All McCain's Base Are Belong To Peace

A further thought on John McCain's "as long as our soldiers are not being wounded or maimed or killed" proviso to his Iraq forever policy. If we're so sure the soldiers aren't going to be in harm's way, then what's the base for? We're all very glad that our troops in South Korea aren't engaged in combat, but the point of having them there is that they might have to engage in combat. The hope is that they deter war with North Korea, but the risk is that they won't.

In McCain's world our troops need to continue fighting, killing, and dying in Iraq indefinitely in order to create a situation where, at some point, it becomes safe for them to stay in Iraq for no reason? It doesn't seem like he's genuinely thought this idea through. Maybe instead of lashing out at his critics, McCain should take some time to consider the issue and come up with a new position.

Comments

Or maybe he could just answer the guy's question honestly. The youtube guy, who wanted to know how long we would be in Iraq, at war, that is, because really, who cares if we are there when it's peaceful? We can't even see peace from here. The questioner clearly meant how long we'd be there when our soldiers ARE being wounded/maimed/killed.

Posted by Phoebe | April 9, 2008 5:04 PM

As a McCain supporter, I think Matt's post is a very fair criticism. McCain does need to articulate a clearer Iraq policy. For example, what will it take for us to withdraw? We'll never get out unless Iraq is a stable democracy? What if the Iraqi government doesn't make any progress for like, a year?

But the warmonger talk based on the 100-years comment is just beyond the pale and I'm glad Matt's backing away from it. Reagan was subjected to those kinds of attacks in two campaigns. It just doesn't wash.

Posted by Adam Herman | April 10, 2008 12:29 AM

He's an old man. Old people have trouble explaining themselves or changing their minds when they're wrong. Don't forget also that he's crazy from being tortured in Vietnam.

Posted by karl rove | April 10, 2008 4:13 AM

I thought it was clear the bases were there to be used to intimidate others in the region and launch more wars as needed. McCain doesn't want to spell this out, but I believe that is the general idea. He wants Iraq pacified only insomuch that solves logistical problems that the military faces and popularity problems that his party faces at home.

Posted by josephdietrich | April 10, 2008 5:12 AM

The consensus of military experts and Pentagon war games is that most of our 30,000-odd troops in Korea would die within 48 hours of an NK attack. The North is capable of raining down half a million artillery shells an hour on the DMZ and all the way down to Seoul.

Another 20,000 would die within ninety days.

That's why the troops are being moved south of Seoul over time.

Their sole function is to bring the US into any future war between North and South Korea - and thus bring about another fifty or one hundred thousand or more US casualties.

For what? To protect South Korea - which now does more business with China than the US?

Think about that.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 11, 2008 4:22 AM