home

McCain And Iraq Defense Minister: US Troops Will Never Leave

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:59:07 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
While John McCain happily imagines US troops in Iraq through the next century, the Iraq Defense Minister is more optimistic, we'll be there through 2018:
The Iraqi defense minister said Monday that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012, nor be able on its own to defend Iraq’s borders from external threat until at least 2018.
I think this might be an issue in the coming election.

< The Candidates Truce; The Media Continues The Conflict | Congressional Steroids Hearings And Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    McCain And Iraq Defense Minister: US Troops Will Never Leave | 18 comments (18 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I recently saw a graph. . . (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:05:31 AM EST
    showing public concern about the war and the economy.  It was the closest thing I've seen in public opinion polling to a vertical line -- with concern about the war falling dramatically and concern about the the economy increasing.

    Barring a sudden change in the conditions in Iraq, I think the war will be a much smaller issue in the election than most people -- especially anti-war people -- envisage.

    Well (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:08:26 AM EST
    Tell foks we will be spending a 150 billion a year in Iraq and losing close to a thousand lives a year there until 2018 and perhaps that will change.

    In fact, I am positive it will.

    Parent

    I think it will be a minor. . . (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:31:24 AM EST
    issue -- at least, not the major issue you think it will be.  The public is losing interest in favor of the economy.  As you say, the Dems can try to make it an issue.  

    But why?  The war issue is divisive both between Dems and Independents and also within Democratic circles.  No Dem running has a great record on it.  But the economy is a great issue for the Democrats and the worse it gets the better things look for the Dems.  The Republicans simply have no good story to tell about the economy.

    So if the Democrats get to choose the issues, I wager they'll choose the economy and not the war.  Only if there are significant changes in the situation in Iraq will the war issue become the major issue in the 2008 election.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:35:15 AM EST
    It's the economy stupid always seems right.

    Especially when we are headed for recession.

    But I think that actually will heighten the focus on Iraq because of the billions being wasted.

    Parent

    Then they will make the same mistake (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:36:02 AM EST
    they've made every time they've lost an election in the 2000s.

    Parent
    Then there's an opening (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:08:34 AM EST
    for John McCain.

    I think you're wrong, and that like Bernie, Iraq will keep coming back.

    Parent

    Indeed. . . (none / 0) (#6)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:15:53 AM EST
    in New Hampshire the exit polls apparently showed that McCain captured the largest share of voters who were concerned about the war.

    The fact that people may be losing interest doesn't mean they want the war to go on or that it won't be an issue -- I simply think it's going to be swamped in importance by the economy.

    Parent

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:18:26 AM EST
    There are Republican voters who want us there forever.

    I do no think anyone is denying that.

    Parent

    Iraq could be as secure.... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:13:58 AM EST
    as a Brinks truck and we still wouldn't leave.  

    It's a military hub in the empire now, and will be for the rest of our lives, maybe our children's lives.

    heh, understatement. (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:01:18 AM EST


    A candidate (none / 0) (#7)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:17:31 AM EST
    maybe Edwards or Kucinich, will have to point out what we could have gotten with the money spent on the war. And some media outlet will have to listen.

    And someone will have to point out that the war was a lie, done for the benefit of oil companies so that they could control the oil in the ground in Iraq.

    Name the (none / 0) (#19)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:32:35 PM EST
    companies, please.

    Parent
    This Is Why (none / 0) (#12)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:34:22 AM EST
    I don't worry that much about John McCain as a candidate.  He keeps saying things like this, bless his warmongering little heart.

    I was telling a friend the other day that George Bush and his cronies have so screwed up this country, we're probably going to end up with either a woman or an African American man as president.  Seriously, I can see folks who normally would never vote for either going into a booth and thinking, "well, might as well give a [woman/african american] a shot, he/she couldn't do any worse."  Heh.

    Wish I Were Confident That You Were Right (none / 0) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 12:48:16 PM EST
    McCain has been the most vocal on staying in Iraq forever and he still leads nationally and is still getting independent support at the polls.

    People who say they want to get out of Iraq often don't vote for the candidate that would best accomplish that task. Lieberman would be a prime example. Also, IMO Clinton has been the most hawkish on foreign policy and she is currently leading in the polls. A disclaimer on my Clinton statement: I currently have little faith that any of our candidates will actually end the occupation of Iraq.

    Parent

    From propping up Saddam Hussein... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:53:16 AM EST
    ...to propping us this dysfunctional, ethnically cleansed mess.  If interest and concern about the war is falling, the American people will get what they deserve -- worse.  Fools.  Like BTD said, you cannot uncouple the economy from the biggest money siphon in it.  Unless, like these pols seem to be, you are dumb as a brick and cowardly as well.  We'll get what we deserve, and if the American people decide to stick their heads in the sand again about Iraq, to repeat, we will get what we deserve.  We have already enabled genocide there, we have already armed all sides in the conflict.  We are a delusional giant with feet of clay.

    Maybe We Are Employing The Wrong Tactics (none / 0) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 12:40:32 PM EST
    I want the occupation in Iraq to end. All indications are that we will stay with or without a Democratic president. Maybe activists need to start focusing more on the cost, Since a time line of 10 years or more has been established, we should flood our Congresscritter's offices with demands that the cost of the occupation be put into the budget on a pay as you go basis and they inform the public exactly how they plan to pay for this for the next ten years. Are they going to raise taxes? If so, how much? Are they going to reduce services? If so, where and by how much? The beauty of this is that the message would be the same regardless if they are Democrats or Republicans. Sort of a bipartisanship effort of our own. Even a few Republican voters are concerned about the costs.

    LTEs on this subject should be sent out on a regular basis.

    "Never leave" (none / 0) (#17)
    by diogenes on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 03:39:22 PM EST
    US troops haven't left Korea either.  Does anyone here think that they should?  At least McCain is honest.  When exactly will Hillary withdraw ALL the troops, as opposed to starting a study about withdrawing some of them at a certain time in the hypothetical future.

    I think our troops should be out of Korea.... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 03:44:10 PM EST
    and so does Ron Paul.

    You're right about Hillary though, she wants troops in Iraq and Korea and Japan and Germany and Columbia forever.  

    Apologies to the 90 or so other countries with US troops on the ground I did not mention.

    Parent

    McCain And Iraq Defense Minister: US Troops Will Never Leave | 18 comments (18 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment