indefinitely. He would prefer that the fighting end sooner rather than later, but he has no intention of bringing it to an end nor does he see any limit in terms of time spent or resources expended beyond which it would make sense to end the war.

One suspects that, on the contrary, McCain would retort that he perfectly well does have an intention of bringing the war to an end: namely, by winning it. The fact that many here now subscribe to a philosophy according to which the United States winning wars is literally impossible (indeed, you probably can't even stand to see it used without being put in scare-quotes) doesn't mean you get to pretend away what McCain's position (surely) is. You may think it's somehow not possible for the U.S. to win, but that opinion of yours (which may or may not be correct) is different from McCain 'not intending to bring the war to an end'.

Speaking of, what exactly is Matthew Yglesias's plan for bringing the fighting to an end? and those who agree with him? I hear a lot about withdrawing the U.S. military presence from Iraq. But how would this bring the fighting, or the war, to an end?

After all, isn't it an intractable civil war? I've been told that a lot.

Why do you think you get to go around pretending you're in favor of "ending" the war when your actual position is merely withdrawing from it and letting it continue unmolested, with no say in the outcome? Nothing you are suggesting would "end" or "stop" the war in Iraq (if indeed it is a war at the moment).

Since McCain can't serve in office for any more than eight years, he clearly can't commit the country to 100 years of continued fighting in Iraq.

Nor does he want to. Is our country "fighting" in Kuwait? Or Germany, for that matter?

Is it too much to ask that you at least make an honest attempt to understand the actual position of your political opponent, regardless of how much you may disagree with it?

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 3, 2008 10:28 PM

Sonic Charmer wrote:

Is this ironclad law traceable to something intrinsic about Islam, or Iraq, or both? Are you saying that Muslims are just inherently violent, or merely Iraqis? Meanwhile, the United States has had a largely peaceful garrison right next door in Kuwait for several years now. Perplexing. How has that been possible exactly, according to your and Joe Klein's vaunted 'knowledge' 'about Islam'?

Strawman Charmer, it's pretty damned simple. Despite what Michael "Walter Duranty" Yon will tell you, most Iraqis hate having their country occupied by a foreign power that invaded their country and brought death and devastation (worse than under Saddam in many ways, horrible as Saddam was). As long as this foreign power is there, the violence will continue on some level because the American presence is a destabilizing force, in a way that it is not in some other country that we didn't invade/destroy.

One suspects that, on the contrary, McCain would retort that he perfectly well does have an intention of bringing the war to an end: namely, by winning it.

He refuses to define "winning," and we are no closer to "winning" in Iraq than we were several years ago (when violence levels in Iraq were the same as now, and the political situation was not nearly as bad as it is now). So McCain is merely revealing his unseriousness and anti-Americanism when he says that he won't end the war till we "win": he's saying that he would rather waste American lives and money indefinitely than admit we can't "win." In the real world, leaving Iraq without "winning" is far less costly to America than the many lives and dollars McCain wants to throw away.

Speaking of, what exactly is Matthew Yglesias's plan for bringing the fighting to an end? and those who agree with him? I hear a lot about withdrawing the U.S. military presence from Iraq. But how would this bring the fighting, or the war, to an end?

It wouldn't end it, but that just means that we destroyed Iraq by invading it and there is no good outcome. However, since the American presence is a catalyst for violence and an obstacle to political progress in Iraq, the best thing America can do for Iraq is to leave, rather than McCain's favored plan, which will merely make Iraq less likely to ever end the war and waste lots of American lives and money for no better reason than propping up McCain's ego.

If you have a definition of "victory," or any evidence that America can "win" Iraq's civil war, or any evidence that America will lose more by leaving than by staying (as opposed to the "they'll follow us home" nonsense), let's hear it. As it is, you're like McCain: you'd rather see Americans die for 100 years than admit that there is no such thing as an American "victory" in a country it destroyed.

Posted by T.B. | April 3, 2008 11:54 PM

Sonic snake charmer, I'll tackle a couple of your queries. Concerning a peaceful garrison or occupation of Iraq and it's possibility, by looking at history, it is nearly impossible.

If one were to look at France in Algeria and Great Britain in Egypt, Iraq, Aden, and Israel in southern Lebanon and you would see that none of these ventures were peaceful or very long. They all ended badly for the occupier.

Regarding our presence in Kuwait and a lack of resistance from the populace, the US has been invited to utilize their lands at the request of the ruling emirs or princes of the al-Sabah family. I believe that the Sabahs would probably execute any Kuwaiti that started any anti-America trouble in that enlightened land.

I do believe that America could occupy Iraq peacefully for 100 years if we decided to deploy 400-500 k troops, build many prisons, mine and secure the borders, and arrest or kill most men between 15-50. No matter how much Fred Kagan, Bibi Netanyahu, and Bill Kristol would like these tactics, the vast majority of Americans would not.

Americans have figured out that this war was not for wmd, democracy, or to stop Saddam from abusing his citizens. This war was for access to the ME oil fields, permanent base camps and air fields, and to secure Israel in a hostile region. None of these reasons are worth the lives of 4000 soldiers and trillions of dollars.

Now go back to your fantasies of Warrior Princess Lyndie England and global domination.

Posted by max bootlicker | April 4, 2008 12:15 AM

A few other things for snake charmer, 3 retired generals (McCaffrey, Scales, Odom) testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Cmte yesterday. All three said that the USA can't sustain 150k + troops in Iraq for much longer. They also said that we can't afford to spend $12 billion per month much longer.

If this adventure were necessary for the survival of the nation, most Americans would suck it up, accept a draft, the rationing of fuel and food, and tax hikes to fund the war. But this war is not a life and death situation for our nation. It was a war of choice and a fantasy of ME domination by a few powerful idealogues who duped a stupid president to go along with the plan.

The great game of empire is over in Iraq. It cost too much in lives and cash.

Posted by max bootlicker | April 4, 2008 12:30 AM

McCain and his proponents do us a great disfavor when they compare Iraq with WWII, or even the first Gulf War.

This was an elective war; we chose to fight it. Iraq was no threat to us and was not involved in 9-11. Let's all repeat that: Iraq was in no way involved in 9-11.

The Bush/McCain rationales for war have been exhausted; none have been found to be sufficient or true.

It comes down to the fact that we have no moral authority in this war. When wars have ended well for the US is when we had moral authority.

We need Obama to restore our moral authority; only he can do that because only he will admit that we made a mistake. And only Obama understands that we need to change the mindset that got us into this tragic and useless war. Neither McCain nor Hillary would do that; they both are itching to invade Iran.

Posted by cm | April 4, 2008 12:38 AM

"I'm no military expert, but I believe that corrupted bits of automatic response software are ineligble for service."

No - they're called "the Joint Chiefs."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 4, 2008 3:55 AM

Powell: "Most folks commenting here don't seem to have a clue about how this war started, why, or what's required to bring it to a reasonable conclusion."

STFU, Powell. You're a fucking idiot, and we're really all tired of your stupid snark and idiotic superiority.

YOU'RE the one who hasn't a fucking clue how this war started, why, or what's needed to end it.

So just STFU, moron.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 4, 2008 3:58 AM

Sonic Charmer is right. Those who imagine we can just run away and "end" the war are the same ones who don't have a clue about what happened in Iraq between 1991 and 2003, or if they do know are amazingly callous about the costs of allowing the war to drag on without any serious attempt to bring it to a decent conclusion.

Iraq is a crucially important place, as it has been for a long time and will continue to be for a long time yet. Our involvement there has evolved, and will continue to do so. It is not going to just disappear no matter how much the lunatic fringe hisses and stamps its feet.

And neither am I, Hack. Forget your meds today? Please note: "By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable." You seem to have a chronic problem with social norms.

I guess it's better that you're busy hogging the computer at the halfway house than out molesting the neighborhood kids, but you'd probably be better off trying to get a steady job if you can find anyone who'll hire you. Good luck.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 4, 2008 4:16 AM

T.B.

most Iraqis hate having their country occupied by a foreign power that invaded their country and brought death and devastation

This is a special thing about Iraqis, I take it? And that's why it requires "knowledge about Iraqis and Islam" to say it?

As long as this foreign power is there, the violence will continue on some level because the American presence is a destabilizing force, in a way that it is not in some other country that we didn't invade/destroy.

By this argument, it's never humanly possible to invade some country and then (some time later) have a military presence there that is not 'destabilizing'. In other words, we can't possibly have the garrison in Germany that we have. Unless of course you revert back to the argument that this is a special thing that is only true of "Iraqis" and/or "Islam", which I guess must be your intrinsic point.

[One suspects that, on the contrary, McCain would retort that he perfectly well does have an intention of bringing the war to an end: namely, by winning it.]
He refuses to define "winning," (etc..)

You may be right in that criticism! But that's a different argument from saying he 'has no intention' of ending the war/fighting.

he's saying that he would rather waste American lives and money indefinitely than admit we can't "win."

No, he thinks we can win (seems to me). Just because you think we "can't" win doesn't mean other humans can't think we can. Your belief that we "can't win" is not a mathematical theorem that you have proved.

[But how would this [withdrawal] bring the fighting, or the war, to an end?]
It wouldn't end it [...]

Bingo. Thank you. Kindly tell Matthew this please. Even if it were true that John McCain has no intention of 'ending the war' (which it's not), neither does Matthew Yglesias.

However, since the American presence is a catalyst for violence and an obstacle to political progress in Iraq,

Is it fun to use the word "since" and then place an opinion of yours after it?

If you have a definition of "victory," or any evidence that America can "win" Iraq's civil war, or any evidence that America will lose more by leaving than by staying (as opposed to the "they'll follow us home" nonsense), let's hear it.

This isn't about me or my definition of victory, it's about John McCain and Matthew's mischaracterization of him. Best,

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 4, 2008 7:19 AM

max bootlicker writes

Sonic snake charmer,

Hey, that's really clever. Is *everyone* here going to do something 'clever' with my handle, cuz I'm getting really impressed.

Concerning a peaceful garrison or occupation of Iraq and it's possibility, by looking at history, it is nearly impossible.

Yup, because it's never been done before.

If one were to look at France in Algeria and Great Britain in Egypt, Iraq, Aden, and Israel in southern Lebanon and you would see that none of these ventures were peaceful or very long. They all ended badly for the occupier.

And same goes for all other instances.

Regarding our presence in Kuwait and a lack of resistance from the populace, the US has been invited to utilize their lands at the request of the ruling emirs or princes of the al-Sabah family.

Similarly, the U.S. has been invited to have a garrison stationed at the request of the government of Iraq.

I do believe that America could occupy Iraq peacefully for 100 years if we decided to deploy 400-500 k troops, build many prisons, mine and secure the borders, and arrest or kill most men between 15-50.

Okay, so you do believe it's possible then. Weird, why were you talking like you didn't up there?

Now go back to your fantasies of Warrior Princess Lyndie England and global domination.

??

I'll say it again: cle-ver.

Posted by sonic Charmer | April 4, 2008 7:27 AM

Similarly, the U.S. has been invited to have a garrison stationed at the request of the government of Iraq.

Wow! Now, THAT'S some spectacular ignorance.

Posted by 23456 | April 4, 2008 11:11 AM

Obama's top Iraq advisor says U.S. troops should stay at the level of 60,000 to 80,000 through 2010 at least, according to a leaked confidential study.

Oooooops, this is yet another NAFTA moment for Barack!!!

http://www.nysun.com/politics/obama-adviser-calls-troops-stay-iraq-through-2010

At least Hillary has the guts to say what she believes is realistic.

Posted by Ringo Meza | April 4, 2008 12:46 PM

March 2007: Speaking publicly Thursday for the first time since taking charge in Baghdad last month, Gen. David Petraeus said military action was necessary to improve security in Iraq but "not sufficient" to end violence altogether.

"There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq," Petraeus told a news conference, adding that political negotiations were crucial to forging any lasting peace.

Posted by dj spellchecka | April 4, 2008 1:30 PM

well the smoke is clearing on how well the iraqi army performed last week in basra. since one sence of "victory" is "we'll stand down when they stand up," it appears we might be in iraq for a while yet.

Washington Post:"A senior official in Iraq's Defense Ministry, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not allowed to discuss military operations publicly, said Iraqi troops were overwhelmed by the second day of fighting.

....The official said he estimated that 30 percent of the Iraqi troops abandoned the fight before a cease-fire was reached. He also said that soldiers had been hindered by ammunition and food shortages and that some Iraqi police troops, who were supposed to be backing the Iraqi army, had actually supported the militias.

...."If the British and American forces were not there, the Mahdi Army would have gained a victory," he said."

New York Times: "A senior American military official said that he understood that 1,000 to 1,500 Iraqi forces had deserted or underperformed....Three officials said that among those who had been relieved of duty for refusing to fight were Col. Rahim Jabbar and Lt. Col. Shakir Khalaf, the commander and deputy commander of an entire brigade affiliated with the Interior Ministry."

"A closely held U.S. military intelligence analysis of the fighting showed that Iraqi security forces controlled less than a quarter of the city [of Basra], according to U.S. officials in the United States and Iraq. They said Basra's police units were deeply infiltrated by members of al-Sadr's Mehdi Army."

hat tip: Kevin Drum

Posted by rusty | April 4, 2008 2:06 PM

well the smoke is clearing on how well the iraqi army performed last week in basra. since one sence of "victory" is "we'll stand down when they stand up," it appears we might be in iraq for a while yet.

Washington Post:"A senior official in Iraq's Defense Ministry, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not allowed to discuss military operations publicly, said Iraqi troops were overwhelmed by the second day of fighting.

....The official said he estimated that 30 percent of the Iraqi troops abandoned the fight before a cease-fire was reached. He also said that soldiers had been hindered by ammunition and food shortages and that some Iraqi police troops, who were supposed to be backing the Iraqi army, had actually supported the militias.

...."If the British and American forces were not there, the Mahdi Army would have gained a victory," he said."

New York Times: "A senior American military official said that he understood that 1,000 to 1,500 Iraqi forces had deserted or underperformed....Three officials said that among those who had been relieved of duty for refusing to fight were Col. Rahim Jabbar and Lt. Col. Shakir Khalaf, the commander and deputy commander of an entire brigade affiliated with the Interior Ministry."

"A closely held U.S. military intelligence analysis of the fighting showed that Iraqi security forces controlled less than a quarter of the city [of Basra], according to U.S. officials in the United States and Iraq. They said Basra's police units were deeply infiltrated by members of al-Sadr's Mehdi Army."

hat tip: Kevin Drum

Posted by rusty | April 4, 2008 2:09 PM

In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Iraq, William E. Odom, lieutenant general, USA (retired), writes: "It is an
honor to appear before you again. The last occasion was in January 2007, when the topic was the troop surge. Today you are asking if it has
worked. Last year I rejected the claim that it was a new strategy. Rather, I said, it is a new tactic used to achieve the same old strategic aim,
political stability. And I foresaw no serious prospects for success.

I see no reason to change my judgment now. The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity as the president claims."

Posted by rusty | April 4, 2008 3:22 PM