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 long as Americans …
Q: [tries to say something]
McCAIN: As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.
but when mocked for this statement, mccain changed his mind:
ROSE: Do you think that this — Korea, South Korea is an analogy of where Iraq might be, not in terms of their economic success but in terms of an American presence over the next, say, 20, 25 years, that we will have a significant amount of troops there?
MCCAIN: I don’t think so.
ROSE: Even if there are no casualties?
MCCAIN: No. But I can see an American presence for a while. But eventually I think because of the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects of it that America eventually withdraws.
but the flip flopping doesn’t end there.
now, mccain has reverted back to his original 100 years in iraq position, and even wishes for us staying there for a thousand, million years:
The point is it’s American casualties. We’ve go to get American’s off the frontlines, have the Iraqis as part of the strategy, take over more and more of the responsibilities, and then I don’t think Americans are concerned if we’re there for one hundred years or a thousand years or ten thousand years.
mccain’s statement reveals a dangerous, chimeric naivety prevalent among america’s right today. it’s the kind of naivety that got us in this mess, and it’s the kind of naivety that’s keeping us there.
see why he’s wrong after the jump.
the war against iraq cannot be compared to WWII or the korean war.
those wars were defined by america’s fight against aggressive powers. japan and germany had attacked their neighbors, and the condition for peace was occupation and regime change. korea had been invaded by the north, and america had a clearly defined goal to defend the southern government. our continued presence there has deterred an attack from an easily recognizable enemy power.
the current iraq war was a preemptive war which was initially defined as getting rid of hussein’s WMDs (not to create a democracy as revisionist neocons would like us to believe). outside of our shared loathing of hussein, the iraqi people’s interests and our interests were never the same. unlike s. korea, germany, and japan, iraq is an ethnically fractured nation engaged in a widespread insurgency and civil war. furthermore, iraqis were opposed to a long-term US occupation from the very beginning, and 73% of iraqis continue to oppose permanent occupation.
what do you call it when the majority of the people oppose your plans but you still go ahead anyways?
certainly not promoting democracy.