Brownstein to McCain: Explain Yourself on Iraq Posted by Moira Whelan

In an article published today, Ron Brownstein addresses the fundamental issue surrounding John McCain's position on Iraq: the fact that he has not explained what his position is.

"McCain, under any interpretation of his words, is proposing another mission in Iraq--a long vigil--that would extend for decades. With the stakes so high, it's not enough for him to accuse critics of twisting his meaning: He needs to more clearly explain it himself."

McCain has pushed back against the use of his "100 Years" statement, and has compared US presence in Iraq to Korea. He's even gone so far to warn of chaos should US troops redeploy to address our security concerns elsewhere in the world. However, he has failed to state why US troops should stay in Iraq, and what they hope to achieve.

Brownstein methodically points out what many of us have been trying to say for a long time. If McCain expects to have a real debate on the most critical issue of our time, he needs to lay out what he intends to do.

I echo Brownstein’s thoughts that you can’t just criticize people for taking you out of context for repeating your “100 Years” remark when you have failed to explain what, exactly, your context is.

Comments

[peace]

John McCain seemed to have said today that the United States has to stay in Iraq because of its oil and that the US has to develop alternative types in energy in order it get out. The only problem with this arguement is that if somehow the Iraqi governement was able to pump out more oil than the reasons for developing alternative forms of energy would dwindle. Also it would take decades for the US to get off its addiction to foreign oil. So either way it looks like McCain is basically still stating that we will be in Iraq for one hundred years. Also if the Republicans plan to use the oil issue as s reason to stay in Iraq it appears to be an weak arguement because the high price of gas is to due to the falling dollar which is a result of the debt occurred during the oocupation of Iraq.

[Don Bacon]

re: McCain should lay out what he intends to do.

I have some problems with that.

1. We already have a Decider who has made some bum decisions that were unchallenged by the Congress, which in point of fact is the part of government that is supposed to be making the decisions, not the president. So now you're allowing a new Decider to decide what he intends to do. Very undemocratic. Do we have a democracy or an autocracy? Is this Autocracy Arsenal?

2. The US has promoted democracy in Iraq and the Iraqis, according to the polls, don't want the US military there. It's for good reason -- the US military has brutalized the Iraqi people including random killing, imprisonment and torture. They don't like that, and so the majority of Iraqis support the killing of US troops. Muqtada al Sadr, the most popular Iraqi nationalist, particularly doesn't want US troops in Iraq. We must allow Iraqis to decide what they want, not decide it for them.

3. Even in repressive ME Arab regimes, like Saudi Arabia, the US military is unwanted, and had to leave Saudi Arabia. Arabs and Muslims the world over generally hate the US now because Americans are deciding what to do in their countries, and they don't like it. That shouldn't be difficult to understand.

So who cares what McCain intends to do. He should merely execute what the Iraqi people and the Congress want done, not be a Decider when it comes to foreign policy.