TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM
July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
11.06.2008
McCain's "Not Too Important" Remarks

The controversy du jour is John McCain's comment this morning that it's "not too important" when American troops come home. McCain's campaign is hitting back on this, and it's certainly true that McCain proceeds to say that what matters is whether American troops are taking casualties. But I think McCain's comment, like his "100 years" commment, is an important and legitimate thing for Obama to focus on for two reasons:

1. McCain's goal of turning Iraq into a place where American soldiers can stay peacefully, like West Germany or South Korea, is wildly unrealistic. I won't say it's impossible, because anything is possible. But the history of the Middle East suggests that Iraqis are never going to accept a long-term American military presence. Indeed, even if you thought Iraqis would welcome American troops as liberators, which was optimistic but not totally crazy, it would take a whole different level of delusional optimism to think that they'd also welcome scores of permanent U.S. bases in the country. So these comments are a window into McCain's rosy scenario that ought to be challenged.

2. McCain will never say how long he's willing to fight on in order to get to this casualty-free scenario he envisions. Yes, he wants the Iraq occupation to become like the West German occupation, but right now it's not, and McCain won't concede there's any limit to how long the status quo is acceptable to him. He repeatedly turns questions about how long the current war can go on into postulates about a hypothetical future peaceful occupation. It's not the same thing as saying he's willing to keep taking casualties for 100 years, but it is the answer he gives to that question, and as such it's highly suggestive.

--Jonathan Chait

Posted: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 3:17 PM with 22 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

ChanRobt said:

Oh, pleeeasse, you guys.  It ISN'T too important when they come home, in the sense of all the troops being out of Iraq at any date certain.

It isn't too important when our troops are out of Korea or Germany or Kuwait, etc.

We are the preeminent global power.  We cannot retreat because there is no where to retreat to.

Do you still think there is such a thing a Fortress America and that we can pull up the goddamn drawbridge?

The willful naivete of the media and of the Left is breathtaking.

June 11, 2008 3:46 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

I think The Mummy just voted for this before he voted against it...

I would play this tape, if there is a tape, every single day from now until election day. I am beginning to think tha Obama may crack 300 electoral votes...

June 11, 2008 4:10 PM

dbhuff said:

Chan, I think in fact the points John makes ARE precisely the issue, not when they come home, but IF they come home. In Germany, Japan, Korea, and even Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, we have bases (over 70 in Germany alone) but these are places where the populace varies from accepting to overjoyed in an American presence (we keep very low profiles in Arab countries.) The likelihood of that happening in a reasonable amount of time in Iraq is about the same as that bit about the only thing Iraqis will throw at us is flowers. This is even reflected in the proposed deal which allows armed troops to roam the country without any legal recourse for Iraqis. THAT sounds like occupation, not a 'friendly presence' no matter how low the casualty rate goes. If this is the goal, the American people need to finally be aware of it. And determine how much blood and money it is worth, if any.

If you ask the Iraqis, BTW, they don't like the idea at all. This agreement could bring down the government, or at least leave the US military the only thing (again) holding it up. This is not a recipe for soft power abroad, but instead a festering sore that will help Al Quaida recruit for decades.

The real point is that it isn't about 'ending the war', it is about 'what we do after'. This is not Korea, or even Germany or Japan. This is a whole geopolitical region with a lot of animus to the US which we have done absolutely nothing to ameliorate in the last 7 years. And this 'occupation' would only make that worse. This could further destabilize governments in the region who are seen as friendly to us. If we are worried about what AQ would do with nukes, think about what they could do with the Saudi sovereign wealth fund...

June 11, 2008 4:32 PM

michael said:

The guy has a plan:

["the key to it'] "...we don't want any more Americans in harms way and that way they'll be safe..."

Well, it almost fits on a bumper sticker...

June 11, 2008 4:34 PM

scire said:

don't you think even his Iraq stuff is starting to make him seem old? Like a broken record? Like somebody who can't think a new thought, or hasn't had a new thought in about thirty five years? I have been so taken aback lately when watching him speak. He looks so much worse up against Obama than Hillary did. Yeah, she doesn't possess Obama's oratorical brilliance, but she's vibrant, rgot a very professional makeover that made her look fantastic, she' quick-thinking, can talk without looking like she's reading her speech off the teleprompter for the first time, plus she has excellent verbal skills. He is so unconvincing when he talks about anything other than the Iraq War these days, because he seems unprepared for what he's about to say -- almost as if he hadn't been briefed on the content. Whereas, Obama knows his material and seems to have learned the speech before he gives it.

And then when he talks about the Iraq War, he just seems so unwilling to have a new thought or even nuanced language about it. Even Bush has expressed regret over his aggressive cowboy rhetoric and the damage it has caused to his reputation. I don't want to say it's age, and thus be accused of ageism, but isn't it the reality that as people become older, they become less able to think flexibly? I think the age at which that happens differs for different people. And I think when it happens, is when a person becomes old.  For some, it occurs in their thirties. I think McCain's ability to think flexibly left him sometime in the last seven years. He's no longer a maverick. It first started to show in the Republican debates, but it wasn't so glaring until it became him vs. Obama.

I used to really respect McCain. Now I just feel sorry for him. He seems like such an amateur these days. And unfortunately, his physical image doesn't offset it. I don't want to think that superficial stuff matters, but up against Obama, he really needs a makeover. Or at a visit to the dentist. All Obama has to do is flash that dazzling smile in the same room, and McCain's gonna be toast if his response is that mean-spirited yellow grimace he's been substituting for a good-humored grin lately.

June 11, 2008 5:01 PM

roidubouloi said:

Yeah, chan, no Fortress America so lets see how many fights we can pick at one time.  Why? Just for the hell of it.  The delusions of the right of an endless well of American means and power are breathtaking.

Fighting terrorism with stupidity.

June 11, 2008 5:03 PM

roidubouloi said:

I'm with you, jaunty. The more McCain opens his mouth, the deeper the whole he digs for he GOP.  Novak thinks the Dems get a net 4 seats in the Senate.  I think 8 just on general principles.  If Obama can "show a little leg" for the nascent Obamacons (as Novak put it), it could be a blowout.

June 11, 2008 5:05 PM

blackton said:

For a guy who prides himself on FP he is weak on history. Iraq suffered for centuries under foreign occupation, from the Turks of the Ottoman empire to the British etc. They are categorically different from former pre-eminent states like Germany, Japan, or Turkey where they can view Americans as equals, nor is it a country beset by its larger neighbors like Kuwait. I daresay if Korea was re-united as a Democracy, it will not take long for the Koreans to show us the door, irrespective of their larger neighbor China. The Iraqis sure as hell won't allow there to be permanent bases unless we somehow finagle some in Kurdish areas (again, relying on a people beset by more dominate people, the Arabs). Beyond that, even if what he said was true, which it isn't, it is something he shouldn't even be saying since it can so easily be twisted.

If McCain starts blowing his FP creds, then he will rely on nothing more than an anti-Obama vote to be elected.

June 11, 2008 5:21 PM

ironyroad said:

Generally, the phrase "it doesn't matter" is a bad one to use in public debate for political office, as it's got a generally negative tenor even if what's actually being said is, in terms of content, a positive statement.

It's the linguistic equivalent of Bush 41 looking at his watch during the debate with Clinton.

June 11, 2008 5:36 PM

blackton said:

John McCain admitted he doesn't know how to use a computer (which coming from a guy who flew the Navy's most sophisticated planes is kind of bizarre) and listed his favorite movies as being all from the 50's and 60's. He just might become the Chevy Chase of politics, a guy who was the hottest thing once but whose time is past forever. It is kind of sad in a way.

June 11, 2008 5:46 PM

The Ignorant Populist said:

Look, 50+ permanent bases, total control of the skies and immunity from prosecution for all troops and mercenaries doesn't equate to Germany or S. Korea, but the casualties could drop to next to nothing.

June 11, 2008 6:13 PM

liberal reformer said:

ChanRobot: No one except the libertarians and the isolationist right (read: Pat Buchanan) and the far left, nobody is for a retreat of the type you speak of. You think in cardboard stereotypes. Mr. Roid is absolutely coorect in his comments. Read and learn.

June 11, 2008 8:34 PM

timteeter said:

This is ridiculous, and anyone (ahem) who doesn't admit it is an idiot.  Period.

In Korea and in Germany, we had an actual government or foreign power with which to negotiate or from which to accept a surrendur.  Who or what is the comparable entity in Iraq?

In both Korea and Germany, we maintained a minimal tense presence--a "trip wire" in the case of Korea-- as a deterrent against an attack that could have marked the beginning of WW III.  Only with the end of the cold war has this ominous tension eased.  What would be the purpose of a permanent military presence in Iraq?  How could such a presence not look like an occupation, as in Japan?

In both Korea and Germany, we maintained a military presence *after these countries were divided in two.*  Is Senator McCain suggesting a division of Iraq?  If so, in which part do we keep bases?  Who are the bad guys, and which part of the country do they get?

Just asking these perfectly obvious questions reveals the utter absurdity of McCain's comment, and no amount of lipstick is going to make this pig any prettier.

June 11, 2008 9:51 PM

purcellneil said:

channie

You're a good guy and I hate to kick you when you're down, but do you at least recognize how totally lost you are?  Iraq is a war zone - even Bush's General Petraeus admits that he can't let troop strength drop without losing control of the situation - and the situation isn't anything like South Korea or Germany.  What planet are you on, my friend?

As Butchie pointed out a few days ago, we have only 20,000 troops in South Korea.  When we have only 20,000 troops in Iraq - and no casualties - then I'll be happy to accept your analogy.  Till then, you and McCain are not making the sale.  

I can't believe you would come here with that argument.

Neil

June 11, 2008 10:37 PM

areteone said:

If there's one thing that will unite the Sunnis and Shia in Iraq, it will be American troops refusing to leave.  Only a fool believes that American occupation in what is likely the most internally conflicted Muslim country in the world makes Americans safer.  Bin Laden executed 9/11 not because "they hate our freedom", but because he wants American troops out of Saudi Arabia.  As long as US foreign policy is to behave as if we're the Roman army bludgeoning the local populace into submission as we expand the physical control of our empire, we remain at serious risk to be attacked in a similar manner again.

This is the legacy of Republican neo-conservatism: to make America a far less safe place to live.  That John McCain wants to exacerbate the situation should be enough in itself to disqualify him.

June 11, 2008 10:40 PM

three putt said:

I'm now convinced that Chan is not a real person and that someone is having a good laugh jerking our collecive chain.

June 11, 2008 11:49 PM

aeromonas said:

Chan, Isn't is clear that Chait's point is when it comes to basing US forces, the analogy of Iraq to Korea and German falls apart?  Chait says, "McCain's goal of turning Iraq into a place where American soldiers can stay peacefully, like West Germany or South Korea, is wildly unrealistic."  But rather than refute that claim you merely recapitulate McCain's brain-dead formulation that if the US Army can stay in Korea for fifty years, it can stay in Iraq fifty years as well.  That simply won't cut it.  Knowledgeable people are lining up to tell us all the reasons that Iraq is nothing like Korea or Germany, one obvious difference is that until recently both Korea and Germany were situated next door to potential invaders against whom they relied on US forces for deterrence.  It would behoove  you and John McCain to respond to such claims with counterarguments.  Right now you're just parroting a busted analogy.

But while we're drawing analogies between the US in Iraq and historical situations, can anyone think of a more apt analogy than US/Korea?  I dunno, but superficially speaking, the more appropriate analogy would appear to be the Israelis in the Occupied Territories.  

June 11, 2008 11:53 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

three putt,

hee, hee. Naw, O'Channy is real and believe it or not, he is a bud of mine. To paraphrase LBJ, he may be a hopeless right wing nut, but he is MAH hopeless right wing nut and I love the guy...

June 12, 2008 12:05 AM

three putt said:

Jaunty

I too have right wing nut buds so if you say he's real I believe you

June 12, 2008 12:30 AM

lesserliz said:

Does anyone think that McCain could begin to look so bad next to Obama that he could win on a sympathy vote?

June 12, 2008 8:07 AM

JLTTravis said:

No plan to reduce casualties? Are you kidding? Of course McCain has a plan. I found his campaign's PowerPoint <a href="www.imperfectunion.com here</a>.

June 12, 2008 2:19 PM

butchie b said:

Not so fast, my friends.

No, Iraq won't be EXACTLY like Korea or our NATO committments, but the point is that if the casualties drop to practically nothing - which could happen over time, as the Iraqi military stands up, and we provide on-call air support, the force could be drawn down over time to about 25-50,000, maybe even less.  That would hardly be a massive undertaking at that point.  the tour lengths could be 13 months, like we have in Korea, for the most part.

Keep your eye on the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) talks going on right now.  The SOFA that we negotiate with the Iraqis will provide the legal justification for keeping our troops there, with Iraqi consent.  We shall see what kind of agreement they come up with.  if the gov't asks us to leave, we should (just like we did in France in 1966).  But if they still want our forces there, we should stay.

We and the Iraqis have come a long way since 2003.  We are winning the war, but it will up to the Iraqis themselves to vindicate our and their efforts.

June 12, 2008 4:15 PM