The New McCain Iraq Position?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:10:29 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In the midst of Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki's statements in support of withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and McCain's response that he knows best for Iraq, I wonder if John Derbyshire is giving the best explanation of the new McCain position on Iraq:

Now that our American blood and money has seen off most of the enemies of Maliki and his Iranian pals, it is perfectly natural for them to believe they can finish the job themselves, without further assistance from us. . . We should tell Maliki, loudly and in public, that he owes his job to us, and that further prosecution of our military operations in his country will be conducted with regard only to U.S. interests, as determined in consensus by our established domestic political processes. And if he doesn't like that, he can go to hell.

Now here is the question - why is it in U.S. interests to continue to protect the Maliki government with the presence of 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq?

Speaking for me only

< VF Parodies New Yorker Cartoon | McCain on Obama as Media Darling >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The New McCain Iraq Position? | 36 comments (36 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The answer is: oil (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Prabhata on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:18:36 PM EST

It's a no brainer. Why did the Marines go to Nicaragua in the 30s? Believe it or not, for the bananas. The US military has always protected "economic interests". I know it doesn't make sense.

The sugar crop must have played a role too (none / 0) (#23)
by Salo on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:58:02 PM EST

United Fruit Co. (none / 0) (#29)
by RalphB on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:31:26 PM EST

was the major mover at the time. For fun, see Carl Lindner, who was the Chiquita Banana guy.

Lindner


: And Guatamala (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by jondee on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:53:30 PM EST

in the fifties..
Then, of course, the legend was "to combat communist influence"; today it's to combat the spread of Islamo-fascism.

Arrogance (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by mmc9431 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:24:47 PM EST

No wonder so many people around the world regard us as arrogant. Iraq is a sovereign nation. We invaded them. And yet now we talk about protecting our interests. Whatever interests we have there are at the Iraqi peoples discretion.

: Derbyshire is British. (none / 0) (#20)
by Salo on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:53:38 PM EST

lol.

To me, (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Makarov on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:25:38 PM EST

it's all hyperbole. I've fully expected that the current administration would announce (not necessarily begin) troop reductions from Iraq before October. I think they've planned to do so for years.

The aim is quite simple - make the Republican and Democratic nominees seem as similar in policy objectives as possible.

Great idea, John Derbyshire! (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:33:10 PM EST

We should tell Maliki, loudly and in public, that he owes his job to us, and that further prosecution of our military operations in his country will be conducted with regard only to U.S. interests,

I suggest we send you to do so immediately!

: heh (none / 0) (#7)
by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:34:11 PM EST

: That's been my position for a while (none / 0) (#21)
by Salo on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:55:42 PM EST

I guess i redefined the center.

You know what someone needs to ask? (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by madamab on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:37:18 PM EST

Why can't we have a real reconstruction plan for Iraq? Why are we so focused on military solutions alone? Why can't we kick Blackwater and Halliburton to the curb and let Iraqis rebuild their own country - with our money? Lord knows it would be a lot cheaper.

Until Iraqis have running water and electricity and gasoline, and until they are allowed to work on building their own country back up, there will be no resolution to the disaster there.

So what we have is... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by cannondaddy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:48:32 PM EST

a "condition based general time horizon with the aspirational goal of complete withdrawal of our troops in 2010". Because phased redeployment sounds so silly...

"We OWN you, Iraq!" (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by karen marie on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:05:39 PM EST

wow. how come crackpot stuff like this isn't reported on the news?

why isn't this a serious point of discussion, that there are "serious people" who believe that maliki is our puppet and iraq is now a territory of the united states?

funny thing, i distinctly remember being told that we were sending troops there to "liberate" irsq ...

Sigh (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Steve M on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:12:14 PM EST

You know, this is why Tom Friedman enjoys such a reputation as a wordsmith. He managed to convey the exact same thought in just three words!

What We Should Do (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by john horse on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:46:46 PM EST

I have a suggestion for Mr. Derbyshire and my friends on the Right. Its a way to get even with Maliki. What we should do if he doesn't toe the line is we should take our troops and go home. That would show him.

"mccain queries bin laden: where next?" (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by karen marie on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:06:36 AM EST

why, you ask, is it in the united states' interest to continue the occupation of iraq? i'm guessing perhaps bin laden has not provided any new instructions to the bush admininistration. according to senator mccain in the aired portion of his CBS interview yesterday, we're in iraq because bin laden told us to meet him there:

Couric: Sen. Obama describes Afghanistan as the central front on the war on terror. That is where, after all, Senator, 9/11 was plotted. And now the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan seems to be a hot bed of al Qaeda activity. Why do you believe Iraq is the central front in the war on terror?

McCain: Well, one reason is because that's what Osama Bin Laden said that it was. He said, "Go to the country of the two rivers."

i'm perfectly happy to have CBS cut mccain's response in which he completely confuses history in order to justify his position.

mccain's entire campaign is a desperate attempt to keep the lipstick on the pig.

: Good One! (none / 0) (#36)
by squeaky on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:13:06 AM EST

It is no wonder that there are super duper tippity top secret parts of our budget. What would people think seeing OBL on the DOD payroll?

MORE of maliki's interview (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by karen marie on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:10:49 AM EST

more of maliki's interview is up over at amygdala blog (http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/) in a post dated tuesday, july 22, titled "WHY IS IRAQ CALMER?"

it's really interesting and erases any doubt anyone might have had that the iraqi government is pretty determined that us troops get out at the earliest possible time.

Hmm, here's an idea (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:18:04 PM EST

Hand over Iraq to Iran in exchange for them giving up all nuclear capabilities. heh

Oil (none / 0) (#5)
by waldenpond on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:30:15 PM EST

This part is confusing.... Now that our American blood and money has seen off most of the enemies of Maliki and his Iranian pals.

Did he just say America is defending Iran from it's enemies in Iraq? Odd.

Good...and Dangerous Question for Both (none / 0) (#9)
by santarita on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:37:27 PM EST

Obama and McCain.

If Maliki is seen as the legitimate ruler of a sovereign nation and his sentiment is the official position of the duly elected Iraq government, then he has just set a timeframe of 2010 for our withdrawal. And McCain and Obama should be asking themselves on our behalf why not as soon after the expiration of the UN mandate as logistically feasible. Why wait until 2010?

How Bush, McCain and Obama respond to the question of why it is in the US interest to continue to protect the Maliki government with our troops will explain a lot about why we went in in the first place. That is, assuming any of them will answer truthfully.

A secondary question, is Maliki negotiating with the presumptive President or is Maliki using Obama to negotiate with Bush? There is something fishy about Maliki's recent moves.

First (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by waldenpond on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:45:37 PM EST

I don't believe McCain or Obama has any intention of getting the US out.

Second... Iraq and the US are in the middle of negotiations for Status of Forces Agreement. Maliki is negotiating for his own money and power, he's using everyone trying to get what he can for himself and his country. I think all of these politicians are FOS (even more so than usual) and don't believe anything that is coming out of their mouths. It's a combination of chest-thumping, pandering, manipulative bs'ing.


Curious (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:53:11 PM EST

What is the US interest in keeping troops in Iraq? What is in it for US?

See, I am not understanding why that i s leverage for Maliki. Why is it not the reverse?


Possibly because the US... (none / 0) (#15)
by santarita on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:11:02 PM EST

needs the cover that the Iraq government provides. The US has a strategic presence in Iraq. Why give that up?


Cuz it costs 10 billion a month (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:19:34 PM EST

and it hinders our efforts in the War on Terrorism?


What would it cost us if the (4.00 / 1) (#19)
by Radix on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:39:42 PM EST

oil stopped flowing?


We'd suffer (none / 0) (#24)
by Salo on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:59:32 PM EST

but of course, what good is the oil to the Arabs if they don't sell it to the world? They can't eat the damned stuff. They can't manufacture anything from it themselves.


: No doubt. (none / 0) (#27)
by Radix on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:10:41 PM EST

The world has no choice though as to whether or not they're going to buy. The supplier of this commodity has quite a bit of clout, no? Rather, they could just slow things down a bit to see what they could get.

Agreed ... (none / 0) (#31)
by santarita on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:49:16 PM EST

The US is spending blood and treasure to stay in Iraq. More than it would have spent if it had just maintained the status quo with the economic sanctions and drive by bombings prior to the invasion. But our glorious leaders have made the estimate that it is in our strategic interest to stay there at the horrendous cost. I ddidn't agree with the invasion. I don't agree with the occupation. But Iraq has something our leaders want and up until now the US is providing Maliki what he wants.


You might look at to whom ... (none / 0) (#33)
by Robot Porter on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 06:30:39 PM EST

that $10 billion goes to give you at least part of your answer.


military geography... (none / 0) (#22)
by Salo on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:57:03 PM EST

...Baghdad is the geographic and cultural center of the Arab world. Control it control the middle east.


Oil (none / 0) (#25)
by waldenpond on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:01:34 PM EST

I already said it's oil. The US incentive is double - a power base in the region and it needs the energy. Maliki could go with Iran, China or Russia for energy contracts but I doubt any of those countries would be willing to put up troops, the cost using a military to enforce stability, or the challenge of maintaining infrastructure in a hostile environment to keep the oil industry protected. Isn't China going to the gulf (non-hostile) for it's energy? Russia has surplus energy, it doesn't need Iraqs. It is now putting natural gas into Europe on top of it's oil so is there enough profit in Iraq to make it worth it's while.


I agree ... (none / 0) (#14)
by santarita on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:09:02 PM EST

that both McCain and Obama will maintain some significant military presence in Iraq for at least their first term.

I also think that Maliki is negotiating for something from someone. It may be his own self-aggrandizement. I don't know at this point. I am beginning to wonder if Obama has not wandered into a trap by not adhering to diplomatic formalities.


They've given up on a full SOFA (none / 0) (#18)
by Alien Abductee on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:33:50 PM EST

and are now scrabbling for a temporary 'bridge' agreement instead. Those intransigent Iraqis, wanting control of their country back, how dare they...


Interesting question BTD (none / 0) (#13)
by Lahdee on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:53:33 PM EST

...why is it in U.S. interests to continue to protect the Maliki government with the presence of 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq?

It is only if the oil companies insist.

Nice Summation (none / 0) (#17)
by squeaky on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:22:29 PM EST

Of the official BushCo Iraq policy. Love the contrast, somehow I do not think it is working for them..