McCain's Dishonest Defense of "100 Years" in Iraq
On Sunday, John McCain renewed his defense of a 100 year American presence in Iraq. Just days after his campaign accused Barack Obama of "dishonesty" and "nonsense talk" over Obama's claim that McCain "willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq," the Republican nominee on Fox News again compared Iraq to Japan and South Korea. By doing so, John McCain once again showed that he fundamentally misunderstands - or worse still, willingly misrepresents - both American history and U.S. national security.
Of course, McCain's confusion over fact and fiction in Iraq is fast becoming legendary. Back in 2003, McCain predicted a" rapid" victory for the U.S. in Iraq and proclaimed that American troops would be "welcomed as liberators." Four times in one month he confused friend and foe in mistakenly proclaiming an alliance between Al Qaeda and Iran. On Monday and again today, McCain declared Shiite cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr the loser in last week's Basra fighting, despite the incontrovertible fact that Iraqi lawmakers traveled to Iran to seek a cease-fire between Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Maliki government.
But nowhere is McCain's confusion more on display than in his repeated (and misguided) comparisons of Iraq to South Korea and his commitment to keep American troops there for 100 years.
Here, McCain traveling down the well-trod path of President Bush. Last June, then White House press secretary Tony Snow described Bush's "over the horizon support role" for the United States in Iraq as comparable to the American presence in Japan, Germany or South Korea:
"The Korean model is one in which the United States provides a security presence, but you've had the development of a successful democracy in South Korea over a period of years, and, therefore, the United States is there as a force of stability."
The analogy, of course, is laughable. Germany and Japan unconditionally surrendered to Allied forces in World War II and were occupied by U.S. troops after those nations' total devastation. Each subsequently became allies in the Cold War, and featured a large - and perpetual - American military presence as part of strategy to contain the Soviet Union. In South Korea as well, U.S. troops provide a guarantee against the external threat posed by the North. There, American troops serve as a trip-wire intended to trigger a massive U.S. response in the face of any aggression by Pyongyang.
In none of those places is the U.S. an occupying power, propping up a government against domestic threats or trying to limit a civil war. In Iraq, the United States is part referee trying to prevent the death spiral of sectarian conflict among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds and part enabler, backing both the Shiite dominated Maliki in government in Baghdad and independent Sunni security councils opposed to it. While the fight against must Al Qaeda continue, the U.S. with its other installations around the Persian Gulf does not need permanent, forward operating bases in Iraq.
And yet John McCain mimics the Bush administration's shockingly erroneous Korea model. In June, McCain echoed the White House, proclaiming, "We have had troops in South Korea for 60 years and nobody minds." Despite claiming in November that he rejected the Korea analogy, by January 2008, McCain said "it would be fine" with him if the American forces remained in Iraq for "a hundred years:"
Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years - (cut off by McCain)
McCAIN: Make it a hundred.
Q: Is that... (cut off)
McCAIN: We've been in South Korea...we've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me.
As David Corn reported, McCain was only too happy to extend the American timeline in Iraq to "a thousand years" or "a million years." One month later, McCain nonchalantly claimed, "The U.S. could have a military presence anywhere in the world for a long period of time." Facing criticism for those comments, McCain on February 28th just dug the hole deeper:
"No American argues against our military presence in Korea or Japan or Germany or Kuwait or other places, or Turkey, because America is not receiving casualties...But the key to it is American casualties, America's most precious asset, and that is American blood."
Sadly for McCain's failed analogies, Americans support a perpetual U.S. military presence in Germany, Japan, South Korea and elsewhere because they see it as vital to American national security. With its forward presence, the United States is protecting close allies from external threats and containing common foes. In none of those places is the United States propping up a host government against wide swaths of its own people, citizens engaged in sectarian conflict against their own government and each other.
At the end of the day, John McCain's defense of his centuries-long commitment to Iraq isn't merely dishonest; it's painfully ironic. After all, in January 2003, McCain confidently predicted of the American invasion, "I think the victory will be rapid, within about three weeks."
Do you trust a man who, when he was a prisoner of war, deliberately provoked his captors? The result was that he was tortured until he broke. I don't think that McCain should be so proud and swaggering about having been tortured. I fear that he will be eager, out of bravado, as will his new running mate, to provoke other nations and involve the U.S. in expensive wars. This will bankrupt the country, just carrying on Bush's sorts of policies. These wars will cause hatred of the U.S. and will in no war ensure safety. They will make new enemies for the U.S. and sell the future of the next generation.