"So much for 'paying any price' and 'bearing any burden.'"

Speaking of which, I could put you in touch with a good Army recruiter. You're what? Mid-twenties? College educated? The Army could use a guy like you.

Jeez James, you might be right on fact but tone it down, if you dictated this column the poor secretaries air drums were probably burst. Beyond that, why not pull out of Japan? Our presence there has pretty much long outlived its usefulness, and the occasional rape of some Japanese girl is do more long term harm to our reputation that whatever security might be gained.

We are in South Korea simply as a trip wire, we can halve our troop strength without negative repercussions as well. South Korea can certainly make up that 13,000 troops on their own. And those 46,000 troops can far more effectively be used in Afghanistan about now.

You are trapped in cold war thinking there James. Why don't we use our troops for what they are supposed to be used for first, then worry about "posture" elsewhere. I am not advocating no presence, but I see no compelling reason not to scale down where possible. Germany and Japan ain't going to go back to their nefarious ways.

So we should withdraw immediately,  per McCain's "as long as American's are not being injured or harmed or killed"?  Glad to know he thinks that.

Oh, wait, I forgot - Jamie thinks that American's are being welcomed with flowers and that gas is $1.29 a gallon because the Iraqi oil is paying for our entire operation there.

Please, somebody take him out of his 2002 time machine and connect him to reality - 100 years in Iraq means putting American's in harms way in any reality-based Iraq that can be imagined, so McCain's comment was stupid and attack-worthy.

adam, no, James has already told, of course he can always not mention it and I guess at this point the army will probably pretend it doesn't already know.

but in a down and out catfight, James is your guy.

So why does McCain bother to dabble in such dumb hypotheticals?  Does it really make sense to start framing Iraq likes it's present day South Korea.   There's a whole lotta unknown between this start point and such an end point.      

Sure Senator Lieberman, Vice President Cheney, President Bush - oops I mean James - I think you'd fit right in with the USMC - get a buzz cut and a Iraq email address, show us isolationist pussy Democrats how to be a man, a real American.  You're clearly a commited, patriotic guy - we need your leadership!

Send us pictures from Fallujah, will ya?  I want to see you kicking some Al Queda booty for usTerrorist lovers back hom.

This is a new low for the Kirchick Schtick.

The "100 years lie" is, itself, the lie.

I think you took a wrong turn, Jamie.

http://www.nationalreview.com/

The National Review's that way.

Yawn!  How did I know the author of this piece of overheated nonsense before I scrolled down to see the actual name?

Just to pick one point among many -- to set up a coherent drawdown process from Iraq while building up forces in and around Afghanistan is not "isolationist."  To conduct the war on Islamist terrorism more effectively, with greater and more flexible use of our diplomatic and intel assets, is not "isolationist."

right on, ironyroad.  Yesterday I was ready to ask that TNR start putting the bylines of their blog posts at the top, not bottom, so I could more rapidly skip over kirchik's posts.  Now I realize that's redundant; I can identify kirchik's thoughtless fox news talking points in the first dozen words he types.

Every time I think the Boy has hit rock bottom, he manages to hit another bottom.  Kinda like W's approval ratings, Rove's electoral tactics and Cheney's - well, just Cheney.

JK, some basic things to bear in mind:

1.  "paying any price" and "bearing any burden" was probably the stupidest thing ever uttered by a President, or any leader; it represented a high (low) point of American moralism, starting from Woodrow Wilson and now ending (I hope, ENDING) with W.  Any way, the price was usually paid by tortured leftists living and disappearing under right wind dictatorships abroad, and the burden was borne by a generation of young men and women traumatised by Vietnam.  "Freedom" has a value; it is not infinite; W keeps telling Americans that; we should not expect Iraqis or Americans to pay indefinitely and infinitely for a chimera.

2.  Historical revisionism aside, Harry Truman was a narrow-minded, small-town politician.  Other than dropping the bomb on Japan and starting (and nearly losing) the war in Korea, he has not got a lot of accomplishments.  If he was great, LBJ was a towering figure.  He was not, and he was not.

3.  Continued US presence in Japan and Korea has only created defence-welfare mentality in those two countries.  If South Korea had to really defend itself against the North, its people would not be marching up and down the streets of Seoul asking American to leave Korea or calling for peace or rapprochement with the North.  Any way, I do not recall, in my history books, Japanese or Korean suicide bombers blowing themselves up in 1950 or 1955 to kill Americans, or to kill Japanese or Koreans who "collaborate" with Americans.

The analogy is imperfect; it is, in fact, risible.  An idiot who thinks that the stationing of troops in these two countries is similar to Iraq 50 or a 100 years from now should not be allowed near the White House; an idiot who write the crap above, in the tone you write, should find work with Bill O'Reilly.  

But, contra Krauthammer, it is not a "lie" to say McCain wants to stay in Iraq forever. McCain wants to stay in Iraq until we achieve "victory." Victory being defined, depending on the day of the week, roughly as a stable Iraq with reasonably representative national and local governments, with local police and national military establishments capable of imposing law and order, and defending the borders, and with all al-Qaeda-style foreign jihadists having been killed or captured.

That "victory" will not be achieved anytime soon. So McCain is, in fact, calling for an effectively perpetual deployment to Iraq. _After_ the impossible victory is achieved, _then_ McCain is willing to stay for an additional century.

So there is nothing dishonest about telling people McCain wants to stay in Iraq more or less forever. His policy positions require exactly that commitment.

Meanwhile, if we do not start withdrawing about two brigades a month from Iraq by early 2009, our already broken Army will effectively cease to exist as a ground fighting force.

So, James, since you seem to think that McCain's stay-in-Iraq-indefinitely policy is a good idea, please name the brigades you would like to send to Iraq starting in March 2009 to keep our numbers up. Failing that, which you will because very few such deployable brigades exist, please tell all of us exactly how you intend to man the Iraq mission past summer 2009, and what troops you would have ready to deploy to other actual or potential ground combat zones, such as Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Iran, Korea, Taiwan, Columbia, etc. Are you counting on a draft, or do you think the Salvation Army is a combat force? Or do you accept the strategic consequences of entering the next decade with no effective ground combat force, and spending four to ten years being asked by the Chinas and Irans of the world, "You and what army?"

Kirchick may be too young to remember the 1970s, but in the first six or more years after Vietnam, we basically did not have an army. As late as 1983, in the Grenada invasion, the Army performed quite poorly. The "crisis of confidence" of the 1970s wasn't just a result of Jimmy Carter's character; our military was still reeling from the gutting it received in and after Vietnam. We've already reached the edge of that precipice in Iraq; those who want to stay in Iraq in force for another year or more need to face the fact that the necessary consequence of their position is the effective disarmament of the United States.

"Conveniently, the DNC spliced this essential context from its advertisement."

As has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere online, what exactly is essential about this context?  In what way does this change what McCain said or meant and how does it put the lie to the ad?  Nowhere does it say or imply "100 years of war."  The American people, according to every opinion poll I've seen, are overwhelmingly against 100 years of peaceful occupation also.

I also don't think providing the further context helps at all either: "...As long as Americans, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

Yeah, that'd be swell, but let's keep in mind for that to happen we'll have to stay in Iraq and continue to be injured, harmed, wounded, and killed for as long as it takes to get to a state of... "not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."  That's precisely why people want to get out of Iraq now and not in some indeterminate future as far out as 100 years from now: they think that there have been enough soldiers (and contractors and civilians) injured, harmed, wounded, and killed.

There's nothing isolationist about opposing an idiotic and ill-fated occupation of a foreign country.  The occupations of Germany, Japan, and Korea are not even close to applicable historical analogies.  I suggest you apply some of your much vaunted "context" before you start trotting out supporting examples.

This guy's an idiot (straw men much?), but I like that he brought up Harry Truman.

I believe HRC and McCain essentially wish to continue the Truman tradition while Obama wants something else.

I think perceptive commenters like jacksondyer (is he reading this?) have noticed this, and this is the crux of the reason why guys like jackson would switch from HRC to McCain.

I prefer a post-Truman foreign policy, I think that scares a lot of people (I think it's likely to scare older people). Of course those people might view me as stupid and naive (of course jackson is quite capable of inventing his own invectives for me.)

Also, it's incumbent upon McCain to say just how long he'd stay in Iraq under actual present conditions (rather than under Kirchikian fantasy ones) and in other places McCain has strongly suggested that he'd stay 4evah no matter what.

It's ok to be a paranoid neo-con, but Kirchik should really work a little harder.

James, next time you start hyperventilating, put your head inside a paper bag.  Something about the carbon dioxide flooding blood stream calms people down.  

Matt--where do you get that Hillary wants to keep us in Iraq?  What's going on now has nothing to do with S. Korea and Japan.  We're not occupying forces over there.  

Maybe the military won't take JK because of his peronal circumstances, but he can surely get a job with one of the security contractors in Iraq.  And I'm confident that he won't apply for one.

Here's a case where the term "chicken hawk" clearly applies.  JK has reflected glory because he cheers on McCain.

My son served as an officer in the Gulf (two deployments) and even I during relative peacetime) I did my two years as an enlisted man.  So I think my little family has done its part.  

What has JK ever done for anyone except offer an immature and stridently uninformed voice?

Ugh.

McCain said something arrogantly stupid in an attempt to sound arrogantly hawkish. The subtext of his statement was a solid, "F-YOU you damn hippies!" to anyone who would question his Iraq policy. Frankly - that advertisement is GENEROUS. At least we quote his actual statement! We could have taken it completely out of context and said, "John McCain wants your great-great grandson to die in Iraq."

I gotta say, for someone who seems to want to go back into history to refute slanderous lies, "pay any price" and "bear any burden" are JFK (specifically, his inaugural) .  As for saying that McCain wants us in Iraq for 100 years!" is a lie because he "clearly means Korea, Japan, Western Europe, etc" is itself a lie.  Explain to me how Iraq = these places?

I don't think HRC necessarily wants to keep troops in Iraq a whole lot longer than Obama does (and nowhere near as long as McCain), but I think her general approach to foreign policy is more in line with the classic post WWII approach, from Truman through Bill Clinton.

Currently, McCain is (supposedly) caught between that known Trumanesque approach and the recent radical neo-con strain (he would seem to favor the latter.)

Obama? I think he's something new, something 'post hegemonic.'

Seriously, James, if you don't want to start withdrawing about two brigades a month from Iraq in early 2009, where is your list of combat-ready brigades with full manpower, 24 months out of theater, and full equipment complements to rotate into Iraq to keep our numbers up? This is not a joke or a rhetorical question; you're a journalist, and this information is publicly available. Only an intellectually lazy cretin would advocate against withdrawing most ground forces from Iraq without first bothering to research the rotation schedules of Army brigades to see who is scheduled to come out when and who will be available to replace them at the time -- or which brigades cannot be replaced and therefore must stay in Iraq on extended deployment.

So, since we can assume that you are not an intellectually lazy cretin, we must also assume that you have already done this simple research, and are therefore ready to provide us with your list of combat-ready brigades that can be rotated into Iraq at a replacement pace in 2009 (or the brigades whose deployments you would extend for an additional 12-18 months).

The list of brigades, please. Now.

I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again:

Kirchick is so sanctimonious, sarcastic and intellectually dishonest that I feel like defending even his least attractive targets. What's particularly galling here is that Kirchick slams Dean for being disingenuous and intentionally misreading McCain's words, and then turns around and accuses the Democratic Party of adopting "rhetoric" that, if faithfully followed, would have the US pull all our soldiers from Japan, South Korea, Germany, the UK and Iceland.

I'd like to know which leading figure in the Democratic Party has criticized the Iraq war in such a manner as to suggest that he or she believes the US should have no military presence whatsoever in any other country, no matter how strategically significant. Of course, as Kirchick knows, no such person exists. Whatever you think about the Democratic position on Iraq (and I certainly agree that there are things to criticize), the party has very few genuine isolationists. Which makes Kirchick's attack at least as disingenuous and unfair as Dean's.

Can somebody please fire this hack?

wow, Kirchick is a genuine uniter. everyone is united in thinking he is a tool.

Our forces are situated across the planet for strategic reasons: rapid response, show of force, etc. They are necessary for maintaining the image -- if, probably, not the actual vitality -- of this handsome empire of ours. After pouring so much blood and treasure into Iraq, we better end up getting one or two major bases and operations jump-points out of it.

Sorry for all the trolls, James. It's a funny time when a people quits relishing the possession of a great and vast dominion -- and loses the guts to fight for it.

"Post-hegemonic"

That'd be sad if it wasn't so depressing. "Oh, yeah, God forbid we stand on top of the dog pile." You're all fools. As our power diminishes, some other giant will rise to its knees. Or several. And you can bet your bottom dollar they won't be as nice as we are. We play rough, but if you think we were bad-n-brutal in Iraq, take a look at Chechnya to see how the other big dogs play.

Well willip, don't set up straw men, leaving Iraq != leaving all countries for good forever.

"Our forces are situated across the planet for strategic reasons: rapid response, show of force, etc."

You're naive willip, they're there to 'protect our interests.'

"After pouring so much blood and treasure into Iraq, we better end up getting one or two major bases and operations jump-points out of it."

I invite you to research the term 'sunk costs,' have fun with that and report back.

"As our power diminishes, some other giant will rise to its knees. Or several. And you can bet your bottom dollar they won't be as nice as we are."

That's a worthy debate, a bit of 'white man's burden,' but worthy.

"It's a funny time when a people quits relishing the possession of a great and vast dominion -- and loses the guts to fight for it."

Tons of  hypocrisy in a lot of the opposition to the Iraqi invasion. Personally, I take the bus to work (and walk home), live in a temperate climate, own a fuel efficient car, and buy local meat.

That doesn't matter much though, like nearly all Americans, I've certainly benefited from the orgy of cheap energy and (until recently) strong dollar that America has provided over the last coupla decades.

3 IN A ROW! (sorry).

Actually we all want to stand atop this 'dog pile,' but we think the methods of the Cheney administration are just not the way to get there.

ick - "Continued US presence in Japan and Korea has only created defence-welfare mentality in those two countries"

Not so. That deployment is hugely important, given that it counterbalances two hugely powerful and aggressive, less-than-stable powers in the theatre that matters most to US interests in this Asian Century.

Iraq by contrast is a dead weight on the US and is centered on a region that is important to us mainly because we can't manage to summon the political will to drill for our own oil off our own shores and shift to alternative energies including nuclear.

We need to do everything in our power to reduce the importance of the middle east to US interests, as fast as possible, and then disengage.

"That deployment is hugely important, given that it counterbalances two hugely powerful and aggressive, less-than-stable powers in the theatre that matters most to US interests in this Asian Century."

So we swapped the Soviet Union for China... I guess I can buy that, and hey, it was such a schlep.

"Iraq by contrast is a dead weight on the US and is centered on a region that is important to us mainly because we can't manage to summon the political will..."

Oh boy do I fuckin' agree with that. I'd go for better zoning laws, more efficient office buildings, way way more choo choo trains, and nuclear power and forgo the drilling, but whatever...

That should be "rise from its knees." Or, "rise to its feet."

"I've certainly benefited from the orgy of cheap energy and (until recently) strong dollar that America has provided over the last coupla decades."

We should be taking boat loads of oil from Iraq -- for free. "Blood for oil" seems like a sane enough line of logic to me.

Disingenuous? Jamie, you wrote the book. And it's the only book you'll ever write.

" "Blood for oil" seems like a sane enough line of logic to me. "

Strikes me as immoral.

Ya know, while I'm not nearly as exersized as JK, there is a point here. We've been inundated with half-truths, out of context comments, etc by the Bushies for 7+ years. Frankly, I know exactly what McCain said on more than one occasion, so lets attack the actual gist. 100 years of peaceful occupation? OK, how many lives and how much treasure before we pacify Iraq? How far is JM willing to go? Once started on that path, could he ever really change? And VC has it right, let that arrogance and dismissiveness be on full display in the ad. Why fudge it when the full truth will work as well and can't be argued about? Aren't we tired of these tactics? Is not this why some of us are Obamiacs?

tep, agree with Korea, but we don't need 26,000 troops, half that is enough of a trip wire, and the same can be said with Japan. The Japanese have the second largest military defense budget in the world. We don't need anyone there, imagine the reaction if the Japanese had any forward operating bases of their own on any American soil. It is unthinkable. It has been 60 years, we have a good enough relationship with them, they will back us up against China. Our base in Guam is certainly close enough as well.

willip, who the hell are you to call everyone here trolls? Do you even know what trolls are and do on the internet? Trolls are people who come in using abusive language soley to provoke, but James is more the true troll of TNR. Put him on the Spine where he belongs. I will read him, sometimes agree with him, but I am certainly free to mock his histrionics. And what Giant will rise to its feet? Russia with its collapsing demographics? Or what about China, which has limited energy sources and which survives completely on consumer good will in the west? And China also faces two disastrous problems down the road, its 50 million unmarriageable men, and its deteriorating environment. They will be lucky to survive intact much less rise to its feet.

dbhuff, I agree. I alternate between hoping to watch the country go down in flames of a McCain Clinton bloodbath (it will be appalling yet strangely hugely entertaining) and looking forward to a relatively civil McCain Obama matchup.

I guarantee the news wants Clinton because of ratings.

Sounds like the DNC is just learning from what the other party is doing.

Exactly, rozenson. I was just about to point that out... this is exactly the sort of shit they pull against us. Is the add a bit dishonest? Sure. But it's a good one.

When someone over at The Plank rips into a fellow Democrat, you know things have gone too far. Howard Dean whines that he's been "viciously attacked." Cry me a river. He deserves whatever he's getting for his dishonest and cynical pandering to unadulterated

I for one am glad TNR keeps you around Kirchik. You're posts are always good for a laugh.

I logged-in to comment on how idiotic I found Kirchik's post, but I can see that others have already done that much more eloquently that I would have done.