I suspect that the "not that important how long" thing is actually McCain trying to straddle the issue, since the lunatic hawks in his own party want to keep the "surge" going indefinitely despite the fact that we don't actually have enough soldiers or equipment to do so, and since both public opinion and logistical reality favor a fairly rapid drawdown over the course of 2009. The "not that important how long" stance could be seen as giving McCain the flexibility he needs with his lunatic hawk co-partisans to allow the brigade-a-month drawdown that's going to happen in 2009 no matter who's president.

Of course, McCain probably doesn't realize that to the majority of Americans who don't want to stay in Iraq forever, "not important how long" sounds like an indefinite commitment rather than a hedge against an indefinite commitment. But it would be par for the course for McCain to try to say something meaningless in hopes that both sides would think he agrees with them.

Ah, wars. Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.

McCain's statement reminds me of Obama's discussing "bitter" working-class citizens. In both cases I think the speaker had a valid and thoughtful point that is being obscured by the "gotcha" nature of what passes for political discourse these days, when avoiding rational analysis at all costs is the norm.

McCain is correct: it's not too important when Americans come back from Iraq if American casualties are constrained, because if American casualties are constrained it means the troops' presence is succeeding and if they aren't, they aren't. By implication he's saying that higher American casualties are unacceptable (he doesn't say what he would do should U.S. casualties escalate).

Let's look at the context of America's overseas military involvement. As of 2003, according to DOD's annual Base Structure Report as quoted by commondreams.org, the United States occupies 702 military bases in ~130 countries, NOT INCLUDING Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Qatar (the "arc of instability"). In other cases, the report lumps multiple bases together; thus the ten Marine bases on Okinawa become one (and one of these ten is far larger than Central Park). Major U.S. investments in foreign bases (e.g., $5+ billion in RAF bases in Britain) are also omitted. CommonDreams estimates the true number of U.S. overseas bases as approximately 1000.

IMHO America has all these bases because that's something we're still good at: throwing military weight around. Armed force is an American product; it's part of our brand, like Hollywood and technological innovation. We're losing other parts of our brand, like international finance, energy self-sufficiency, and manufacturing, but we can still crank out awesome animated full-length features and we can engineer cutting-edge cancer meds and software. And our stealth bombers are absolute kick-ass multi-billion-dollar motherfuckers.

Now, what McCain is talking about, apparently, is keeping G.I.s in Iraq as consistent with the above branding. But "Iraq" is such a charged word that what McCain means and what people want to interpret from his remarks are two entirely different things. McCain is looking at America's brand and thinking, "We can sell you Ambien or Zoloft or Viagra," but Americans are hearing "PCP-laced brown heroin."

A corollary to McCain's comment would be, "If it's so important that we bring our troops home from Iraq, should we also bring them home from Okinawa? What about the contractors running huge bases in Kosovo et al.--pull the plug on them, too? How about Kuwait? Serbia? Jordan? Germany? Israel? South Korea? Pakistan? Singapore? The Philippines? Poland? India? Australia? Bulgaria? Morocco? Algeria? Tunisia? Oman? Senegal? Japan? Ghana? United Arab Emirates? Sierra Leone? Romania? Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera..."

McCain smiles and says, essentially, go ahead--answer the question.

If a hot war broke out in, say, Bulgaria that embroiled us in an interminable urban guerrilla miasma with resulting dead and maimed U.S. troops, Americans would want to get out of Bulgaria. Until then, we don't give a shit if we're in Bulgaria. I'd venture that the overwhelming number of Americans don't even know we're there.

I happen to disagree with McCain about what constitutes the ideal American presence in Iraq (McCain wants to keep fishing; I favor Obama's plan to cut bait), but I don't fault McCain for something he's not saying.

"I favor Obama's plan to cut bait"

I'm not aware about the Obama plan. From what I can surmise, he wants to leave enough troops to protect the embassy, and fight al-Qaeda next hundred  years.

McCain wants to help Iraqi to destroy al-Qaeda and build a stable country so that American troops don't have to fight. So, who is for war, who is for peace?

jacobt,

nice pivot...very agile...now you need to go to work on spinning The Mummy's latest, about how a time table for withdrawal is not important....

I am positive that, defying all laws of logic and argumentation, you will come up with something that has has Obama REALLY to blame for this latest Mummy whopper...

jacobtl writes:  "McCain wants to help Iraqi to destroy al-Qaeda and build a stable country so that American troops don't have to fight."

It sounds wonderful, but there's a couple of problems:  (1) "Al Qaeda" the global terror organization, and "Al Qada in Iraq" the fundamentalist insurgency group, are two separate entities, even if their basic Islamist philosophy is the same; therefore it's difficult to say how American troops in Iraq can assist in battling Al Qaeda cells in Europe and their nominal leadership (at least in an inspirational sense) in the mountains of Waziristan. (2) Al Qaeda hides out not in Iraq but in the remote regions of our ally Pakistan, bordering Afghanistan (again, different from Iraq), and draws much of its funding from our ally Saudi Arabia, which makes your point even more obscure. (3) Nothing much in Iraqi history suggests a propensity for stability.

I would put it another way:  McCain has a fantasy of creating a pro-western Iraq which will provide political and military support for U.S. operations in the Middle-East and wider region.  This plan may work -- it's not impossble -- although I frankly doubt it.  In any case, whether it's successful or not, its relevance for the struggle against Al Qaeda, who attacked us when we *had* bases in Saudi Arabia and *long before* we went into Iraq, remains at the very least open to question.

Michael, I am disappointed. I thought for sure you would have incorporated an article regarding how Iraq feels regarding McSame's policy: www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2008061003415.html

Jacob, what do you surmise regarding the reality that Iraqis will happily slaughter anyone representing AQ in Iraq once they're happy with American troop levels?

Also, what do you surmise regarding the Governments current efforts to "appease" Iraqis? Shall we continue to sustain "occupation" levels of troops against the wishes of the sovereinty we claim to be establishing, or shall we hand over 40+ military bases to the government that dares to claim sovereinty over what is obviously American territory in Iraq?

"help Iraqi to destroy al-Qaeda "

Iraqis killed AQ on principle, at least until enough Iraqis were more upset with American troops than AQ militants (Abu Ghraib, anyone?) at which point "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". If America leaves Iraq, or sufficiently draws down forces to eliminate the resentment, AQ is guaranteed to be minimal or gone.

"build a stable country "

by inundating them with troops and bases, against the will of the government we helped them establish, without a clearly defined need which does not involve AQ, as explained above?

"so that American troops don't have to fight"

Except in Pakistan where Bush really screwed the pooch by letting the AQ leadership escape, and botching relations with Pakistan to facilitate operations.

Couching your goals in noble terminology does little to justify the continued pattern of failure exhibited by the Bush administration, let alone explain how McSame is going to turn those failures into successes.

ironyroad  said,

"It sounds wonderful, but there's a couple of problems:  (1) "Al Qaeda" the global terror organization, and "Al Qada in Iraq" the fundamentalist insurgency group,"

Can you explain this to Obama:

"Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

Also can somebody tell Obama to update his foolish and embarrassing talking points:

"The Surge: The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq's civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war."

Seems to me if you want to quote my comments at me, it doesn't impress me when you lop off half a sentence when it suits you.  What I said was:  "'Al Qaeda' the global terror organization, and 'Al Qada in Iraq' the fundamentalist insurgency group, are two separate entities, even if their basic Islamist philosophy is the same; therefore it's difficult to say how American troops in Iraq can assist in battling Al Qaeda cells in Europe and their nominal leadership (at least in an inspirational sense) in the mountains of Waziristan."

Other than that, looking at your posts jacob, Obama seems to be making the sense you think you're making.

A couple comments.  First, it's worth noting that the Rasmussen polls essentially frame the question as about a best case scenario for McCain, i.e. "winning."  I don't think it's a great way to do polling, but it makes the results all the more striking.  People don't just prefer getting out to staying, they prefer getting out to *winning.*  That is, it's not just that people think that we can't win, it's that even if we could win, they would prefer to get out.

Also, with regard to what yard said, it's important to remember that in addition to lives, the war costs money, an enormous amount of money in fact.  So even if we could reduce casualties while holding troop levels constant, we would still be pouring money into the war.  In this sense, it matters very much when we and how quickly we start reducing troop levels.

jacob, give it up, you took this tack because Hillary lost and for no other reason. The purpose of the surge was so that the Iraqi government could get its shit together, so that afterward we could leave. They haven't so we can't. ergo, the surge hasn't worked. If the surge worked we could honestly talk about pulling a great number of troops out. If you recall Bush advertised years ago we would have a bare minimum of 20,000 troops in Iraq in 2004!

When the US supplies the Iraqi military with heavy equipment, jet fighters, advanced tanks, etc. then I know we are serious about going, right now we don't because we are terrified they will turn around and use it on us. Some ally. We are in a catch 22 situation with McCain's way. Not sure with Obama.

Memo to Everyone: If Barry becomes president, do not be surprised if he does not radically draw down the troop levels in Iraq for quite some time. Just a warning.

The surge is working - we might have to stay there 100 years but that's just a sign of how well it's working.  Last Septemebr we all waited for Petraeus tio tell us when the surge would end - now we're told wait till July - guess what they'll be saying in October.  That's how well the surge is working.

blackton  said,

"jacob, give it up, you took this tack because Hillary lost and for no other reason. "

Correct, It's la iberating experience. I don't have to find excuses anymore for bullshit of my favorite candidate.

"I don't have to find excuses anymore for bullshit of my favorite candidate."

Not to be an ass (which means I'm probably about to do just that), but why did you ever try to make excuses for your candidate in the first place? Why can't you simply accept the negatives if they are not pertaining to anything critical to the job of POTUS, or be proactive and attempt to communicate with your favorite candidate regarding their negatives?

We have bases all over the world because we're the global guarantors of the free flow of goods, people, money and ideas across borders. Someone has to hold the wheels on the international economic system. Would you prefer

-- _Chinese_ bases in 130 countries?

-- dueling bandits (cue "Deliverance" theme), with Putin's state gangsters laying claim to not just the North Pole but also large swaths of SW Asia, the middle east, and of course Europe east of the Elbe; Chavez creating Gran Bolivia in the Andes; A-jad creating his neo-Persian Empire etc

-- actual pirates (yes, they're back, big time, across Asia) disrupting those vital sea lanes of communication in ways that the Soviets never could, also destroying refineries in Saudi and other places and sending oil past $250/bbl

I could go on, but there's a reason the Chinese are keen not to cash the check, and no, it's not access to our market. They can sell their crap anywhere these days. They need the US militarily-dominant hegemon at least as much as anyone, and they'll be damned if they're going to be asked to stop free riding and actually shoulder the load instead of us.

Good point, tep.  The current international state system is maintained by US, with very little help from any other country.  They will miss it when it is gone.

Keep your eye on the SOFA negotiations now taking place between the US and Iraq.  SOFA agreements lay out the terms and conditions under which we maintain troops in a given country.  We have had them with Germany, Japan, etc for decades.  The Iraqis are trying to assert their sovereignty in these talks, to an extent that we don't find palatable right now.  It will be interesting to see the final product, and then see what the Senate does with it.

SOFA = Status of Forces Agreement.

Sorry.

I'd like to see an SOFA with an autonomous Kurdish polity. And a forward air base close to the Iranian border.

butchie, indeed! Last word was that we were going to concede the requests of the government for fewer bases and privileges; I hope Bush and the Senate have enough sense to respect the wishes of the sovereignty they've been trying to establish, no matter how nice it would be to have a large section of Iraq from which to stage operations in the region.

Tep, agreed, but I would like to mention various rumors regarding China's efforts to militarize over the last few years, not to mention the recent cases of treason/espionage involving critical government contractors. If they are gearing up behind the curtains, it would be the perfect thing to render the current "police force" inert, then pivot and offer their own as a replacement.