McCain predicts Iraq may cost him the election

He may be a 25-year veteran of Washington politics, and he may be a two-time leading GOP presidential candidate, but John McCain apparently still needs to work a bit on his “message discipline” problem.

John McCain said Monday that to win the White House he must convince a war-weary country that U.S. policy in Iraq is succeeding. If he can’t, “then I lose. I lose,” the Republican said.

He quickly backed off that remark.

“Let me not put it that stark,” the likely GOP nominee told reporters on his campaign bus. “Let me just put it this way: Americans will judge my candidacy first and foremost on how they believe I can lead the county both from our economy and for national security. Obviously, Iraq will play a role in their judgment of my ability to handle national security.”

“If I may, I’d like to retract ‘I’ll lose.’ But I don’t think there’s any doubt that how they judge Iraq will have a direct relation to their judgment of me, my support of the surge,” McCain added. “Clearly, I am tied to it to a large degree.”

Clearly, he is tied to Iraq, which is possibly why he was right the first time.

On the rhetorical point, I find it fascinating that McCain, even now, just blurts out the first thing that comes into his head. No wonder he’s gone through so many staffing changes; this is the kind of quality that drives political professionals batty. McCain has been on the campaign trail now for over a year — and that’s just this cycle — answering questions about, among other things, Iraq. But he can’t quite answer a question about what will happen if Americans reject his policy come November? As someone hoping McCain loses, it gives me hope that he has a habit of answering questions one way, and then wanting to give a different answer a few moments later.

On the substantive point, McCain’s knee-jerk response might very well have been true. He’s running on a platform that, for all intents and purposes, is “stay the course.” He doesn’t want to change the Bush-Cheney policy in Iraq at all; he believes eventually, it’ll work. He not only has no interest in withdrawing, he envisions a scenario in which U.S. troops stay in Iraq for another 100 years.

If polls have any value at all, this isn’t a position Americans are prepared to embrace. McCain isn’t necessarily perceived as a Bush cheerleader on Iraq — in the primaries, the more a Republican was skeptical of the administration’s policy, the more likely he or she was likely to support McCain — but there’s a long road between now and November, and I guarantee there won’t be any ambiguities about McCain’s position as the campaign unfolds in the coming months.

McCain acknowledged the war will be “a significant factor in how the American people judge my candidacy.”

Count on it.

The thing about age is that you’ve got so much past to answer for. At 72 McCain has been through a lot of phases, beliefs, hopefully some growth and he has acted at each era on his current mindset. There have to be more contradictions for him than, say, for Clinton at 60 and Obama at 45(est). It’s unfair (in the cosmic sense) in a way because most lives aren’t a consistent story arc. Lives aren’t as tightly messaged as campaign managers want them to be either. So I give McCain some slack on barking out the right answers on command.

  • It’s interesting to see that he thinks he can “revise and extend” his remarks with the campaign press, as he has in the past, but there seems to have been a sudden change in the press’s relationship to him. They are actually reporting what he says, not just what he wishes he said.

  • For me, the interesting angle here is that he asked the reporters if he could take back the “I lose” comment and, stunningly, they didn’t.

    The NYT story — and, more important, the quickly-disproven lies McCain trotted out in his statement the next day — may have actually convinced reporters that McCain is not the straight-talking maverick he claims to be. If so, good.

  • I personally think McCain’s chances are tied more to his prospective opponent than to Iraq. If he faces Hillary, he’s got a chance because her negatives are higher than his and they are not likely to fall. If he faces Obama, I don’t think McCain can win. He’s too old and too dour and Democratic and independent voters are too motivated to get the Republicans out of the White House.

  • ***He quickly backed off that remark.***

    Translation: “I can go from flip to flop in under ten seconds flat. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

  • The Iraq war debate is just beginning – we have not seen any primary stay vs withdraw debates – all Dems are for withdrawal, all Repubs are for staying until we “win”.

    Once the general season begins, I hope we see a substantive debate – where the eventual Dem nominee will have to convince independents WHY we need to withdraw.

  • If presidents with his stratagey were sitting in the WHouse, McCain would still be locked up in the Hanoi Hilton.

    Tastless to be sure, but true

  • “Clearly, I am tied to it to a large degree.” Like and albatross around your neck.

    Iraq has, dare I say, fallen out of fashion as the tanking economy is now the sorest point in the land. “But I don’t think there’s any doubt that how they judge Iraq will have a direct relation to their judgment of me, my support of the surge,” is a spot-on assessment. McCain owns this war as much as Bush. But as the war gets deeper into a quagmire, staying there becomes less and less palatable. We can’t “win” by Republican terms without an even more massive effort than we’ve already undertaken, and we don’t have the resources for that. McCain blew it with his Iraq strategies and it’s only a question of how many Americans will finally realize that before the general election.

  • Would it be fair to say that McCain with regards to message discipline suffers from incontinence? Sounds like a CNN poll question to me.

  • Well, all this is very interesting BUT

    was he wearing a lapel flag pin?

    because we all know that’s all that’s important.

    he he he…

  • If Republicans don’t want to be labeled bigots, it’s a little late to start worrying about it now.

    “He doesn’t want to change the Bush-Cheney policy in Iraq at all…”

    Are there any Bush-Cheney policies that McCain does want to change? If there are, I haven’t heard anything about it.

    While we are following the many misstatements and contradictions of John McCain, the underlying theme is the same. This is the question I want answered:

    “Senator McCain, what substantive differences would we see in a McCain administration as compared to the Bush administration?”

    Then the Democrats’ campaign slogan can be “Four More years?”

  • McCain should be careful what he wishes (runs) for. Iraq is one huge IED waiting to blow up: check out the article on truthdig.com about how the Bush administration has been arming and then PAYING the Shiites, the Sunni and the Kurds not to fight. That’s a two-fer for the Rethugs and the Bushies. It enables them to claim the “surge is working” when it’s actually the bribes that are working. And when the militias have enough money and arms, the lid is going to blow right off Iraq. Of course, Cheney and Rove want that to happen with a Democrat in the White House, who’s withdrawing the troops. They hope it’ll be such a bloodbath that Republicans will sweep to power in 2012 for the next hundred years. But if it’s McCain and he keeps throwing our troops into a hideous meatgrinder, the Republicans will disown him as an apostate loser who was never really one of them.

  • The scariest thing about America is how few of our 2008 citizens understand how the world works or America’s role in it. McCain is right: he’s got to articulate for a largely ignorant, foolishly naive populace just how important our footprint in the Middle East is to the world. Thanks to unions and other bad ideas, America now imports just enough of its goods that a world-wide spike in oil prices (thanks to increased chaos in the Middle East) would be felt to devastating effect in America and elsewhere. Allowing the likes of radical Islam to gradually take over the Middle East (or to hand that role to China or Russia in time) would not serve the world economy well. The United States is committed to free trade; the others mentioned are committed to gaining the economic, military and political leverage necessary to bring the United States to its knees under opportune conditions (such as its defeat in the Middle East). It’s delusional to think America will be “okay” following a premature withdrawal from Iraq. The global effects on our friends and ourselves will be progressively devastating and long lasting. Our allies will lose confidence in our ability to sustain the world’s economic (and their national) security, oil prices will soar, China and Russia will make their plays for influence in the region and the markets will go bananas (in a bad way), causing chaos and uncertainty — both antithetical to our economic, and therefore our national, security. Those who belive that anyone in this race besides McCain will serve America well in these dangerous times is positively IGNORANT of realpolitik on planet Earth.

  • The scariest thing about America is the ignorance being pushed by a few total wrong neocons that were rejected by their own party under Bush 1. McCain is runing as four more yeasr of STUPIDITY, and he’s got to figure out how to defend the most wrong headed, ass backwards policy America has ever pushed on it’s allies. Prior to this bit of foolishness – America for all intents – ran the Middle East. Now, Iran, Russia and China are muscling in. Thanks to the greed of a bunch of country hating capitalists outsourcing America’s industiral might, and ignoring our long term nees for short term profit, America is now perilously exposed to high oil prices, a lack of decent jobs, a shortage of a trained workforce and basically unable even to make those items required for our own defense. Unfortunately, we find ourselves in the position where we have to regroup and find a winning strategy for the Middle East and much of the world at the same time that we have to deal with a Federal debt DOUBLED in eight short years and a phoney Repub economy exploding in our faces. It’s delusional to think that doing the same stupid losing tactic over and over will lead to a different result in Iraq. Our allies have lost confidence in our ability to be the world leader that we were just eight short years ago. Those who believe that four more years of the exact same stupidity and fooliness are going to do anything but dig a deeper hole during these dangerous times is positively IGNORANT of realpolitik on planet Earth.

  • I just saw a great book plug by Mr. Matt Welch for his McCain: The Myth of a Maverick which includes, among many gems, this:

    And when he talked about strategy, you know, he was asked especially over and over during the period of time when the surge was less popular, let’s say, than it was today, or more controversial than it is today, you know, what happens if it fails? What’s your plan B? And he just said, “My friends, the consequences of failure are too horrible to comprehend.” He actually doesn’t elucidate any kind of strategy that’s interesting. His strategy for the last ten, twelve, fifteen years has been, we need more boots on the ground, period. During the run-up to Kosovo, which he was a huge supporter of at a time when Republicans were much less eager to be interventionist, he was—while supporting it, he was disparaging Bill Clinton by saying, “Look, if we don’t have, you know, tons of boots on the ground over there, we are going to, you know, suffer catastrophe; it’s going to be terrible.” His predictions turned out to be completely wrong on Kosovo, but that’s his prescription at all times: just more boots on the ground, you know, more sacrifice of American blood and treasure. And if you actually ask for specific details on, you know, how is this strategy going to work, how is it not going to work, he doesn’t really have anything to say. He is very fond of saying, you know, the most important thing is victory, period, which is sort of a tautology, not very sophisticated as a strategy. And yet, he is portrayed as this sort of wise eminence on all things military, when in fact all he says is use more power, period.

  • I don’t think there’s any doubt that how they judge Iraq will have a direct relation to their judgment of me, my support of the surge,” McCain added.

    Who has rinsed the soft-soap off that portion of his bubble? All of a sudden he has a clear (if only momentarily) view of the situation? A-maz-ing.

  • Glen, exactly which part of my “horse dung” is false? More specifically, why is it false? Do you care to justify your metaphor with facts? And to jhm, there are still thousands of foreign troops in Kosovo (U.S. and others) today. So why do you say that McCain was wrong about needing them there? The catastrophe McCain predicted was averted by their presence, so how is he wrong? I would say he was 100% right.

  • Glen – I just noticed your previous comment (which doesn’t answer my questions to you, but which invites further comment). You say McCain has to defend a wrong-headed policy. It’s actually a grand strategy and it’s a valid one. When the U.S. lost Iran as an ally in 1979, it seemed content for the time being to not replace that “pillar” (see Carter Doctrine). However, following 9/11, the U.S. woke up to the fact that it had to regain its lost influence in the region for a variety of reasons, economic (and therefore national) security being chief among them. Iraq was targeted as a replacement for Iran, as a U.S. ally of consequence. Obtaining such an ally is not just a favor to regional stability for its own sake; it is mainly a favor to every country that depends in part upon Middle East oil for its economy. Few of our “allies” have chosen to admit that truth, because they prefer to keep all their options open for trading with China and Russia in the future and because they want to see first who will win before commiting to the fight in any material way. We’ve pushed nothing on our allies. We did what we always do: we exhibited the necessary leadership that an anarchical world order demands from its most powerful state. Did you think Iran, China and Russia were not going to “muscle in” had we left a power vacuum in the Middle East? Such thoughts confirm the naive ignorance I wrote of earlier. It’s a policy of hope to believe that, not reality. Regarding your comment that we are suddenly now “outsourcing America’s industrial might” — Iraq didn’t contribute to that; rather the other way around. Outsourcing began when domestic unions and tax hikes drove wages and prices beyond their true market value, and forced our businesses to stay competitive by going overseas. It is precisely because we have deindustrialized ourselves that we are now so dependent on cheap foreign goods, which depend on cheap foreign oil, which depends on…you guessed it…stability in the Middle East. Iran will not provide that stability and Russia and China would only use their influence there to diminish ours. Who should be in charge in the Middle East then, in the event that the U.S. isn’t? You say, “It’s delusional to think that doing the same stupid losing tactic over and over will lead to a different result in Iraq” but this whole commentary originated with Senator McCain’s mention of his support for the war’s new tactic: the surge. You then say: “Our allies have lost confidence in our ability to be the world leader that we were just eight short years ago.” Clearly, they DO acknowledge our leadership role, because rather than fighting for their own interests in this case, they are once again confident in letting the United States take all the hits for them, while having the audacity to criticize the hand that protects the hand that feeds them from being lopped off, sharia-style. You say: “Those who believe that four more years of the exact same stupidity and foolishness are going to do anything but dig a deeper hole during these dangerous times are positively IGNORANT of realpolitik on planet Earth.” I say: And those who believe that America’s pulling out in defeat will strengthen America in the eyes of its allies or its enemies are not just ignorant, they are positively deluded. My one-woman mission is to disabuse them of that fantasy!

  • “..there are still thousands of foreign troops in Kosovo (U.S. and others) today. So why do you say that McCain was wrong about needing them there?”

    They’re there because the threat is from Serbia, not from an insurgency within its borders.

    “Iraq was targeted as a replacement for Iran, as a U.S. ally of consequence.”

    So do the Iraqi people have a say in this? What if they elect a government that gets all DeGaulle on us and rejects America’s “alliance”, then what?

    “Did you think Iran, China and Russia were not going to “muscle in” had we left a power vacuum in the Middle East?”

    And they wouldn’t run into the same problems the US has had over the past near five years? They’re probably looking at the mess there and are saying “Screw that noise”.

    “Outsourcing began when domestic unions and tax hikes drove wages and prices beyond their true market value, and forced our businesses to stay competitive by going overseas.”

    So how did the United States enjoy one of the longest periods of economic growth in its history in the two decades following WWII, When taxes and union membership were far higher than they are today?

    “Who should be in charge in the Middle East then, in the event that the U.S. isn’t?”

    I dunno, the people actually living there, maybe? Or are they incapable of running their own country and affairs?

    “And those who believe that America’s pulling out in defeat will strengthen America in the eyes of its allies or its enemies are not just ignorant, they are positively deluded.”

    So what is “victory” in Iraq? If pulling out is defeat, then what is considering not defeat?

  • I think there is no way of debating with Mary and her posts. It would take too much time to educate her about what has been going on. Conservatives tend to think along those lines. You can’t blame her.

    At least she has spelling and grammar down. Which is more than can be said about some of the right wing nut trolls. Now, if we can convince her to use a few breaks in her explanation/posts … paragraphs etc…

    It’s obvious that she’s using selective examples, by conveniently ignoring other examples that would disprove her theories. I’m certainly not going to take the time.

  • 2 Manchu — It doesn’t matter why the troops are in Kosovo. The point in dispute was whether they were necessary as McCain (correctly) believed they are.

    Yes, the people of Iraq had a say in the matter when they allowed Saddam to come into power and to draw fire upon them.

    China and Russia would not run into the same problems we do, because neither of them worries about collateral damage or rules of engagement. They are not concerned about winning “hearts and minds” as we are. Just ask the Tibetans or the Chechens.

    Regarding your question: “…how did the United States enjoy one of the longest periods of economic growth in its history in the two decades following WWII, when taxes and union membership were far higher than they are today?”
    Answer: The United States was unopposed as a capitalist world power after WWII. Without the competition from China, India, Japan and Europe that we have today, it was far easier for the U.S. to maintain an economic boom in those years. Plus, we won a war that wasn’t fought on our soil (hence no destruction of our infrastructure).

    Are you attempting humor about who should be in charge of the Middle East or are you serious that such an important region should be left to the likes of a nuclear-ambitious Iran and infighting Arabs (who happen to also hate their Israeli neighbors)? I seriously doubt you think home rule is a recipe for stability in that region. This isn’t fun and games. The stakes are exceedingly high and it’s nothing to be glib or ignorant about.

    Victory in Iraq is an Iraq that is a U.S. ally and that is capable of self-defense.

    Bruno: you are right to not “take the time” — there isn’t enough time in all of eternity for you to make sense of the liberals’ position on this topic. It makes no sense and therefore cannot be justified or explained — even by liberals themselves. They simply give up when confronted by the truth. Best wishes to you.

  • Mary, are you attempting humor about who should be in charge of the Middle East or are you serious that such an important region should be left to the likes of a nut-case whose main policy point about the Middle East is singing along a “Bomb Bomb Iran” tune? Don’t you think 30 years of unsuccesful military dabbling in the Middle East by the US is more than enough? Or do you just want McCain to nuke the place into one big McDonalds parking lot?

    Cause in that case, sure… you’re on the right side of the discussion, together with Mr. Potatohead.

  • Mary, make no mistake. “Victory in Iraq”, in the minds of those who started the war there in the first place, is permanent American military bases, strategically placed to protect the flow of the world’s second largest oil field through western oil distribution corporations. It’s been the neo-con plan since the early 90s. The idea that our military is there now fighting for “freedom” is a simple, poisonous hallucinogen that a lot of you conservatives have swallowed. The neo-con mindset feels there’s nothing wrong with our occupying another country to benefit from their riches [and keep them away from China and Russia]. It is imperialism at its worst.

    In the old days, a looming catastrophe like the ultimate shrinking of oil reserves, would have sent the American competitive market into R&D overdrive. Now, the people in power [Big Oil] simply use our military to insure that, within their lifetime, oil remains profitable for them. It doesn’t hurt that many major American corporations, who are conveniently allied with Big Oil, also profit enormously by providing infrastructure at exorbitant prices that you, Mary, pay for with your tax dollars.

    Ultimately, chaos in the Middle East is good for business. As long as it’s there, you’ll be justified in keeping our military there. And the last of the oil will flow to America. Bush and Cheney and Wolfowitz, et al. will die rich. And neither the environment nor the wrecked oil-based economy will be their problem.

  • ” It doesn’t matter why the troops are in Kosovo. The point in dispute was whether they were necessary as McCain (correctly) believed they are. ”

    Okay, right on Kosovo, wrong on Iraq. My bad.

    “Yes, the people of Iraq had a say in the matter when they allowed Saddam to come into power and to draw fire upon them.”

    How exactly did they “allow” Saddam to come to power? Was he elected? And are you saying that Iraqis cannot be trusted to make decisions concerning who governs them?

    “China and Russia would not run into the same problems we do, because neither of them worries about collateral damage or rules of engagement. They are not concerned about winning “hearts and minds” as we are. Just ask the Tibetans or the Chechens.”

    Yeah, using those tactics in Afghanistan was a smashing success for the Soviets, wasn’t it? Or for the Germans during WWII. And last I checked, the Russians are having a hell of a time suppressing the Chechens.

    I would venture that the Iraqis will violently oppose any nation that tries to impose its will on the people. Just like we Americans would.

    And nothing says “winning hearts and minds” and “avoiding collateral damge” like a 500 lb JDAM in the middle of a residential neighborhood in Mosul.

    http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/7766

    “Answer: The United States was unopposed as a capitalist world power after WWII. Without the competition from China, India, Japan and Europe that we have today, it was far easier for the U.S. to maintain an economic boom in those years. Plus, we won a war that wasn’t fought on our soil (hence no destruction of our infrastructure).”

    You left out the fact that higher wages and higher taxes meant less economic disparity, and more money was in circulation and not locked up with the top 5% of the population.

    As for unions hurting the economy, there’s this:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/06/debunking-notion-that-unions-hurt.html

    And American corporations did shift many manufacturing jobs overseas where wages (as well as health benefits, job security, and workers’ rights) are significantly less. Which means the products we hae to purchase, in my opinion, are of a quality that is substandard, to say the least.

    Not to digress, but I always wonder why the US has never tied economy with the conditions of workers overseas.
    Imagine a free trade agrrement that requires all members to have the same rights and conditions for workers.
    Wouldn’t that help level the playing fiedl, competition-wise?

    “Are you attempting humor about who should be in charge of the Middle East or are you serious that such an important region should be left to the likes of a nuclear-ambitious Iran and infighting Arabs (who happen to also hate their Israeli neighbors)? I seriously doubt you think home rule is a recipe for stability in that region. This isn’t fun and games. The stakes are exceedingly high and it’s nothing to be glib or ignorant about.”

    “White Man’s Burden”, 21st Century-style. Yes, I would consider the Cradle of Western Civilization quite capable of running their own affairs, without US meddling.

    Call me glib or ignorant, but at least I’m not spouting stereotypes and bigoted opinions of the people in the Middle East.

    “Victory in Iraq is an Iraq that is a U.S. ally and that is capable of self-defense.”

    An ally by their own decision or this administration’s decision?

  • 2 Manchu — Every people is responsible for the leaders it either actively or passively allows into rule. In Saddam’s case, the U.S. found the leader who preceded him objectionable at the time. He had to go and the U.S. supported Saddam as the lesser of two evils (at the time). Thanks to Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, we had an unfinished war with Iraq by the time 2003 rolled around, which made it the opportune place to launch the post-9/11 U.S. strategy. Iraq is “modern” (for Arabia), sufficiently secular (we thought), and well placed in the region. All these factors made it the top choice for the strategy.

    Iraqis did recently make decisions on who governs them. It was the United States and its allies that made such choices available to them for the first time in 35 years.

    You make an excellent point that the USSR’s tactics failed in Afghanistan — but it also illustrates why the U.S. prefers Iraq for this strategy. Afghanistan has geographical challenges that aren’t easily surmounted by anyone. The Germans lost in WWII because they over-extended themselves in Russia and because they were fighting on multiple fronts. As for the current Russians and their Chechen problem, they face again conditions similar to those of Afghanistan, so it’s going to be a tough slog — no question.

    As for unions, thanks for the link, but if you read the comments on that page, you will see that the author’s logic was wanting. The ironic thing not mentioned was why union participation declined from the 1970s to now. Did the author not consider that our rapid nose-dive in industry happened at that time, as the Japanese took us on in the Electronics and Automobile sectors, and as Steel manufacturing imploded? Of course union membership went down — we didn’t have any factories left! Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful comments — it’s good to debate with someone who actually has something valid to say. Take care.

  • Chrenson — you wrote: “The idea that our military is there now fighting for ‘freedom’ is a simple, poisonous hallucinogen that a lot of you conservatives have swallowed.”
    –Where did I say we were fighting for freedom? I said we are fighting for global economic security and therefore for our national security. I do think that by extension, the foregoing two reasons ultimately contribute to our freedom, which is enhanced by having many choices in the marketplace and reasonable access to those choices (unlike in the closed economies of the former USSR or the current North Korea).

    ” The neo-con mindset feels there’s nothing wrong with our occupying another country to benefit from their riches”
    –So far we’re the ones losing money over Iraq. If we wanted to plunder its oil, we would be. So how do you figure this is the case? What evidence do you have that we are robbing Iraq’s oil? That’s the kind of reckless (frankly useless) diatribe that has no place in an informed political debate. The United States doesn’t directly depend on Middle East oil. It is important to us because our trading partners in the global economy do depend on it, and we want to ensure that free trade remains free and that no one hostile to our interests holds oil country hostage. Remember when Russia turned off the gas to the Ukraine to get political leverage? Imagine al-Qaeda turning off the oil spigot to the ‘infidel’ world. That’s the issue. So now whose hand do you prefer to control the spigot? Bin Laden’s or Bush’s? Think hard now, and remember which country you enjoy the freedoms of.

    “Ultimately, chaos in the Middle East is good for business.”
    — Right — those $3.50 gallons of gas are making our economy boom right now. Everyone is cheering the higher cost of everything we import or transport. There is far more money to be made in a Middle East that’s stable and modernizing. One that is building, farming and developing industry will ultimately be a gold mine that benefits not only its own people, but also world trade. Right now the Mid-East is under-achieving its potential. With our help, it could actually leave its Dark Ages’ mentality toward government, civil rights and commerce and bloom into an oasis in the desert.

    Re: R&D: I’m all in favor, but not purchasing Middle East oil would cause that one-trick pony region (almost wholly dependent on oil right now) to implode on itself in abject misery and further chaos. And guess who would get the blame for that? All the oil-consuming nations of the world who switched to some other form of energy. We can’t win for losing, trust me.

  • “Every people is responsible for the leaders it either actively or passively allows into rule. In Saddam’s case, the U.S. found the leader who preceded him objectionable at the time. He had to go and the U.S. supported Saddam as the lesser of two evils (at the time).”

    So the US supported Saddam, but it’s the Iraqi people’s fault? Huh.

    “Iraq is “modern” (for Arabia), sufficiently secular (we thought), and well placed in the region. All these factors made it the top choice for the strategy.”

    And that strategy is, occupation?

    “Iraqis did recently make decisions on who governs them. It was the United States and its allies that made such choices available to them for the first time in 35 years. ”

    And yet they still have a large foreign presence in their country, who operate with complete impunity from the Iraq government. And would they feel that they were free to make their own decisions if those foreign forces stayed for an undetermined length of time?

    This is not to say that the US should help Iraq. We like to pride ourselves in our willingness to help those who are struggling. But we are also a nation that understands the importance of self-determination and sovereignty. A permanent presence there, for the sole purpose of making sure Iraq stays pro-American, would go against our nation’s principles, I believe.

    “You make an excellent point that the USSR’s tactics failed in Afghanistan — but it also illustrates why the U.S. prefers Iraq for this strategy. Afghanistan has geographical challenges that aren’t easily surmounted by anyone.”

    Actually, considering that Afghanistan sits right on the traditional land route between the Middle East and greater Asia, ensuring stability there would make as much sense as Iraq.
    Remember that the Persians, Alexander the Great, the Muslim Caliphate, the Mongols, the Indian Moguls, the Russians, and the British all tried to secure that region, because of its strategic importance. Helping develop an effective government there is just as important, maybe more so, than in Iraq.

    “The Germans lost in WWII because they over-extended themselves in Russia and because they were fighting on multiple fronts.”

    Well, that’s the problem America is facing with the War on Terror.

    How this administration thought it could maintain a military force at basically the same level as they were in 2001, with the same pre-9/11 commitments, then throw in there deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq, and think that it wouldn’t have a long term detrimental effect on America’s fighting men and women, is beyond me.

    The reason for union membership decline in this country is really hard to figure out. The more I read, the more I think that it was a myriad of factors. The high-profile corruption cases during the 1960s-1970s, the concentration on political involvement, the fact that Japan and Europe were implementing newer technologies in their industries that reduced costs, the cost of the Vietnam War, the oil crisis, and just about everything else that could go wrong to cause the economy to go stagnant during the 1970s.

    Then China and India basically come in and say “minimum wage and workers’ rights? what minimum wage and workers’ rights?”, and businesses were only more than happy to exploit this new labor source.

    Also, changing attitudes about union among young workers changed. Those workers were enjoying the fruits of the success that unions had in establishing good pay, good benefits, safe work conditions, and being treated as people and not asset.

    They did not have to endure the hardships their fathers and grandfathers faced to get where they were, and so they didn’t see the importance of being in a union.

    I often read “if you’re reading this in English, thank a veteran” from time to time. Well, if you’re making good money, with good hours, thank a union member.

    Personally, I don’t like to see either business or unions have more power than the other (another wonderful heritage of our country, checks and balances). But I do believe that the two can work in harmony to ensure that the business gets the best out of their workers, and the workers get treated the best by the business.

    Anyway, getting late, gotta go.

  • McCain is repeating Hillary’s mistake. He has a flip flop stand on issues (immigration to be specific). And he will suffer in the same way. Obama is very stable and consistent in his approach to all issues and that is his huge advantage. He knows what he wants and offers the solutions for the problems in realistic sober way . Even if those are sometimes not to convenient for some. The only thing I worry about in his safety. I hope he will not end up like JFK.

  • Comments are closed.