McCain is already the presumptive nominee for the Republican party. There are still 2 democrats that are fighting it out for their parties nomination. Although I support McCain, there is a possibility that one of the Democratic contendors is going to represent me as President of the United States. As an American citizen I want to consider the best candidate for the position. There are questions that he (Obama) has not answered and some that seem particularly evasive. He is a relative newcomer on the scene so of course more questions are going to be asked. I would hope that when the Republicans were going through their campaign that you were paying attention to them and asking the same questions and not just paying attention to the home team so to speak. There are plenty of questions that are going to be asked in the GE of McCain and on this site as well. The big ones have already been discussed with his 2000 run and his years of service in Congress. The more specifics will need to be addressed. We’re still just trying to find out who the hell Obama is.

“Different times and circumstances.”

That is really a hollow statement. That is always going to be true, but can we look back to different times and similar circumstances? Do you see a potential threat from the Iranians in Iraq and what the consequences would be to not just the Middle East but to the entire world if they were to disrupt the region even further? Do you think that the Iranians are pursuing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes? If Iran and Iraq were so friendly with each other, why did they fight a war between themselves? Do you think that there are any leftover animosities? Can a comparison be drawn between “the spread of communism” & the spread of radical islamic ideology? What effect would an entire Middle East based on a fundamentalist Islam be on the rest of the world? Do most Muslims want that rule of law or are they fighting it as well? What solution do you offer to prevent an even further escalation in the region in this different time with different circumstances or do you think that there is no threat?

He seemed to see the threats back then. He supported Somoza against the Sandanistas (there’s that liberation theology again). In hindsight, does he wish he did more to fight against turning over the Panama Canal? He was aware of the vacuum that would be created in Afghanistan. Who were the strongest opponents in Congress opposed to supporting Afghanistan after the Russians were kicked out and why?

I guess my questions to him right now would be: What do you think of the Democratic party now? Who are you voting for and why?

So I’m simply doing my best to be a counter-weight here in providing some unasked questions for McCain.

I voted for Richards.

Later addition: “It’s clear that America’s forward positioning of troops in Europe and Asia have been remarkably effective deterrents.”

…: Different times and circumstances.

“I cannot imagine any serious individual who does not understand this.”

Perhaps you’re hampered by Kant’s conception of imagination?

When you ask:

“Additionally, he has argued that after the war is over, he’s would be willing to leave U.S. troops in a stable military and political Iraq for generations– their (vaguely articulated) mission would be to deter “external aggression”; perhaps the same way American troops are in South Korea to prevent North Korea from getting any ideas.

However, does that make sense?”

I answer YES!

It’s clear that America’s forward positioning of troops in Europe and Asia have been remarkably effective deterrents.

I cannot imagine any serious individual who does not understand this.

Again, who did you vote for? Hillary or Obama?

McCain has stated that he is willing to leave troops in Iraq for up to a century after the war ends. “Why not”, he asks?

But, as I stated above, just how long would he be willing to keep our troops in Iraq during the war, during hostilities?

Perhaps we can extrapolate from this question some interesting nuggets by applying a little logic, then see where that might lead us on his willingness to endure a whole hyperbolic century long Iraq troop presence.

First, if McCain doesn’t envision a 100-year American front-line combat presence in Iraq, how long is he willing to keep U.S. forces in Iraq outside of that role? So far, all he’s said is that should we withdraw, it would only be under the conclusion that the Iraq mission is unachievable, or it’s achieved success, which he defines as the establishment of “a peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic state.” —which realistically could take 20-50 years. Why hasn’t McCain given us how long he thinks our non-combat troop presence may be?

Second, McCain has stated that Iraqi units will eventually assume the majority of the combat responsibility; prompting the question, what would then become the mission(s) for our troops he wants to maintain in Iraq?

In all likely hood he would probably argue their mission would be to deter “external aggression”; perhaps the same way American troops are in South Korea to prevent North Korea from getting any ideas.

However, does that make sense?

If the “external aggression” is Iran, it appears the only group that sees it that way is Sadr, certainly not the majority of Iraqis. While the U.S. and South Korea agreed that North Korea posed a threat, as well as Germany and Japan and America reaching a similar agreement about ‘external aggression’ of the USSR, this isn’t the case with Iraq regarding Iran as an aggressor. As a matter of fact they are historical and spiritual brothers and presently appear to be engaging as contemporary partners even moderating a recent “cease-fire” and yesterday Iran entertained an Iraqi delegation (with Hakimian ties) to discuss ” evidence” that Iran was “smuggling” weapons into Iraq. (We can be sure they discussed the matter with great gravity over their 2nd bottle of the grape.)

So if it’s not Iran, is AQ the threat?

McCain does seem to enjoy using their name a lot.

Yet they actually amount to no more that 3-6% (probably a lot less after the Sunni’s divorce and attack on AQ) of the Iraqi combatants. Certainly small enough for Iraqi’s to handle, as they have already done so to some degree. Not to forget if we were not there, they wouldn’t be either. It’s generally stated the weapon of choice for AQ is suicide bombers. But it is difficult to understand why a US troop presence would be able to impact suicide bombers.

Finally a third question is who is the aggressor McCain is looking at, who are the external aggressors that necessitate his willful generational US troop presence, and, of course, how long and how many would be necessary for this (unspecified) mission?

So, what are we left with? Not much.

I can’t find a coherent Iraq policy from McCain. There simply are too many unanswered questions and mystifications in his language. Much of McCain’s thoughts sound similarly like Bush’s empty optimisms. McCains’ hopeful the Iraqis will reconcile, hopeful they will become stable, hopeful they pardon our mistakes, and hopeful they won’t mind if we stay a few generations.

It’s perhaps these unbuttressed wishments that may explain his unsupported speculation regarding his willingness for a generational US presence in Iraq.

Obama has been asking more and more of these kinds of questions about McCain’s foreign policy. Perhaps in the next few months he’ll be able to ask McCain more directly.

I will leave the debate between you and Mike.

I would ask though, If we pull out of Iraq, are we going to pull our troops from Kuwait as well? Another interesting question to ask the Democratic candidates would be, Are you willing to pull troops from South Korea? Their government
should be able to stand on their own now. I’d love to hear that answer. Japan?

My personal opinion is that this is really something for the military leaders and soldiers to decide on, not the likes of Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink and any other nut group. We need to support their decision in every way we can. Just today the dems what to tie time tables and domestic spending to the war funding bill. That’s just wrong. We can argue amongst ourselves after they get home.

We have several military people and others here that can give us much better insight than those of us that haven’t served.

Let me ask another question. In the last 5 years we have lost over 4,000 of our soldiers in Iraq. Do you know how many American citizens are killed every year in this country by illegal invaders?

Mike: “I’ve gone head to head with McCain, IN PERSON.”

Didn’t happen to have any head to heads with Charlie Wilson did you?

I gave McCain the benefit of the doubt; I wondered how long he’d be willing to have troops stay if the given circumstances were persistently hostile to our troops.

We all know he can’t give a clear answer to that; it’s obvious. He’d probably say he’d be hopeful that all would go well …yadda yadda yadda, then he’d bring them home in some responsible fashion as events dictate. But here’s what’s not so obvious: the weightful burden of 100 years in ANY contextual interpretation. The election’s half a year off and the public has lost patience with the war, Iraq persists in killing our troops and billions of dollars goes there with newsstory after newsstory of fraud, corruption, theft and questionable progress on a multitude of levels.

Therefore, even accepting his S. Korea, Germany analogy, does the public have the stomach for 50 or 100 more years, even in peaceful circumstances?

Additionally, does the public really believe there can even be “peace circumstances” in a time-period of 3 years, 5 years, or 10 years coming, given we are seen as occupiers by 80% of the Iraqi public (according to polls)?

The answer is ‘no’– Enough of a ‘no’ to lose an election.

Hence, the ‘100 years’ remark looks terrible in ANY context: ‘63% of the public believe the war is not worth fighting for’ and 70% don’t like the economy. Both groups now see them related: we’re losing billions on a war we could use here; they see that given the violence, corruption and questionable progress, we’re losing money and crippling lives wastefully as well. Therefore, given the amount of time –a hyperbolic 100 years– McCain still wants to invest in Iraq, in ANY given context– peaceful or not –it grates with clear public majorities like an arthritic joint, it’s ill wedded to an irrationality that that doesn’t fit rational circumstances.

McCain’s error was he favors hyperbole over clarity; he didn’t foresee the economy, nor Sadr’s resistance, clearly enough before he made the fateful remarks. Now no matter how they are interpreted he can’t shed them.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WHnVZpA69j0

“We can look it up on YouTube” Yes We Can!

Ahh, CHANGE

I’ve gone head to head with McCain, IN PERSON. Have you done the same with Obama?