From a recent interview:
“MATT LAUER: “If it’s working Senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?”
SEN. MCCAIN: “No, but that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea, Americans are in Japan, American troops are in Germany. That’s all fine. American casualties and the ability to withdraw; we will be able to withdraw. General Petraeus is going to tell us in July when he thinks we are. But the key to it is that we don’t want any more Americans in harm’s way.”
I’m going to be charitable and assume McCain didn’t actually mean he doesn’t care that stop-loss and prolonged deployment have placed such a dreadful burden on our troops and the people who support them. More likely what he meant was the same statement he’s made previously: Having troops in Iraq isn’t the problem, it’s the fact people are shooting at the troops. Once we stop that, we can keep them there for years.
Even if that is what he meant, it’s still a witless statement.
For one thing, saying that if Iraq were peaceful, the deployment wouldn’t be an issue is (as I’ve noted before) like saying the rising cost of medical care wouldn’t be a problem if we all had Wolverine’s healing factor. At this point, there’s no sign it can happen. McCain hasn’t offered a solution: His brilliant idea, according to a statement from a few years ago, is to tell the Sunni an Shiite leaders “knock off the (crap).”
This is doubly true because according to most reports, our troops’ presence there only makes things worse. We’re a rallying point for insurgents and terrorists that creates more enemies than we can kill.
And then of course, the big question: If Iraq was at peace, why would our troops be there?
The same question arises with Bush’s current efforts to ram through a treaty with Iraq (while insisting it’s not a treaty and doesn’t need any sort of Senate approval) that would make us a permanent (or at least long-term) presence there. Never mind that a majority of lawmakers and a majority of Iraqis oppose it.
•Are we staying because of the oil? Not just in Iraq, but throughout the Middle East. Much easier for us to protect “our” oil if we have boots on the ground.
•Because we want troops in the area to back up Israel? That’s not an adequate reason, but the political benefits from Israel’s supporters in this country, not only some Jews but many conservative Christians who want our Mideast policy based on their interpretation of Revelation, are considerable.
•Because there are still right-wingers who thirst for an “American empire” (one or two actually use the phrase) with us in control of the Mideast?
•Because there are billions to be made by government contractors out there, with little supervisory control and almost no legal accountability, even if they commit actual crimes (check out some of my past posts on this)?
Thoughts?
