Check out this anti-McCain ad from the DNC:
"What Senator McCain is saying doesn’t make any sense. We cannot be in Iraq for a hundred years. Those dollars belong in America. We’re in trouble in this–in, in America. And, frankly, the Bush-McCain economic program has put us in trouble in America. That money needs to be here in America.”I would stand by Howard Dean and his comments if they were followed up by pulling out influence back from 130 countries or discussing the 450,000 troops stationed overseas other than Iraq. While he is trying to paint that 100 years as a terrible deep war situation, I do Sen. McCain is discussing a post-war Germany, Japan, or Korea situation. The inconsistency of thought makes the unfortunate truth apparent: the DNC sees Iraq as a means to an end when it comes to politics. Consistent logic is absent. That isn't to say that some, if not many, Republicans see it the same way.
That doesn't mean that they aren't right in isolation that we should leave Iraq - just that the DNC is wrong about global politics and would be willing to put the security and citizen's lives of one country - Iraq - on the back burner to politics when other situations, other countries, get preferential treatment because helping them it poltiically useful to the DNC.
In debates, Sen. McCain will be asked about these statements and he should. Hopefully he can point out the inconsistent logic of whatever candidate he is against and lay out his plan for what America's role should be in future conflicts. Maybe we'll get a real surprise and have Sen. Obama take on a smart foreign policy stance of non-intervention and free trade.
Posts
2 comments:
In the post you wrote:
While he is trying to paint that 100 years as a terrible deep war situation, I do Sen. McCain is discussing a post-war Germany, Japan, or Korea situation. The inconsistency of thought makes the unfortunate truth apparent: the DNC sees Iraq as a means to an end when it comes to politics. Consistent logic is absent. That isn't to say that some, if not many, Republicans see it the same way.
I think this is definitely a valid point to raise regarding Dean's / Dems statements about McCain's words. I also agree that it is disingenuous, but this is politics and messaging for a presidential race. However, there is inconsistency on both sides. McCain was talking about Iraq as if it were post-WW2 Japan, Germany or Korea. I think that is fairly clear that Iraq is similar to neither of these three.
Instead, an interesting question to pursue is whether Iraq has a chance to make it to a situation similar the post-war Japan, Germany and Korea. If so, what is the potential cost?
That cost will have to include more than just $ spent and blood split (although, these are important factors), but also include future costs (cost to rebuild / rearm our military forces and what a increased stay in Iraq would cause), opportunity costs (does this prevent us from either spending money on other priorities - like domestic spending, a more effective GWOT in Afghanistan, etc) and unanticipated/unintended costs (does this make us less able to respond to crises elsewhere in the world? Does our merely being in Iraq prevent a resolution to the disagreements amongst Iraqis?)
As with costs, we also need to consider potential benefits. If we can agree that Iraq is not close to being a Germany, Korea, or Japan and, thus, unlikely to remain peaceful and not increase the costs mentioned above, what benefits do we have to staying there?
Would pulling out of Iraq lead to an equivalent of an Islamist domino effect? I doubt it - the Sunni Iraqis have demonstrated their dislike for al qaeda style Islam and government. Would Iran come to dominate Iraq? Probably not - the Khurds and Sunnis dislike Shia Iran even more than al qaeda. Would we lose influence in the region? Perhaps some, but not much. If anything, it may give us a better ability to be an better broker if we aren't viewed as propping up a Shia government. But it may include getting the Jordanian, Saudis, Syrians (GASP!) and even Iranians (No!) around a table for a dialogue.
There are also a lot of risks about shit completely hitting the fan. The low intensity civil war being waged in Iraq could worsen. Disorder could lead to renewed attacks on Iraq's oil infrastructure and further destabilize global energy markets (but they don't seem stable now anyway).
But all in all, our "pulling out" or a large reduction in forces wouldn't impede us from striking strategically at al qaeda IF they set up Afghanistan-esque bases (although incredibly unlikely, as mentioned above). Furthermore, there is no chance of the al qaeda taking over the oil resources, a favorite talking point of equally disingenuous Republican (Cheney) fear mongers. Think of the basic logistics involved with operating, maintaining, shipping, selling, collecting funds, etc needed to run an oil-rich economy. Al qaeda could never develop and maintain the capacity to do that.
Anyway, you're right. The arguement by Dean is disingenuous - McCain, at the time, was not talking about staying 100 years in an Iraqi civil war that would cost thousands of more American (and 10,000s Iraqi lives). He was talking about an Iraq that exists only in the figment of his imagination - and he hasn't presented a plan for HOW he will realize this daydream.
We can have a separate discussion regarding the costs and
oops, meant to delete that last line.
Post a Comment