John McCain and the Hundred Years’ War
February 13, 2008
Brad Vogel is growing (understandably) weary of the mockery that McCain has endured for his quip about staying in Iraq for a hundred years:
McCain’s explication of the statement is anything but off the wall - it demonstrates a better understanding of U.S. military and global history, as well as Middle East politics, than I’ve seen from either remaining Democratic contender…
Barack Obama will tell you what you want to hear. But the hurdles of military logistical and geopolitical realities would likely render his platitudes just that - platitudes. Both he and Hillary want to keep a minimal force of U.S. military strength to protect the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad in the long run, as Obama admitted at an earlier Debate. I would submit that’s not necessarily all that divergent from the reduced force McCain has in mind, what he foresees being in Iraq for what may amount to 100 years.
By the standards of the Socratic Club, sure, it’s mildly disingenuous for us to argue that McCain wouldn’t care if the clusterfuck we’ve seen in Iraq for the last five years continued unabated until the middle of the the thirty-first century.
That said, it honestly doesn’t seem to matter to him if the war were to stretch on for years. He’s not bothered by the cost (in money, in people, and in lost opportunities) of the endeavor. He appears to believe that not only should we increase our military commitment to Iraq, but that “it’s insulting to one’s intelligence” to even consider ending the war. After all, “anyone who worries about how long we’re in Iraq does not understand the military and does not understand war”.
Well, okay then. As Matt Yglesias notes, a more plausible interpretation of this argument is that “McCain doesn’t understand diplomacy, Iraq, foreign policy, strategy, the concept of limited resources, or just about anything else”.
This is simply not the same thing as putting Marines on the roof of the embassy, or withdrawing troops more deliberately than some on the left would like, or acknowledging (as both Obama and Clinton have done) that changing circumstances on the ground might force them to reconsider their current proposals to bring the troops home.
To pretend that the Democratic proposals are “not all that divergent” from McCain’s is at least as disingenuous as poking fun at a maladroit phrase that nevertheless captures the essence of the idea.
McCain really is proposing a huge, open-ended military commitment to Iraq. He really is thinking about building long-term military bases there, and thus propping up yet another unaccountable and autocratic regime in the Middle East. He really does view world affairs and foreign policy through a anthropomorphic prism of willpower, national greatness, and feats of strength.
Historically, it’s been rare for the major parties to put forward drastically different approaches to foreign policy, but that’s not the case this year. The choice between what John McCain is offering, and what Barack Obama is offering, is quite clear.
February 13th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
What the two are offering may be distinct, but the reality that either of them will be able to achieve is, I think, far less divergent. And I actually think that’s good - McCain needs to be a little less hardcore (and focus on other geopolitical briar patches, like China) and Obama needs to be a little less rosy.
The thought that we won’t have some force left in Iraq flies in the face of many examples of U.S. bases after conflict abroad. If you don’t like any of that on a global scale, that’s fine, it’s just that I think it makes McCain’s arguments seem far less absurd than many people are painting them to be.
I think the following link is what McCain is talking about, again, albeit rather contortedly - sort of a “Why don’t and why didn’t people have such a visceral reaction to all of this?”
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/fact_sheets/f950207_0995_troop_strength.html
Based on those numbers and that reality, he’s not so foolish as to believe that we’ll simply be able to pack up and go - and I’ll wager he sees Vietnam as the glaring example of where we did, which history by and large regards as a bona fide loss.
February 13th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
That’s fair: presidents aren’t omnipotent, and they’re not going to be able to achieve everything they want. One definitely hopes that, no matter who we end up electing, they’ll be realistic enough to react appropriately to changing conditions on the ground. Surely seven years of George Bush have illustrated that necessity.
But what McCain is talking about in Iraq is fundamentally different from, say, deploying a radar brigade to the Congo, or keeping a few hundred troops in Haiti. It posits a fundamentally different kind of relationship with the rest of the world than does the multilateral pax Americana that most Democrats want.
On another note, if McCain actually believes the Dolchstoss myth about Vietnam, then I have no confidence whatsoever in his analytical abilities.
February 14th, 2008 at 6:16 am
I think Brad brings up some good points. There is the whole you can only send Nixon to China argument. You may very likely achieve peace easier and quicker with the warrior than a peacenik. But then maybe Mac has been put himself in a corner he’ll be unable to escape.
Brad is also right about Vietnam, but I suspect the lesson for half of us is we stayed way too long, and the other would have been happy to spend another 100 years.
In the end there is a difference between supporting this or that policy and having the capital to deliver results. I think Clinton is in best position right now on the war. It certainly seems to me she has thought more about getting the soldiers out the “right way” than the other two. Obama would not have the capital to form a coherent policy, and in the end Mac would most likely have to send helicopters in to get Americans off the rooftops.
February 14th, 2008 at 8:41 am
The thought that we won’t have some force left in Iraq flies in the face of many examples of U.S. bases after conflict abroad.
Ah, yes. I’d forgotten how we needed those bases in Japan to tamp down the insurgency and intrareligious civil war.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:34 am
It’s a pet peeve of mine, but I hate the “only Nixon can go to China” idea. The reason that only Nixon could go to China is because, had it been anyone else, Richard Nixon would have mau-maued him to an early political grave as soft on Communism, can’t be trusted, etc.
Nate: why do you think Clinton would have more political capital than Obama? They’re both running on substantively similar platforms, and the main difference is that Obama had the judgment and wisdom to recognize that invading Iraq was folly in 2002, instead of waiting until 2005.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:18 am
John McCain is ardently anti-choice — he wants to make abortion illegal and overturn Roe v. Wade. These positions put him out of step with mainstream voters and will hurt him in the general election.
However, as NPR reported on February 2, 2008, many Republican voters incorrectly believe that Sen. McCain supports abortion rights.
McCain has voted consistently against women’s health, and he supports overturning the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade. These positions will make it difficult for him to win over moderate pro-choice voters in the general election.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Well, MNM, tell that to Republicans for Choice.
They - as I think is the case with many moderates and independents - realize that McCain is not necessarily ardently pro-life. They realize he is not making pro-life issues the core of his campaign, nor is he really making social conservative issues the heart of his effort. His lesser emphasis makes him appear less pro-life than Huckabee and less driven by religion, but also less pro-choice than either Democratic contender. I think he arrives at a spot that’s just about palatable for independent voters, especially given this from October 2007:
“A second poll in as many weeks is showing that a majority of Americans are pro-life when it comes to abortion. Last week, a CBS News survey showed over half of the public opposes most or all abortions and now a new poll from Bloomberg News and the Los Angeles Times has found the same thing.
The new media survey asked respondents which of four positions “comes closest to your view on abortion.”
Some 40 percent of those polled said abortion should be illegal 98 percent of the time — “except in cases of rape, incest and to save the mother’s life.”
Another 10 percent took a pro-life position that “abortion should be made illegal without any exceptions.”
So, I don’t think he’s all that divergent from mainstream voters - and it should help him (although it may not be enough) with the key moderate Catholic swing vote.
Finally, it is possible that one could support overturning Roe v. Wade on the grounds that it represents poor legal reasoning without necessarily disagreeing with the ultimate conclusion/policy implications that result from the opinion as it stands.
Your framing - using terms like “landmark” and “women’s health”, among other things - suggests to me you’re really not that moderate on abortion. Although you could be talking about others who are moderate voters who happen to be pro-choice.
February 15th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
MNM what so Landmark about a decision that took the choice of making Abortion (the murder of a child) legal or Ilegal out of the voters hands? I am Pro-Life and make no bones about it, But i still think the decision on Abortion should of been made at the state level and that is somthing that isn’t the job of the Supreme Court they are there to interpret the Constitution.
I personally belive the world is ruled by the aggresive use of force. So yes we do have 2 divergent foriegn policy ideas out there one says we should appease our enemies(Obama/Clinton) the other says we should Defeat them I don’t know about you but I side with ones who say we should Defeat them. I guess you could say this is Neville Chamberlain/ Winston Churchill all over again
April 27th, 2008 at 2:38 am
Well there are some good things about the Iraq war if it goes a 100 years like John McCain wants we will have a chance to become a third world country. I think thats a good thing dont you knowing that were spending all of are money on Iraq and and not on Americas next Generation of Adults. It makes me fell warm inside to think that we are spending money on Iraq and not on education so that are kids can compete againts kids from other countries in math and science. Its also good to know that Iraq has a surplus of money but are country is 480 billion dollars in debt, and if the war were to last a 100 years like John McCain wants are country will be 2 trillion dollars in debt and we will be China’s BITCH!!!!! The best part of the Iraq war is to see how poorly America is treating its heros and to see the shity treatment they get for sacrificing there lives and limbs. I really like how they are writing soldiers off as if they harmed America by surving there country. Then you have to see the VA acting like they dont have to give returning soldiers a thing thats what really pisses me off. My brother survied in Iraq and he ran over a couple hunder IED’s and they act like nothing’s the matter that it doesnt do a fucking thing to there minds and the tell them all that there ok. Well I can clearly fucking say my brother wasn’t seeing shit befor he went and i know for a fact he wasnt seeing ghost thats for damm sure. So when i here people talk about how great the war is going and that its worth it i can go ask my brother and his friend if it is. They both lost alot of friends in Iraq and saw alot of shit that 20 year old boys shouldnt see and will have with them for the rest off the lives. They can talk to friends that were not as lucky as them that lost ther legs, arms, sight and there abilities to be able to live by themselves and to have a family and a normal life. My brother and his friend will get to have a somewhat normal life but there will be some many others that will not be as lucky as them.Ben i like Obama not Clinton but i like your point that Obama Made the right choice the first time and didnt make the mistake for going to war with a country that didnt attack america and had no plans on attacking us.