Posted on 03/27/2008 9:43:02 PM PDT by Kleebo151
Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted -- "Make it a hundred" -- then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so." Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: "That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." And lest anyone persist in thinking he was talking about war-fighting, he told his questioner: "It's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world." There is another analogy to the kind of benign and strategically advantageous "presence" McCain was suggesting for postwar Iraq: Kuwait. The United States (with allies) occupied Kuwait in 1991 and has remained there with a major military presence for 17 years. We debate dozens of foreign policy issues in this country. I've yet to hear any serious person of either party call for a pullout from Kuwait. Why? Because our presence projects power and provides stability for the entire Gulf and for the vulnerable U.S. allies that line its shores.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I don’t take much comfort in that qualification. Keeping American troops in Iraq for 100 years, or 50 strikes me as a terrible idea. What could be the point of that? Having troops in Japan also strikes me as pointless, though not as provocative.
The Democrats are undeterred. "It's seldom you get such a clean shot," a senior Obama adviser told Politico. It's seldom that you see such a dirty lie.
Good article by Dr. K., but he's wrong about the seldom part. With Democrats, it's routine.
'Cause relocating troops to some places in the US is more hazardous for them?
Safer than where most stateside bases are located. And you get to be armed and where body armor, which is not allowed in the US off base.
Do you know where DIA HQ is. Did you know 90% of all murders in DC occur within 6 blocks of the base perimeter.
Military instalations are rarely on prime realestate...
A good post and a great editorial. Thanks.
—I don’t take much comfort in that qualification. Keeping American troops in Iraq for 100 years, or 50 strikes me as a terrible idea. What could be the point of that? Having troops in Japan also strikes me as pointless, though not as provocative.—
Megadittos to that. What neocon extraordinaire Krauthammer wants is for the US to extend itself as far as possible. When nations overextend themselves, they collapse from political and financial exhaustion (q.v. Empire, British). There’s no point anymore in US ground troops in Europe or Northeast Asia. Let’s face it, there are 2 reasons why we have a military presence in the Middle East.\
1. Israel. A millstone on US foreign policy, but a sentimental favorite for Kraut.
2. “Energy”. If the US was self-sufficient in energy, it could let the Middle East shift for itself. Let’s develop our own energy resources HERE>
"we'll be there a century, hopefully. If it works right."
Don't look for any reporter to zap BHO with that fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.