Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
EGO SONIC WAR DRUMS.
The Other Klein gets this right:
The problem with John McCain's 100 years in Iraq formulation isn't that he's calling for 95 more years of combat--he isn't--but that he thinks you can have a long-term basing arrangement in Iraq similar to those we have in Germany or Korea. That betrays a fairly acute lack of knowledge about both Iraq and Islam. It may well be possible to station U.S. troops in small, peripheral kingdoms like Dubai or Kuwait, but Iraq is--and has always been--volatile, tenuous, centrally-located and nearly as sensitive to the presence of infidels as Saudi Arabia. It is a terrible candidate for a long-term basing agreement.But to go a bit deeper, it also betrays McCain's emotional commitment to the continued deployment of American troops and projection of American force. I was in the room when McCain made his infamous "100 years of war" comment -- it wasn't solicited. He was raising the questioner, forcefully emphasizing his comfort with endless missions. It was, in other words, a point of pride, not a policy judgment. There's no reason to imagine that we should be in Iraq for 100 years, and McCain didn't offer an strategic reimagining of the conflict that suggested such a strategy. His comments were less about Iraq per se than his personal relationship and comfort with American military power. A hawkish leader who, on the one hand, is ignorant of the basic dynamics in Iraq and, on the other, has a pride- and tradition-based approach to military deployment is a dangerous thing indeed.
COMMENTS (7)
Ezra,
OT, but I assume you're going to comment on the recent interview with Elizabeth Edwards where she denies that Obama was aloof, and rather states that he was "charming"???
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/04/02/elizabeth_edwards_says_endorsement_not_likely_soon.html
I'm sure akaison will dismiss it out of hand, because we all know that the third-hand accounts of these meetings are always more accurate.
I'm sure
Posted by: Jake | April 2, 2008 11:08 AM
I thought McCain first came up with the 100 year formulation in response to a query as to whether the American people would support a long term occupation in Iraq, and he said they would support as much as 100 years or more if it were a peaceful one where Americans were not dying.
I do not take him ever to have suggested one way or another whether, in the bigger picture of geostrategy, such an occupation would make sense.
Can someone produce a quote where that is what he is really suggesting?
Posted by: Bill | April 2, 2008 11:22 AM
+1 for the crafty Blackalicious reference, Mr. Klein.
Posted by: Doctor Memory | April 2, 2008 12:17 PM
The arguement Klein makes is that Islam and the Arab culture is so foreign that it just isn't possible and that McCain just doesn't get it.
I would point to the Japanese before and during WW II. They were not Judeo-Christian. They, too, were committed to the death. They, too, used suicide missions, etc.
Who would have ever thought that we could have the Japan we have today?
Exactly what does Klien believe is so different that this is just impossible for the Arab and Persian peoples?
Posted by: El Viajero | April 2, 2008 12:17 PM
I don't like McCain, but he is the only candidate telling the truth about US military policy. We have in excess of 750 foreign bases and we need to replace those lost in Saudi Arabia.
This was one of the primary reasons we went to war, along with the oil and the need to intimidate neighboring states. We also wanted to keep the oil away from China.
Anyone who thinks that our policy for maintaining our empire is going to change when a Dem become president hasn't been paying attention.
I suggest a crash course in US military policy. A good place to start would be reading the trilogy of books by Chalmers Johnson.
It is inconceivable that the US will withdraw from the region. It is possible that we will make arrangements elsewhere so that the bases are not in Iraq, but that's just an operational detail.
Cultural arguments don't hold up, there is nothing special about the Middle East, it is just as unlike US sensibilities as Japan and Korea and yet we have permanent bases in both places, the cultural friction just gets swept under the rug.
Until people realize that the military is a fourth (and independent) branch of government, just as it is in most countries, there will be no change in governance.
Administrations come and go, but the military gets what it wants. The Dems are either misleading people on purpose or are woefully uninformed about who runs the US government.
Posted by: robertdfeinman | April 2, 2008 1:28 PM
"There's no reason to imagine that we should be in Iraq for 100 years...."
Sure there is: the same reason that the U.S. invaded Iraq in the first place: military and economic domination of the Middle East during the coming Big Crunch of resource shortages and big-power struggle for survival. I think the project is immoral and probably doomed to failure, but it's a hard-headed reason for being there. McCain seems to understand this, while Democrats are out of touch with the imperatives of maintaining an empire. So all in all, I agree with robertdfeinman's post.
Posted by: mijnheer | April 2, 2008 2:15 PM
Out of interest, if the Iraq base disappeared, what capabilities for force projection would be lacking? Are there not still suitable bases in Kuwait etc?
Posted by: Simon | April 3, 2008 7:15 AM