Iraq asks US to leave - Page 2

But the mission is to get our troops out. Or at least it should be, right? Otherwise its an occupation. "Conditions on the ground" is another fake pass because neither Bush or McCain can define "conditions" but their other rhetoric (until recently) had to do with maintaining a large troop presence for over decades.

So now they're trying to diminish all their talk about staying in Iraq for 50 years, but at the same time, they can't even define the "victory" or "conditions on the ground" that would lead to major troop withdrawals. All of this leads me to genuinely wonder wtf is going on with the Republican party. Also, keep in mind that McCain has surrounded himself with Neo-cons, and they're stubbornly holding onto some illusion to remake the Mideast in spite of all their strategic failures. So his loss on the Iraq issue is probably rooted in their close company together.

Uh yeah, because they've been purposefully vague about the intent to stay. Now I know trying to discern intent is a touchy subject because ultimately who can do such a thing without reading people's minds. But if they're consistently vague or obtuse about specifics especially when it comes to something as central as what victory is or what the long term goals are, then one has to wonder why that is the case.

No, but then again, those countries wanted or needed us to stay. The nature of the conflict allowed the political resolution to include a troop presence. I'm hearing no such thing from the Iraqis. And if the past can be used as an example, its that Arabs do not take kindly to this type of a troop presence in their countries. I know I'm generalizing here, but in the case of Iraq, the people have been consistently opposed to long term US occupation, so calling it as such seems appropriate. The term might not be as apropos in the case of the countries you mention.

Also, I'm no expert on foreign affairs (duh) but I can't imagine that all of these "occupations" you mention were strategically necessary. I say that without any specific knowledge, just based on the fact that personally, I have thought of American foreign policy as a mixed bag, based too often on domestic politics and not what was best for the country long term.

I don't think we're saying anything that different from each other FC, but we are not in synch in our respective interpretations of what's going on in Iraq. I think that the Iraqis have been consistently opposed to a large long-term troop presence in Iraq, and would not welcome their presence in the face of stability or any other positive circumstances. Even when Maliki was advocating against a precipitous withdrawal, the people disagreed with him.

Whereas most (myself included) would not characterize our bases in post-war Germany and Japan as tantamount to an occupation, it shows a great lack of understanding of the Iraqi people to assume that they would welcome Bush's plans for 14 some-odd military bases in Iraq. It strikes me as a"square peg for a round hole" kind of a solution. Not to even speak to how these bases would play into the hands of anti-US sentiment in neighboring countries. This is ultimately why I view McCain's Iraq policy as so deeply flawed. Setting up a large-scale troop presence in a country that both the government and people are hostile to? I can't see that as anything but an occupation.

Also, many of the previously stated objectives from the Bush Admin (and by extenstion the Neo-cons) have been to not leave until some fairly unrealistic objectives have been met. This is exemplified by the stalemate in negotiations going on between Bush and al-Maliki. I also think that's why the Iraqis are so opposed to the permanent bases-- because they are there to ensure or leverage the US' business and oil interests and not necessarily for the benefit for Iraqis.

In a sense I am conflating the two because up until recently, both Bush and McCain were being very similarly vague in their rhetoric. And the details that were out there were in the vein of Neo-Con ideology. Also, McCain's been one of the biggest supporters in the mission in Iraq. This is important because it goes directly to how McCain views military power and it's role in foreign affairs. Now people say McCain isn't a Neo-Con, but his current political advisors have those associations, and he was endorsed by PNAC in 2000 primary, so I can't help but be very disturbed by the prospect of a President McCain. "Conditions of the ground" sounds like a giant loophole that could fit a brigade or 20.

I suppose you could be correct in thinking that Bush Admin has abandoned many of their more utopian objectives wrt Iraq, but I don't think they've earned the benefit of the doubt. Call it mistrust in my government. (How conservative of me!)

I mean, are you sure, Frank? ARE YOU?

Ironic outbursts aside, its just frustrating when you see the press giving McCain a free pass on some of this stuff. Either his gaffes or his flip-flops, the media that he likes to say is in the tank for Obama, has let him get away with any number of campaign-killing mistakes.

Btw, I agree with the 1st paragraph in your post I didn't quote.

Right, but Obama's emphasizing the goal of withdrawal and McCain's hanging everything on these conditions. This may purely be a rhetorical exercise played out between the two candidates in order to draw sharper contrast where there is little, and McCain might actually do the right thing. But nothing so far in recent history has given me reason to believe that. In fact, there is enough to make me think McCain has sold out most of his principles for the nomination. (Here's where we get into a broader discussion about a wider range of issues, but I'll refrain except to say that short of a few minor issues, McCain is very much running like a doctrinaire Republican.) Admittedly, I am biased but even still, I don't see much of the straight talker that got McCain where he is. Also, that temper!