Not Too Important

This is stunning stuff. Having convinced a swathe of the press that it was unfair of Democrats to accurately quote McCain as saying he had no problem with American troops being in Iraq for 100 years, he's now back saying it's "not too important" whether or not our troops ever leave Iraq:

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it seems important to Iraqis:

"The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq," said Sami al-Askari, a senior Shiite politician on parliament's foreign relations committee who is close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "If we can't reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, 'Goodbye, U.S. troops. We don't need you here anymore.' "

And those are the friendly ones, opposition Iraqi politicians have even stronger feelings. Given Iraqi sentiment about this topic, McCain's vision of a long-time but utterly peaceful presence since extremely difficult to realize. It's just really, really, really hard to station your troops where they're not wanted. Meanwhile, amidst his analogies to South Korea and Germany, McCain seems to be missing the part where he explains why making permanent bases our key war aim is a good idea. We maintained our garrison in West Germany because of the Warsaw Pact across the border and you can't understand why our troops are in South Korea without thinking about North Korea.

But what are they going to be doing in Iraq? Fighting Iran? That seems like a recipe for ensuring that Iraq never becomes peaceful and stable, since if our goal in Iraq is to create a platform for anti-Iranian activities then the Iranians would seem to have no choice but to stir up as much trouble as possible.

Comments

I expect better analyis from a serious commentator than a fake gotcha from a conveniently cutt off interview.

The question was whether McCain can "today" better tell when the US troops will leave Iraq not whether the US troops will stay there forever when Iraq is completely pacified.

Just because he used the example of Germany and Japan doesn't mean he wants them to stay as long. The point was that there is still a reason for troops to be there so he can't right now come up with a better estimate when all the troops will come home.

Notice his last line before the convenient cutt off was "and the ability to withdraw." So McCain does see a time when US troops will come home.

I don't see anything in this clip that has to do with permanant bases.

Posted by Dave | June 11, 2008 10:08 AM

But what are they going to be doing in Iraq? Fighting Iran? That seems like a recipe for ensuring that Iraq never becomes peaceful and stable, since if our goal in Iraq is to create a platform for anti-Iranian activities then the Iranians would seem to have no choice but to stir up as much trouble as possible.

This is what we in the business like to call 'a feature, not a bug'.

Posted by Doug H. (Fausto no more) | June 11, 2008 10:09 AM

I expect better analyis from a serious commentator than a fake gotcha from a conveniently cutt off interview.

Bush is pushing for permanent bases. McCain says he doesn't know when we can withdraw the troops.

You're right, we obviously need more Very Serious Commentators that can't connect the dots and just takes whatever BS the GOP feeds them.

Posted by Doug H. (Fausto no more) | June 11, 2008 10:15 AM

kind of makes you wonder why we haven't heard more frequent use of the word "empire" from the Obama camp. Not that Americans seem to need any more encouragement to hate this war, but doing a better job of calling attention to what McCain is really after in Iraq ought to pretty much end the argument.

Posted by e-dawg | June 11, 2008 10:16 AM

Dave, a fake gotcha? McCain said that he had no problem with American troops staying in Iraq 100 years (although later he did make 2 clarifications: 1. That this would only occur in magic fantasyland where all fighting had stopped and 2. He'd actually be fine with "a million years").

But just because he's using the examples of Japan and Germany (and previously South Korea) doesn't mean we should take him at his word and assume he sees those as examples for Iraq, huh?

Posted by JoshA | June 11, 2008 10:23 AM

One of the reasons we went into Iraq was to bring its oil online after years of reduced production due to our embargo. (That turned out swell, didn't it?) Iran's oil infrastructure under the mullahs has all but disintegrated and its production is a fraction of what it could be. I'm sure that some of the thinking going on is that if we can only dislodge the mullahs that we can modernize Iran's oil infrastructure and kill 200,000,000 birds with one stone. Just joking. Only 10-12 million. And get increased oil production out of them.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 11, 2008 10:24 AM

I'm a big Obama supporter, but it is moments like this when I envy the Clinton rapid response machine. If she were taking on McCain, the Clinton team would be forcing this quote into the national media by relentlessly attacking McCain.

Don't get me wrong, I know Obama will use McCain's words effectively. But his people still don't understand how to create a feeding frenzy in the 24-hour cable news cycle.

Posted by owenz | June 11, 2008 10:32 AM

Beyond the fact that after WWII, Americans were not being shot at or blown up.
1. The American soldiers in Iraq now have been taken from their jobs and their families.
2. They are coming back with higher and higher levels of PST.
3. Our military leaders say we can not keep this up.

Posted by grogor | June 11, 2008 10:41 AM

McCain is correct that casualties in Iraq are what Americans are worried about, not presence in Iraq.

Posted by Tim K | June 11, 2008 10:49 AM

McCain is correct that casualties in Iraq are what Americans are worried about, not presence in Iraq.

The point is that Americans aren't so credulous that they'll believe any idiot who says we can be in Iraq forever and, at the same time, magically stop taking casualties.

Posted by southpaw | June 11, 2008 10:55 AM

You can't use examples of US bases in West Germany and South Korea (holding off the Warsaw pact and North Korea, respectively), and then say that doing the same thing in Iraq (to hold off Iran) will antagonize Iran, and never make Iraq peaceful and stable, when it did just that in West Germany and South Korea.

Once you appreciate this, the blame McCain/Bush/GOP rhetoric becomes just that.

Posted by Modern Prosperity owes US of A | June 11, 2008 11:01 AM

kind of makes you wonder why we haven't heard more frequent use of the word "empire" from the Obama camp. - e-dowg

Because an "anti-imperialism" argument would be perceived as "elitist" and Obama already has enough problems with this perception.

*

Speaking of "gotchas", when will anybody in the media ask Bush to clarify whether he wants or does not want permanent bases in Iraq? On the one hand, there's this whole kerfluffle of us trying extort Iraq ("if you play our way, you won't have to pay the fines incurred by Saddam Hussein's gov.") into permanent bases. On the other hand Bush says that's not what we're after?

Why doesn't anyone in the press ask Bush to clarify this? And ask McCain what he thinks of this policy?

Posted by DAS | June 11, 2008 11:01 AM

McCain is correct that casualties in Iraq are what Americans are worried about, not presence in Iraq.

Even if that's true, what Americans are worried about bears little relation to what they *ought* to be worried about. If McCain's being guided by the former and not the latter, then he's being a follower (of polls and public sentiment) instead of a leader.

Posted by Ryan | June 11, 2008 11:01 AM

McCain is correct that casualties in Iraq are what Americans are worried about, not presence in Iraq.

Because, of course, there is no relationship between the two.

Tim K, keep up the good work. Hillary almost has the nomination.

Posted by SavageView | June 11, 2008 11:02 AM

Wait, does McCain really think it's totally no biggie for American troops to be stationed abroad? Most American soldiers kind of like being in the United States. Obviously it is a far lesser sacrifice than death or injury, but discounting it as "not too important" still demonstrates a disgustingly cavalier attitude toward treating our troops like pawns. We should place them abroad only when it is a good, important, and effective thing to do so. Yes, troops always seem eager to fight, but that has at least something to do with their faith that when they are sent to fight, they are sent with good reason. "Because we feel like it" is going to lose their faith - to say nothing of our government's dollars - pretty quickly.

Also what southpaw says.

Posted by jhupp | June 11, 2008 11:03 AM

Dave-

look at the clip again.

Your characterization of the question is technically right, but really what the interviewer wants to know is when troops can leave.

And that's really the question McCain answers. His point was not that "there is still a reason for troops to be there so he can't right now come up with a better estimate when all the troops will come home," his point was that asking when they can come home is the wrong question since (in his view) there is no issue with continued troop presence in the absence of casualties.

The "ability to withdraw" business was tacked on at the end and doesn't fit well with the rest of his answer. What is he saying - that once we have attained the ability to withdraw that it is not important whether we do so?

Posted by Steve | June 11, 2008 11:05 AM

In addition, didn't McCain's fantastical ad on the state of the world in 2012 after his "first term" note that the troops would be coming home?

Posted by SavageView | June 11, 2008 11:09 AM

McCain is correct that casualties in Iraq are what Americans are worried about, not presence in Iraq.

This reminds me of the old joke that if you jump off a building, it's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden deceleration.

Posted by Brad L | June 11, 2008 11:11 AM

Tim K, some of us also happen to be concerned with the cost. That $125 billion a year that's a lot of education, healthcare, energy R&D and infrastructure that we are giving away.

Posted by z_adura | June 11, 2008 11:16 AM

Wait, does McCain really think it's totally no biggie for American troops to be stationed abroad? Most American soldiers kind of like being in the United States. Obviously it is a far lesser sacrifice than death or injury, but discounting it as "not too important" still demonstrates a disgustingly cavalier attitude toward treating our troops like pawns.

Well McCain was himself born on a military base in Panama, so it's not like this is an entirely foreign concept to him.

But what are they going to be doing in Iraq? Fighting Iran?

No more so than the troops in South Korea will be "Fighting North Korea", or the troops in Germany were "Fighting the Soviets". Your own examples point out how silly your argument is.

Posted by right | June 11, 2008 11:17 AM

right:

No more so than the troops in South Korea will be "Fighting North Korea", or the troops in Germany were "Fighting the Soviets". Your own examples point out how silly your argument is.

Try thinking this through one more time, "right," and then try again.

Posted by 23456 | June 11, 2008 11:21 AM

How hard would it be for someone to ask the following?

"Senator, you've said that you support an indefinite American presence in Iraq, provided the American troops are no longer suffering any casualties. However, American troops currently are suffering casualties. I have four questions.

First, how long will it be before the casualties stop?

Second, what will cause the casualties to stop?

Third, is there any length of time after which you will withdraw American troops because casualties have not stopped and do not appear close to stopping?

Fourth, assuming that all casualties do stop in their entirety at some point, what troop levels do you envision keeping in Iraq, and how long will Army and Marine tours be?

Posted by Joe | June 11, 2008 11:22 AM

Every deployment to Iraq increases susceptibility to PTSD, depression and the destruction of the service member’s family unit. To pretend that it doesn't matter if we are in Iraq for another 10 years is egregiously insulting to service members like my cousin (a marine) who is already on his second tour in Ramadi. If we stay in Iraq another 5 years that means he has possibly 3 more tours for a total of 5 deployments to a war zone? That is absurd!! If McCain wants to stay in Iraq longer he needs to reinstitute the draft before we destroy all the members of the American military. We have to share the burden if this war goes on much longer!

Posted by Colleen M | June 11, 2008 11:23 AM

No. He actually says, 'It's not too important that I don't have an estimate as to when we're brining the troops home.'

Posted by burning flock | June 11, 2008 11:25 AM

I read a paper years ago which simply stated the obvious:

The PNAC plan is to set up bases to TRAIN IRAQIS to fight FOR US in the MIDDLE EAST. We will train them to die for our/their oil.

The problem for the Neo-Cons is that what they put on paper is NOT REAL for the PEOPLE they "project", whose lives they directly destroy. Like our Country - let's make everyone broke and tired so they join the military to become indentured servents. Us vs. them mentality.

“And in the general hardening of outlook that set in … practices which had been long abandoned … — imprisonment without trial,
the use of war prisoners as slaves,
public executions, torture to extract confessions,
the use of hostages and the deportation of whole populations

--not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and progressive.” ~george orwell
1984

Posted by Anon | June 11, 2008 11:39 AM

The Group of Soviet Forces in Germany was a multi-million man spearhead of the Soviet Army designed for a massive, overwhelming assault across the intraGerman border. The time between the hypothetical initiation of war and the arrival of the first Soviet recon units in places like Fulda was a matter of moments or hours at the longest, and the follow-on forces were (as far as we knew then) among the best armored units in the world.

Given that logic, it made absolute sense to have American heavy units forward deployed Germany.

North Korea had already shown once that it was willing to cross the border in strength, and had torn through the ROKA all the way to Pusan.

Given that logic, it made, and makes, absolute sense to have heavy American units forward deployed in Korea.

Iran spent eight years fighting the Iraqi Army of Saddam Hussein, and army that we shredded like shredded wheat twice. Iranian ground forces proved unable to break the Iraqis with everything from their pathetic version of armored assaults to human wave attacks. Their "air force" was just sad, and their "navy" impotent. And that was twenty years ago. I see no indication that the Iranian military has substantially improved since then.

So can we stop now with this nonsense that we need 140,000 GIs to stop the dreaded Iranian human wave inundating Basra?

The bottom line here is that Mr. McCain appears to have bought the PNAC line that military force inside Iraq is a geopolitical strength for American policy. I disagree, as does MY and many of the commentors here. If there is a disagreement about this, it needs to be over the policy, not about some silly analogy between the VIIth Corps in Germany as MNF-I in Iraq.

This "Germany and Korea" analogy should be filed as a version of Godwin's Law: the first person invoking it automatically loses. There are arguments to be made - admittedly to my mind specious, imperialist arguments but arguments nonetheless - for basing American arms in Iraq. But pretending that Iran is North Korea or the Soviet Union is not a valid one of them.

Posted by FDChief | June 11, 2008 11:40 AM

No. He actually says, 'It's not too important that I don't have an estimate as to when we're brining the troops home.'

That's a highly strained interpretation. A more natural understanding of the video would be that McCain doesn't consider the subject of when troops are coming home too important (and so he doesn't have an estimate). Rather, McCain prefers to dwell on the subject of American casualties. And that's where the magical thinking begins.

Posted by southpaw | June 11, 2008 11:41 AM

The Group of Soviet Forces in Germany was a multi-million man spearhead of the Soviet Army designed for a massive, overwhelming assault across the intraGerman border. The time between the hypothetical initiation of war and the arrival of the first Soviet recon units in places like Fulda was a matter of moments or hours at the longest, and the follow-on forces were (as far as we knew then) among the best armored units in the world.

Given that logic, it made absolute sense to have American heavy units forward deployed Germany.

North Korea had already shown once that it was willing to cross the border in strength, and had torn through the ROKA all the way to Pusan.

Given that logic, it made, and makes, absolute sense to have heavy American units forward deployed in Korea.

Iran spent eight years fighting the Iraqi Army of Saddam Hussein, an army that we shredded like shredded wheat twice. Iranian ground forces proved unable to break the Iraqis with everything from their pathetic version of armored assaults to human wave attacks. Their "air force" was just sad, and their "navy" impotent. And that was twenty years ago. I see no indication that the Iranian military has substantially improved since then.

So can we stop now with this nonsense that we need 140,000 GIs to stop the dreaded Iranian human wave inundating Basra?

The bottom line here is that Mr. McCain appears to have bought the PNAC line that military force inside Iraq is a geopolitical strength for American policy. I disagree, as does MY and many of the commentors here. If there is a disagreement about this, it needs to be over the policy, not about some silly analogy between the VIIth Corps in Germany as MNF-I in Iraq.

This "Germany and Korea" analogy should be filed as a version of Godwin's Law: the first person invoking it automatically loses. There are arguments to be made - admittedly to my mind specious, imperialist arguments but arguments nonetheless - for basing American arms in Iraq. But pretending that Iran is North Korea or the Soviet Union is not a valid one of them.

Posted by FDChief | June 11, 2008 11:41 AM

We don't need "permanent bases", but we are going to need to be the Iraqi Airforce for a while, as we were for Germany and South Korea--of course, as right points out, one of the main reasons we didn't have to fight the USSR or re-fight North Korea.

Anyway, "permanent" in the Middle East means like, you know, the Pyramids.

Posted by robert powell | June 11, 2008 11:42 AM

The Group of Soviet Forces in Germany was a multi-million man spearhead of the Soviet Army designed for a massive, overwhelming assault across the intraGerman border. The time between the hypothetical initiation of war and the arrival of the first Soviet recon units in places like Fulda was a matter of moments or hours at the longest, and the follow-on forces were (as far as we knew then) among the best armored units in the world.

Given that logic, it made absolute sense to have American heavy units forward deployed Germany.

North Korea had already shown once that it was willing to cross the border in strength, and had torn through the ROKA all the way to Pusan.

Given that logic, it made, and makes, absolute sense to have heavy American units forward deployed in Korea.

Iran spent eight years fighting the Iraqi Army of Saddam Hussein, an army that we shredded like shredded wheat twice. Iranian ground forces proved unable to break the Iraqis with everything from their pathetic version of armored assaults to human wave attacks. Their "air force" was just sad, and their "navy" impotent. And that was twenty years ago. I see no indication that the Iranian military has substantially improved since then.

So can we stop now with this nonsense that we need 140,000 GIs to stop the dreaded Iranian human wave inundating Basra?

The bottom line here is that Mr. McCain appears to have bought the PNAC line that military force inside Iraq is a geopolitical strength for American policy. I disagree, as does MY and many of the commentors here. If there is a disagreement about this, it needs to be over the policy, not about some silly analogy between the VIIth Corps in Germany as MNF-I in Iraq.

This "Germany and Korea" analogy should be filed as a version of Godwin's Law: the first person invoking it automatically loses. There are arguments to be made - admittedly to my mind specious, imperialist arguments but arguments nonetheless - for basing American arms in Iraq. But pretending that Iran is North Korea or the Soviet Union is not a valid one of them.

Posted by FDChief | June 11, 2008 11:42 AM

The Group of Soviet Forces in Germany was a multi-million man spearhead of the Soviet Army designed for a massive, overwhelming assault across the intraGerman border. The time between the hypothetical initiation of war and the arrival of the first Soviet recon units in places like Fulda was a matter of moments or hours at the longest, and the follow-on forces were (as far as we knew then) among the best armored units in the world.

Given that logic, it made absolute sense to have American heavy units forward deployed Germany.

North Korea had already shown once that it was willing to cross the border in strength, and had torn through the ROKA all the way to Pusan.

Given that logic, it made, and makes, absolute sense to have heavy American units forward deployed in Korea.

Iran spent eight years fighting the Iraqi Army of Saddam Hussein, an army that we shredded like shredded wheat twice. Iranian ground forces proved unable to break the Iraqis with everything from their pathetic version of armored assaults to human wave attacks. Their "air force" was just sad, and their "navy" impotent. And that was twenty years ago. I see no indication that the Iranian military has substantially improved since then.

So can we stop now with this nonsense that we need 140,000 GIs to stop the dreaded Iranian human wave inundating Basra?

The bottom line here is that Mr. McCain appears to have bought the PNAC line that military force inside Iraq is a geopolitical strength for American policy. I disagree, as does MY and many of the commentors here. If there is a disagreement about this, it needs to be over the policy, not about some silly analogy between the VIIth Corps in Germany as MNF-I in Iraq.

This "Germany and Korea" analogy should be filed as a version of Godwin's Law: the first person invoking it automatically loses. There are arguments to be made - admittedly to my mind specious, imperialist arguments but arguments nonetheless - for basing American arms in Iraq. But pretending that Iran is North Korea or the Soviet Union is not a valid one of them.

Posted by FDChief | June 11, 2008 11:47 AM

Well, damn! Oops.

Sorry about the triple post - the first two produced a "server error" screen.

Consider it a triple reinforcement of my opinion of the "Germany and Korea" intellectual dodge.

Posted by FDChief | June 11, 2008 11:52 AM

But what are they going to be doing in Iraq?

They'll be not-coming-home.

Because if they came home, then the DFH's would be, and would have been, right.
And the DFH's can never be, or ever have been right.
So the troops can never come home.

The 'war' in Iraq is a proxy Second American Civil War, fought to establish what America, and not Iraq, means, and is, and should be like.

Offsite, and often outsourced, according to best modern management-school practice, but an Second American Civil War nevertheless

Posted by Davis X. Machina | June 11, 2008 12:17 PM

McCain is correct that casualties in Iraq are what Americans are worried about, not presence in Iraq.

Except for the 150,000 Americans who are stuck over there.

Posted by Brautigan | June 11, 2008 12:24 PM

I know Matt is in full-fledged political hack mode and will be through November(elections years suck!), but this is silly. Ambinder has a much more reasonable take on McCain's comments...http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/its_not_important_context_is_a.php

Posted by adf | June 11, 2008 12:54 PM

You liberals are so quick to jump on McCain's every word in order to cast him in a negative light. Can't you be honest and admit that lower casualties is by far the most important statistic that we care about? Of course the troops will start to come home as we continue to achieve success and reduce casualties.

America is currently still needed is Iraq to make sure Iran doesn't try to put in place its Iraqi version of Hezbollah (Sadr), which it appears hell-bent on doing. Iran wants us out so they can wreak havoc in the region just like it is doing in Lebanon.

Wake up liberals!! I know you've been hoping for defeat but you appear to be out of luck.

Posted by Dan | June 11, 2008 1:01 PM

Wake up liberals!! I know you've been hoping for defeat but you appear to be out of luck.

We can't be defeated, because we won the war in 2003.

Everything since then hasn't been a war, just a very expensive GOP campaign commercial.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | June 11, 2008 1:11 PM

Can't you be honest and admit that lower casualties is by far the most important statistic that we care about?

A bit callous to call it a statistic, isn't it? But you're right, a huge majority of us want fewer American soldiers to die.

Obama wants to keep American troops alive by bringing them back to the United States.

John McCain, by contrast, "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."

Obama's first priority is saving American lives; McCain's first priority is staying in Iraq. That's a real difference.

Posted by southpaw | June 11, 2008 1:20 PM

southpaw: "Obama wants to keep American troops alive by bringing them back to the United States."

Obviously, we can precipitously pull all of our troops from Iraq, which will probably save lives in the short term, but ignore any lives that will be lost in the future by leaving Iraq unstable, and ignore the sacrifice of the soldiers who have already perished.

Obama appears to want to pull out regardless of the consequences. I'm disappointed that he is so unwilling to admit any kind of success in Iraq.

A vote for McCain is a vote for victory. A vote for Obama is a vote for defeatism and failure.

Posted by Dan | June 11, 2008 1:32 PM

Obviously, we can precipitously pull all of our troops from Iraq, which will probably save lives in the short term, but ignore any lives that will be lost in the future by leaving Iraq unstable, and ignore the sacrifice of the soldiers who have already perished.

So your (and, you say, McCain's) order of priorities then: (1) not leaving Iraq unstable, (2) consistency of the vague strategic vision on Iraq (so that the sacrifice of fallen soldiers isn't "ignored" in some inarticulate sense), (3) reducing American casualties.

Fine, if you want to deprioritize casualties (contra what McCain says) and elevate stability, I'll engage you there. Leaving American troops in Iraq will lead to persistent instability. The Iranians, as Matt says, have a vested interest in stirring up trouble for us so that we don't have a stable platform to launch attacks against them. Even more than that, the Iraqis have a long and proud history of resistance to foreign occupation (the British had this problem before WWII). Any western presence in the heart of Arabia would be inherently destabilizing.

As long as we're in Iraq, there will be a faction of the population trying to expel us (the Iranians will be too) from what they consider holy lands. That's why we can't turn Iraq into South Korea, and it's why we'll be taking some number of casualties until the day we leave.

Posted by southpaw | June 11, 2008 1:50 PM

"Obama appears to want to pull out regardless of the consequences."

And McCain wants to stay regardless of the consequences. This begs the question -- what ARE the consequences?

We know that the future consequences of Obama's plan necessarily must include (1) soldiers stop dying in Iraq, and (2) soldiers come home from Iraq. We know that the consequences of McCain's plan must include (1) soldiers don't come home from Iraq, and they probably include (2) soldiers keep dying in Iraq.

Clearly, those weigh very heavily in favor of Obama. There may be other consequences that point the other way -- but in that case, proponents of endless war need to be very, very specific about them and their likelihood. And sorry, "instability" doesn't work.

Posted by Joe | June 11, 2008 1:56 PM

(so that the sacrifice of fallen soldiers isn't "ignored" in some inarticulate sense)

There should be a Monument to Sunk Costs at Arlington, right next to the Tomb of the Unknown.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | June 11, 2008 2:04 PM

Joe: "There may be other consequences that point the other way -- but in that case, proponents of endless war need to be very, very specific about them and their likelihood. And sorry, "instability" doesn't work."

I think its pretty obvious the type of "instability" that will likely occur if we were to pull out right now.

I am all for troops coming home, but lets do this the right way and not be too impatient, as Obama advocates. We've invested far too much at this point. Iran would like nothing more than for us to pull out precipitously so it can create all kinds of havoc and instability in Iraq with Sadr and his militas/henchman as well as other armed groups. They've been quite successful in Lebanon with these same tactics and we see what a mess Lebanon is in.

If Iraq does not want us there, then lets leave. The last time I checked, however, the Iraqi goverment is still asking us to stay in a support role.

Posted by Dan | June 11, 2008 2:17 PM

I've never understood the logic of keeping soldiers in Iraq if they're not getting killed. Either they're in harms way or they're merely symbols of national pride and/or imperialism. If they're not being used AS SOLDIERS why are they there at all? Isn't Peace a very good reason to bring them home to get on with their lives?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 11, 2008 2:21 PM

Obviously, we can precipitously pull all of our troops from Iraq, which will probably save lives in the short term, but ignore any lives that will be lost in the future by leaving Iraq unstable, and ignore the sacrifice of the soldiers who have already perished.

Now we get nuanced arguments about opportunity costs from the right. Amazing.

Posted by SavageView | June 11, 2008 2:41 PM

That seems like a recipe for ensuring that Iraq never becomes peaceful and stable, since if our goal in Iraq is to create a platform for anti-Iranian activities then the Iranians would seem to have no choice but to stir up as much trouble as possible.

Not to mention the fact that our client regime there, such as it is, plus a substantial portion of the citizens at large are, how to put this, pro-Iranian.

Posted by DrBB | June 11, 2008 3:28 PM

"I think its pretty obvious the type of 'instability' that will likely occur if we were to pull out right now."

I don't. In fact, I don't even think there will be "instability" for any extended period of time. As we saw with the Anbar Awakening, I think that intranational factions will quickly put the kibosh on insurgents and some sort of compromise between the Sunnis, independent Shia and Iranian-backed groups will quickly emerge. It won't be perfect or (probably) even enduring, but it will be as stable as what we have right now. Except the insurgents won't be taking potshots at our soldiers, because they won't be there.

But that is all speculation. If you are arguing in favor of a massive troop presence with continuing casualties, the least you can do is tell me SPECIFICALLY what sort of instability will ensue, who will cause it, what it will cost, etc.

"I am all for troops coming home, but (1) lets do this the right way and (2) not be too impatient, as Obama advocates. (3) We've invested far too much at this point. Iran would like nothing more than for us to pull out (4) precipitously so it (5) can create all kinds of havoc and instability in Iraq with Sadr and his militas/henchman as well as other armed groups. They've been quite successful in Lebanon with these same tactics and we see what a mess Lebanon is in."

Wow. Five meaningless platitudes in three sentences.

Why on earth would it be in Iran's or Sadr's interests to create any sort of havoc or instability? Once the country sorts out its internal politics, they'll win -- 70% of the country is Shia!

Posted by Joe | June 11, 2008 3:42 PM

southpaw: "Obama wants to keep American troops alive by bringing them back to the United States."

Well, that's mighty white of the Black Messiah to feel that way. No doubt he also wishes to keep others in risky, indispensible jobs "safe" by pulling farmers out of the field, miners out of the mines, truckers off the road, cops off patrol, and nobody working dangerous heavy construction. Especially everyone out of hospitals and off prescription drugs - because hospital infections, medical misadventures, and meds errors kill 95,000 Americans a year.

But as is, even with 11,500,000 Americans dead in the last 5 years, the only ones the Lefties and the elitist likes of "Obama" care about are the 4,000 deaths of soldiers they have utter contempt for?

Those who are doing the true calling and highest duty of anyone swearing the oath of service? The Marines, the infantryman, the sailor - the military - exists not to be at home or in port safe with their Mommies - but to be ready, willing, and able to defend America and waste our enemies.
And in Iraq, despite the bungles of what the Left thinks of as the evil Bush-Hitler and his cronies, we have all but destroyed Al Qaeda on it's central front. We have shown that we will go in and take on rogue nations that vex us and which do not back down. And by forcing terrorists to show their true hand against fellow Muslims, we have discredited them and helped trigger a debate throughout Sunni Islam on the morality and odious nature of the Takfiris.

****************
I've never understood the logic of keeping soldiers in Iraq if they're not getting killed. Either they're in harms way or they're merely symbols of national pride and/or imperialism. If they're not being used AS SOLDIERS why are they there at all? Isn't Peace a very good reason to bring them home to get on with their lives?
Posted by Jeffrey Davis

All too few Lefties have served or even gotten an education in military basics in school. They know more about gays in the military than they do about military tactics, doctrine, capacities,

In the Cold War, we had men (and a few woman) forward deployed in all NATO Countries and bases manned in numerous other places in pleacetime..Rota Spain, Subic Bay and Angeles City, and Holy Loch for our air forces and subs. Kade and Yokosuka Japan. Bases in Thailand, Guam, Iceland, early warning and air defense bases in Greenland, Canada. Intel gathering bases in Nepal, Iran, Taiwan.

Now we have a different threat set. Mainly radical Islam, the rogue states of Iran and N Korea, plus the emerging China threat - so we forward base relevant forces accordingly. Qatar, Djbouti, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, Iraq, Turkey, the same Pacific bases less the Philippines.

We don't leave our forces safe at home with their mommies. Doctrine and the need to best defend America says we forward base a certain percentage of our troops and sailors. In the combat area, rather than the "hero" dental techs, Pentagon infrastructure, rear ech lifer cadre - a sub or carrier sailor, a Marine, an Army tank crew, or AF wing could well expect to be outside the US for half or more their term of service. In peacetime.

Posted by chris ford | June 11, 2008 4:52 PM

Matt's last paragraph actually gets it right - in a sort of lame, weak-kneed way.

Why not just admit that the intent is to attack Iran, Matt?

Ooops! Can't talk about that.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 11, 2008 5:25 PM

"All too few Lefties have served or even gotten an education in military basics in school. They know more about gays in the military than they do about military tactics, doctrine, capacities,"

Hey, fucktard! I know more about military doctrine than you ever will.

You're a "fake soldier", asshole. Quit bullshitting people who have served, and more important, know how to read something other than the Ku Klux Klan Charter.

"The Marines, the infantryman, the sailor - the military - exists not to be at home or in port safe with their Mommies"

Like you, asshole.

Scum like you don't care how many people get killed as long as you can run your mouth from the safety of your basement.

Nobody gives a shit what you think, troll.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 11, 2008 5:41 PM

Dan writes: "America is currently still needed is Iraq to make sure Iran doesn't try to put in place its Iraqi version of Hezbollah (Sadr), which it appears hell-bent on doing. Iran wants us out so they can wreak havoc in the region just like it is doing in Lebanon."

???
at the moment iran is happy to do business with maliki, not sadr. if they were really hell-bent on backing sadr over maliki, why would they want to work on cease-fires between the two?

sadr is anti-iranian, he's not the kinda of guy they'd want to see in power.

plus, why would shia iran want to wreak havok in a country that is mostly shia?

do you really think that iran wants to live next to a country in chaos?

Posted by dj spellchecka | June 11, 2008 5:46 PM

No doubt he also wishes to keep others in risky, indispensible jobs "safe" by pulling farmers out of the field, miners out of the mines, truckers off the road, cops off patrol, and nobody working dangerous heavy construction.

I see. Soldiers must be in Iraq like farmers must be in the fields and cops on the street. The United States military exists to apply force to the nation of Iraq, whether or not doing that serves any strategic purpose whatsoever. And here I was thinking their job was to protect the security of the United States of America. Thank you for enlightening me. Douche.

Posted by southpaw | June 11, 2008 8:17 PM

You can't use examples of US bases in West Germany and South Korea (holding off the Warsaw pact and North Korea, respectively), and then say that doing the same thing in Iraq (to hold off Iran) will antagonize Iran, and never make Iraq peaceful and stable, when it did just that in West Germany and South Korea.

You can because of a major difference: There was no fraternization and border crossing going on between W. Germany and the Warsaw Pact, or between S. Korea and N. Korea. Instead, you had walls, fences, and heavily-armed borders to prevent that. In Iraq, you have a situation where many of the major political players are being backed by Iran, and no desire on the part of these Iraqis of stopping this relationship.

Throw in the historical and sociological differences between the various countries (e.g., Iraq: lots of ethnio-religious power groups looking our for themselves; W. Germany and S. Korea: not so much), and one can quite easily argue that the situations are not similar at all.

Posted by josephdietrich | June 12, 2008 3:06 AM

"All too few Lefties have served or even gotten an education in military basics in school. They know more about gays in the military than they do about military tactics, doctrine, capacities."

You are absolutely correct, chris ford. Because "lefties" are the America-hating, beansprout-and-wheatgrass goblins who exist only in your poor, beffuddled imagination. "Lefties" is the name that psychotic rush/bill-o/ann coulter worshippers like you use when you pretend that democrats are unpatriotic or soft on terror. Too bad you aren't aware that even many (sane) republicans are sick of George W. John Wayne Bush's self-destructive foreign and domestic policies and that they want true change. And John McCain provides no proof he will, or even intends to, pull us out of the toilet that W. and his cronies (who, i was under the impression, never served in combat) have knowingly and cavalierly thrown us in.
As for "kowing tactics", isnt a part of knowing tactics knowing the difference between sunni and shia? Isn't a minor part of "doctrine" that, when you say "mission accomplished", the mission has been accomplished?
"We have shown that we will go in and take on rogue nations that vex us and which do not back down."
O.K., i know this information is rarely if ever mentioned on Fox Noise, so you may have never heard it before:
The attacks on 9/11 were orchestrated by Usama Bin Laden. Usama Bin Laden was head of al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein considered al Qaeda a threat to Iraq. We failed to capture Bin Laden. Bush said Iraq had WMD's. Iraq had no WMD's (WMD's stands for weapons of mass destruction,I think its one of the things included in "an education in military basics".) Then Bush said we were justified to remove Saddam Hussein. He has been removed.
So, remind me again why we are still in Iraq?

P.S. What branch of the military are you in? What is your regiment? What base were you stationed at during basic training?

Posted by BrianFJ | June 22, 2008 12:27 PM