Responding to comments from Dan about my comments on the DNC ad "McCain 100 years":
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?I pointed out that McCain's understanding of foreign involvement was to engage and use our military alongside our diplomats in an array of uses that includes continued support in Iraq. I suggested the DNC strategy was essentially the same as McCain's but set Iraq aside for political reasons and that is inconsistent with the logic of a large international intervention policy. While I espouse non-intervention in foreign affairs except in the direst situations that affects the US, I failed to point out that having an foreign intervention policy also means making choices and assessing trade-offs of our interventions. I didn't make that point and I think made it seem like either we intervene and have troops everywhere or we simply keep our troops at home and have no foreign bases.
Dan is correct when he says, "'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," if that is the goal of US foreign policy. That goal could also be achieved and is one I might agree with provided that we were okay with widespread violence in Iraq and it was coupled with withdrawal from other US foreign bases except a very few. If you consider hitting Al Qaeda bases with missiles, it would be done from a naval platform like Clinton did and bases in North Korea and Germany may no longer be of strategic importance.
But the key is assessing the goals of foreign intervention. If it is purely to protect direct and immediate US interests, the DNC falls short by also cherry picking when and where it wants to intervene due to political expediency. Dan continues:
Anyway, you're right. The argument 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.This is where I also think Howard Dean has an opportunity to make everything line up but doesn't. He says that even if Iraq were post-war Germany or Japan he wouldn't stay because of the cost to the US taxpayer. That should be immediately followed with a statement that we should leave Korea, Germany, Iraq, and everywhere else that fits the test of being unuseful to immediate US interests.
Also, FactCheck.Org discusses DNC vs. McCain and looks at this ad and another earlier ad about the economy. If that blog isn't in your Reader, you're missing out.
Posts
2 comments:
Matt: You're right. I reread the post, and saw that you did make some points I didn't give you credit for. However, I think you are incorrect in stating that McCain and the DNC/Obama (These in themselves are different. Because the Dem race has yet to be finalized, Dean/DNC has to give the anti-McCain talking point. His role isn't really to articulate a separate vision, because the DNC's vision - which is essentially an election instrument for the Dem nominee, as the RNC is for McCain - will take on the vision and talking points of eventual nominee. Dean has a tough, tough job right now. He has to develop a campaign against McCain, and Republicans in general now, without having a presidential candidate to articulate a specific vision. Furthermore, he has to walk a fine line of not pissing off Clinton or Obama by espousing either of their views or plans. So he is left with merely saying "McCain wants to spend 100 years in Iraq, we should really do X." Perhaps he could be more eloquent and make my larger point, Iraq isn't near post-war Germany, Japan, or Korea. But that doesn't fit in a 30 second ad.
But an effective communicator for the DNC may be able to in a show format say something more along the lines of: "McCain says 100 years. He adds the qualifier that if things were peaceful like Germany, Japan, or Korea. This CLEARLY shows he is, like Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush, either misinformed about the status quo or delusional about what is going on. Our soldiers have fought bravely (blah blah...), this misimagined and mismanaged war costs us $xxxxx / week, and McCain is essential advocating the same approach. The Democratic candidates and the Democratic party has offered clear plans for a different approach for how to tackle this important issue to US security, but their vision has been stymied by Bush vetoes and Republican filibusters lead by McCain." Or something like that.
You make another side comment that their stances on Iraq are the same. They are pretty different, but that's not really a point I want to get into in this comment. Obama and Hillary are offering a drastically different approach to US foreign policy to that of McCain, but we can debate that later.
Lastly, I think we maybe have vastly different approaches to what is useful. IMO, our military installments in Germany, Japan and Korea are fairly useful for a number of reasons.
Germany, in particular, is useful for providing critical and rapid medical treatment for US troops injured elsewhere around the region. Also, German bases provide an ability for us to better coordinate with our NATO allies in a number of capacities. I am also sure there are a number of other useful objectives that I am unaware of.
Japan and Korea also provide anchors for us in Asia and provide support for crucial allies in the region. Lastly, as the nature of the threats to the US have evolved, the US has reduced the amount of money and troops station in these locations. I don't have the time now, but I could find stats / articles to back this up later if you want. It isn't like we are keeping these outposts manned and stocked to a level on par withe the height of the Cold War.
Given all this, someone who thinks that a reduction in Iraq involvement given that status quo is not being inconsistent when they don't advocate a similar reduction for Germany, Japan and Korea. For there to be true inconsistency, the situations have to be somewhat similar - these clearly are not.
Maybe we really disagree about the American role in the world, but I don't see those bases as being our biggest or costliest problem right now.
I agree with you that what I've said alone doesn't constitute a slam-dunk set of facts and reasoning that proves the inconsistency. I'll definitely continue to consider the issue and try to either solidify that position or correct my understanding based on the truths I see.
I also agree with you that it's tough talking about Howard Dean's comments. In reality, with the primary shored up it'll be easier and more useful to compare two platforms rather than try to use Hoard Dean to glimpse at the positions of the final primary winner.
Post a Comment