Sen. John McCain is Insane

ok back from watching the debate.

I think maintaining a strategic presence in Iraq ithe right thing to do for a few reasons. I'm not talking about current troop levels, or even anything near that. I'm talking about several military bases like the ones we already have around the world. And thier existance would be predicated upon it being part of a security agreement with the Iraqi government.

A presence in the Middle East is vital, and if we can help stabalize Iraq, it would be the best place to have it. Kuwait is too small a space to really be able to support us and the Saudis are, at best, unreliable, and at worst, more often than not actually supporting our enemies. Geographically, Iraq is central. It would help us to ensure continued Iraqi sovreignty against political incursions from Syria, Iran, and Turkey.

I'm not talking about fortifying every outpost, I'm talking about fortifying the one that is most effecient, using bases that are already well established.

unless your contention is that the United States has absolutely no interest in the Middle East and no cause for concern in the reigon, I don't see what argument there is against maintaining several bases in Iraq with the cooperation of the Iraqi government.

Both the Democratic candidates tonight basically said that that would be the desired endstate: a drastic troop reduction, leaving "enough troops to protect the embassy and American interests in the reigon"

I will say that my view of foreign policy, particularly military policy is influenced by the fact that I am both an International Relations/Poli Sci major, a sergeant in the Marine Corps, and a vet of the Iraqi conflict. So my perspective on what a realistic and effective foreign policy is, is going to be coming from that end of things.

I can see that you "want" to retain a US presence, but I am unprepared to support your assertions based upon what you put forward as justification.

Collectively, between Israel, Iran, and the Saudis, you probably cover the region's geopolitical character and proclivity. There are camps who argue that none of these political practices are "correct," but what they really mean to say is that none of them entirely represents the best interest of the US, to which I reply - so what, who cares?

As for Iraq sovereignty, the irony of your position is nearly painful. We prostituted that sovereignty when we invaded the country, and now you expect me to accept that we are there to protect that which we previously violated. I call bullshit! Equally important, historical precedence prevails for what the Middle East has been, what it might become, and how that will transpire. What you propose is simply a desire to impose US doctrine on a part of the world that at its core has no interest.

And those other US interests - what are they?
-the oil for our economy and the profits of ChevronmobileBPExxon?
-the Vatican City sized US embassy under construction
-so we can keep an eye on the Center for the Proliferation of Dirty Nuclear Material?

Edited to add:
Foreign policy and military policy are not the same thing and in fact, should never be used in the same sentence.

are you saying that the Middle East has no interest in what the US does or vice versa? neither argument is in the least bit tenable.
Iran, Isreal, and Saudi Arabia cover what exactly? Of those three, the only one with a halfway reliable relationship to the US is Isreal, and they still do pretty much what they want when they want to. Iran does just about everything it can to destabalize the reigon, particularly in Iraq, and the Saudi princes welcome us when it's convienent and bankroll terrorist activities when they think noone is looking. "so what,who cares?" is hardly a policy position.

my concern for Iraqi sovreignty wasn't meant as an attack on your delicate constitution. I apologise. call bullshit all you want. in doing so you ignore....just about all of modern human history. wars do take place. and they do end. The Iraqi nation that we leave will, one would hope, be very different in political structure and process, than the one that we invaded.

imposing US doctrine on a place and maintaining a strategic presence there are not one in the same, but I certainly see how you could find them related.

and yes, our economy does rely heavily on oil...that's a given. And I'd love to see the profits of oil companies taxed more heavily. I don't know if it's particularly relevant in the case of those companies. I'll have to look at figures of how much oil we are currently importing from Iraq through those corporations...or any corporations.
But we also have the issue of reigonal security and stability to worry about.
that vatican sized embassy is the political policy arm, which I would think would be far preferable to maintaining relations based on military policy. and yes, it still has to be guarded.


the assertion that military and foreign policy are completely unrelated is ignorant and a poor attempt at wit.

what exactly is it you think should be done, or what endstate would you prefer to see? or do you just not care either way? Iraqi civil war and an ensuing reigonal conflict would certainly be worse for them than it would be for us, but that doesn't mean it's no cause for concern on our end.

If for no other reason as to bring their culture out of the dark ages.

Really? from all the purple fingers we saw a couple of years ago, I dare say there are a lot of Iraqi's that are damned glad that we are there, also.

Wow, nice stereotype. Really shows that closed-minded self-righteousness that totally disregards the idea that other cultures have any validity. Bravo.

lol...when.... they would have to start with the basic sophistication to start using toilet paper or bidets first (and THAT would require indoor plumbing). Even Iran has to keep buying more military goods from the Russians because the Iranians dont maintain things very well. 5 years after the Ayatollah Khomeni took over, most of their f-14's were grounded for lousy maintenance procedures.

Not "OTHER", just "THIS ONE" among several. Their accomplishments amongst mankind have been zero. Zilch.
example from someone who is there and a part of it

It would be easier to give their culture respect if it had any respect for our culture, or European culture, or even Asian culture. But the "culture" of an international coalition of fanatics gathering in Iraq is simply a convenient place to put them out of our misery before they try to bring their misery to us and our children.

This reminds me of when he was campaigning last year for his Presidential Nod for the Republicans, he did that whole "Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran."

(Think Barbara Ann song from the '60s)

I remember hearing the "Bomb Iran" song. As long as you maintained your sense of humor, it IS funny. But it isnt very funny to a Muslim (if they'll blow up a mosque to start a religious war, imagine what they would do to someone who went in and threw some rocks).

Let's review what you said, what you appear to misunderstand, and more importantly, what's wrong with your conclusions.

Nope, what I clearly said was, there is no benefit to weaving US nationalistic ideals into the Middle Eeast, especially under the assertion that US nationalism, our form of democracy, and our culture are better for the region, when the real motives are simply to gain access to natural materials while simultaneously using Iraq as the launching pad for further propagation of US nationalism throughout a region that rejects many of those principles on the foundation of their spiritual and cultural beliefs.

This is where you reveal both your wrong-headed conviction and your agenda.

I didn't even hint that those three countries represent US idealism; quite the opposite. What I said was, if you combine the cultures and behaviors of Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia you come up with an amalgamation of what the Middle East is in terms of beliefs, ideals, and policy.

No, they are not like the US, in fact, they may not mesh naturally with US beliefs, ideals, or policy at all. What you seem to propose is that we assimilate these people into our beliefs, ideals, and policies, or that they exist for the purpose of supporting our ideals. I will assume that you believe that doing so is in our best interest, but you may be naïve enough to believe that our idealism is better than theirs is.

It might be in our best interest, but by itself that is not justification for your position - is it? Is that the way you behave personally?

Maybe it will be better, maybe it won't. Right now, what you have is thousands of deaths, billions of dollars of destruction, and trillions of dollars of US debt heaped on the shoulders of your children. Staking our claim to land for the purpose of managing strategic strike positions will do nothing to repair the devastation we wreaked on Iraq, it's people, it's infrastructure, and your children. Do you think about that in staking out your moral posture? Is this some new-found level of tough love?

It wasn't my delicate constitution that got trampled ramrod, it was your country's delicate constitution and the importance of being a nation of law that was trounced. If you want to understand foreign policy and the impetus for what is supposed to be this country's guiding principles - you should begin by reading that constitution, understanding the rule of law, and beginning to appreciate the value of doing so in the face of violating that law. Doing so should be required reading for anyone studying political science.

Imposing US doctrine on a nation of peoples and maintaining a strategic presence there are not one in the same, but I certainly see how you could find them related.

Your argument is losing steam as the foundation erodes. There will never, ever, ever, ever, ever be a state of security and stability. Not in your home; not in your job; not in your education; not in your visit to these boards; and certainly not in the broader world - including the Middle East. You cannot rely on US led military intervention to bring about security and stability - as good as they are, as good as you are, it ain't gonna happen jack! it's the wrong model. As you said earlier, wars have been waged, and wars have ended - but you failed to accept that in most situations the batting average wouldn't clear the minors scouting camps. Very few wars end with the defeated being better off than before.

And just to be clear...nary a war has been begun where the invading army didn't think everyone would be better off once the other army was conquered.

This is priceless. The responsibility of the US military is to protect its citizens. But fundamentally, foreign policy is about the pursuit of a nation's objectives or goals and the efforts they undertake in the pursuit of those objectives. Insufficient space exists to debate the idealism of isolationism or internationalism. However, extreme idealism around US leadership in world affairs and the desire that comes with it to forge some kind of hegemonic world leadership is dangerous. The US effort in Iraq is the extreme example of US hegemony where we have demonstrated a desire to act as some agent of international reform through interventionism. Moreover, the US military was used to affect that interventionism - and that was wrong.

To my way of thinking, the age of putting power (military might) ahead of principle is past it's prime. Military might must be maintained to defend us against other powers that want it exert their influence over our nation and to project power abroad only when we must do so to protect our interests. In effect, military policy should serve to protect our foreign policy and they should not otherwise be entwined. I don't think that is the same model you propose.

Now go back and read my paragraph in this section starting with "Nope, what I clearly said was..." and you can see how the logic hangs together.

I never use Arabic numerals, myself. Or algebra, for that matter.

Maybe the dumbest statement he has ever made on these boards. It shows how little he knows of world history.

We owe so much to Mesopotamia, it's unbelievable.

Thank you, I was about to bring this to 'his' attention but couldn't think of a "nice" way of doing so ooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh geeeeeeeeeeeeeeez

Dude, that was Totally MY line.

heh, waterboarding boy is funny. If he wants to change up his logo, he could use :"if theyre yellow, let them mellow, if theyre brown, flush them down"

pretty classy, huh?

I am not going to accept cultural relativisim as a viable argument. Certainly not as an argument to negate that the US should pursue its interests in the reigon. And you seem to be extrapolating keeping several bases in Iraq, a total of what...maybe 8 to 10 thousand troops, into something far beyond that. Has our presence in Germany or Korea significantly altered the cultures of the host countries beyond what popular culture itself has accomplished?
As far as using it as a "launching pad", what entire reigons of the world are we now excluded from, given your propensity for disengagement and isolationism? Obviously we would prefer to work with other democracies, hopefully with full sufferage, and wouldn't condone a recreation of a theological or military dictatorship. But I support both Democratic candidates that if the governing body of Iraq told us to pack up and leave, then we would have to do just that.

yeah, we disagree. I get it.

ah. got it. I just didn't quite get what you were trying to convey there. I was taking it as meaning that you thought I was saying something else. anyway...

actually no. I get that they are NOT the United States and that they are going to have their own interests and ideals and policies. The point is that doesn't mean they exist in one bubble and we exist in another and that we just wave to each other across the distance. It makes good sense to engage in dialogue to promote our interests and make known our concerns in that reigon. you might want to tone down some of your assumptions here. you seem to be aiming your arguments way past me and at some imagined...shall we say..bogeyman? This kind of discussion with other countries is where the whole diplomacy thing comes in (and that remind me...I think you were equating diplomacy earlier as foreign policy while I was taking it to mean the broader overview of FORIEGN policy, ie the political dealings with foreign powers et al and that's where some of our misunderstanding lay)

do I model my own behavior on that of a nation state? uh...nooooo. Do I exepct a nation state to operate under the same presumptions as a single individual being? again, no.

I don't have kids and don't plan to have any, but I see what you are saying. (still kinda dramatic with the whole "your children's children's children"
and again, I support a withdrawl of American forces down to a presence that is a fraction of the current deployment, freeing up most of that money you are talking about. Actually, I'd love to see a redeployment of troops stationed in anachronistic bases in Europe to bases in Iraq. well, depending on how relations with Russia improve or not. and actually you'd probably be surprised what the presence of a few bases can do for local economy and infrastructure. also, since you are throwing morality into the issue, that's something that I hold as important but secondary. mainly because morality is relative and you can't do anything with it alone. if you honestly think that it would be "immoral" to negotiate a security arrangement with Iraq to keep bases in their country with their consent....well you're crackers.

so abandoning any pretext at a concern that Iraq itself becomes a nation of law is the way to proceed, then? and lecturing me on the impetus of foreign policy isn't going to get you anywhere. I've spent more than a fair amount of time on the theoretical and the absolute far end of the practical end of how foriegn policy is worked. If you think sitting in a room and quoting the constitution at anyone is going to make a meaningful difference on foreign policy...I wish you well with your life of frustration on that score. .

well that takes relativism to a whole new level. so let's give up then? screw it. Security is elusive and illusory. let's go live in caves. and again you seem to be taking several bases, about the same as our presence in Germany or Okinawa into something wholly different. very few wars end with the defeated in a better position, agreed. It's how we manage the peace, realisticaly and properly, that brings the needed improvements about.

the purpose of the military is something beyond protecting its citizens, though that is its primary concern. the military goes where it is directed, in the country, by civillian, politicl leadership. Hence, my inclusion of it into foreign policy, but I already addressed what I thought was our differences on diplomacy v. foreign policy definitions. plus, I just don't agree with hardcore isolationism.


but yeah...we disagree.

Pot, kettles.