McCain believes Iraq war can be won by 2013

AP on Yahoo ^ | 5/15/08 | Glen Johnson - ap

[buwaya]

What we get out of it is survival.

Thats pretty much what Roosevelt had in mind when he brought us into WWII. US grand strategy hasn’t really changed since 1940.

World wars with modern weapons aren’t going to leave the US alone. The next Napoleon or Hitler or Stalin will see the US as an enemy no matter how isolationist we are. We are just too big, rich, powerful, attractive, and subversive to ignore.

So, in a nutshell, it has been US policy to prevent the rise of another Napoleon, Hitler, or Stalin, and to prevent the possibility of another World War, partly by making the idea of challenging the US absurd, by being so powerful that a direct challenge in military power cannot be attempted, and by being so powerful that any aggression against a neighbor is guaranteed to fail if the US aids the other side.

Of course there is that other track of tying together the worlds economies through free trade and finance, promoting democracies (as the theory goes that democracies don’t fight democracies) etc. But its all part of the same strategy.

[buwaya]

It is too much to ask.

The US can’t just “go home”, pull up the drawbridge and opt out of history, because history will follow us home. The world is too small and technology can reach us here.

If the US did go home, based on precedent, the world is guaranteed to devolve into World Wars III, IV, V and etc., as the US has been holding the lid down on the boiling pot.

And this isn’t a matter of analyzing current enemies or current threats only; one has to consider that problems will crop up or escalate from unexpected directions. The lessons of history are grim.

[CJ Wolf]

yep. We won the war in the first year with the take over of the country and the capture of Saddam. When we won WWII we said we won. We didn’t leave but we won and knew it.

[Polybius]

Quote me the clause in the Constitution authorizing ANY Branch of the government to set up Nations on foreign shores. Take your time, we'll wait...

You do not even have to get to the Articles. It is right there in the Preamble:

".... provide for the common defense ...."

After victory in World War One, the U.S. washed its hands of Europe and the future of Germany and, 23 years later, we needed to fight a still militaristic and aggressive Germany all over again at the cost of hundreds of thousands of additional American combat deaths.

After World War Two, the United States decided to turn both Japan and West Germany into Peacenik nations whether Japan and West Germany wanted that or not. The Japanese Constitution was written by MacArthur's staff and it was crammed down the Japanese throats.

Twenty five years later, in the 1970's we did not need to fight the Japanese or the Germans in another war, did we?

Fifty years later, in the 1990's we still did not have to fight either the Germans or the Japanese in another war, did we?

In regards to the Persian Gulf, see Post 37.

Unless we screw thing up, 25 years from now in the 2030's, our kids will not have to talk about how, in 2026, New York City, Washington, DC, Chicago and a few other major American cities were obliterated in an Iranian nuclear strike before the Iranian mullahs were obliterated twenty minutes later and went to Paradise after a U.S. retaliatory nuclear strike.

THAT is what it means to ".... provide for the common defense ....".

The Constitution authorizes broad powers. It does not anal-retentively micromanage such powers. That is why we do not need a Constitutional Amendment to establish a U.S. Air Force when some would argue:

"Quote me the clause in the Constitution authorizing ANY Branch of the government to set up an Air Force. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about aircraft or Air Forces."

[kaehurowing]

McCain just put the seal on his election loss.

[Dead Corpse]

Common Defense now means we can set up Nations on foreign shores if we "deem it necessary"?

Talking about your "penumbra's and emanations".

You absolutely tortured the English language and common sense to come up with that.

[Polybius]

Common Defense now means we can set up Nations on foreign shores if we "deem it necessary"?

Since the dawn of recorded history, shaping the future form of government of a defeated enemy so that enemy does not rise against you or your children or grandchildren in the future once again has been a part of the "spoils of war".

You really ought to read more History. It will do you good.

Talking about your "penumbra's and emanations". You absolutely tortured the English language and common sense to come up with that.

While linking abortion with anything that any drafter of an 18th Century or 19th Century Constitutional amendment ever drafted is a torture of the English language, exercising the victor's rights to the "spoils of war" fits the description of the term "common defense" only if you are totally ignorant of History, which you seem to be.

A shooting war is nothing more than "politics by other means". Shaping the future government of a future enemy is nothing more than a political preemptive strike to avoid future shooting wars.

[Dead Corpse]

Shaping the future government of a future enemy is nothing more than a political preemptive strike to avoid future shooting wars.

Then pass an Amendment. As it was, the Founders were quite clear on such things. Anything less is pi$$ing on the Constitution and we get quite enough of that from the Democrats. No need for the GOP to follow suit.

[Polybius]

Shaping the future government of a future enemy is nothing more than a political preemptive strike to avoid future shooting wars.

Then pass an Amendment.

Don't need to any more that you need to pass an Amendment to adopt space weapons technology in the 21st Century or create the Army Air Corps in the early 20th Centuries because the Constitution says nothing about the specifics or aircraft or missiles or satellites.

It all comes under providing for the "common defense".

Did the fact that the U.S. failed to mold Germany's future after World War One result in the combat deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in the 1940's?

You bet your naive ass it did.

That was an instance of FAILING to provide for the "common defense".

[Dead Corpse]

So, when do we form the "Department of Remodeling Other Nations" and how soon will the rest of the world tell us to piss off over it?

And no, it most certainly does NOT fall under "common defense" any more than "gay marriage" falls under "equal protection".

[Dr. Frank fan]

We have already been in Iraq longer then we spent fighting WWII,

This is a silly comparison, to compare how long we have "been in" a reconstructing nation to how long we fought a massive ground total war. Why not go further and compare how long we've "been in" Korea to WWII. Apples and oranges.

The way I see it is the sooner we cut our loses the sooner we cut our loses.

What does this mean exactly? What "losses"? Did the regime of Saddam Hussein "win"?

[Dr. Frank fan]

[“McCain believes Iraq war can be won by 2013”] Doubtful. That would leave the Repubes with absolutely NOTHING to run on in that years’ elections.

Huh? Are you suggesting that the Republicans are trying to, or even can, "run on" Iraq, which is a rather unpopular endeavor?

[Dr. Frank fan]

Common Defense now means we can set up Nations on foreign shores if we "deem it necessary"?

I'm not sure what you mean by "set up Nations", but if you're referring to our endeavor in Iraq, which involves trying to ensure that the new government that emerges in Iraq is not a threat to us, then the answer to your question is: Yes, of course.

We did the same thing in Germany and Japan. Or was that, too, "setting up Nations" and thus had no relevance to Common Defense in your view?

[Dr. Frank fan]

So, when do we form the "Department of Remodeling Other Nations"

That's actually not a bad suggestion and others have raised it; our current institutions are indeed not very well suited to the tasks that lie before us.

and how soon will the rest of the world tell us to piss off over it?

The "rest of the world" already does this.

[Dead Corpse]

Working with Ally Nations, undermining Dictators by providing support for dissident groups, exporting Capitalism to help over turn Communism/Socialism... These are all laudable goals that our State Department already works towards.

The current argument hinges on us militarily setting up little Empirical fiefdoms around the globe.

There are better targets that would yield far superior results than anything in the ME. Mexico, Venezuela, and even Canada come to mind.

We beat the hell of of the Axis and had reconstruction plans well under way during WWII in the same amount of time it's taken us to hold our ownin this "police action" in Iraq.

Past due time to piss or get off the pot.

[Dead Corpse]

That's actually not a bad suggestion and others have raised it; our current institutions are indeed not very well suited to the tasks that lie before us.

So? Pass an Amendment. If you want to turn us into Rome Version 2.0, go for it...

[Grunthor]

“Huh? Are you suggesting that the Republicans are trying to, or even can, “run on” Iraq, which is a rather unpopular endeavor?”

In the repub base, the war still gets high marks. One must first secure ones base.

[Polybius]

So, when do we form the "Department of Remodeling Other Nations" and how soon will the rest of the world tell us to piss off over it?

Right away.

And, if we don’t, how long will it be before the rest of the World is pissed off at us for something else, real or imagined?

Right away.

And if we don’t, how long will it be before we are losing hundred of thousands or millions of Americans in combat deaths or in civilian deaths at home?

With the advent of post-19th Century technology, approximately every 10 to 20 years.

And if we do, as in post World War Two Western Europe, how long can we avoid that?

Well, you can never predict the future but, so far, it has been 63 years and counting: The longest period of continuous Peace in Europe since the Pax Romana.

And, before that, in regards to Western Europe, how long did it take the U.S. to be at war with a Western European nation after it gained independence?

Fifteen years.

Quasi-War with France

As I said, studying History will do you good.

Why?

Because History has already “Been there and done that” in regards to all of these proposed scenarios.

You could spend a lifetime building your philosophical sand castles in your mind but the real question is, “How would your theoretical society survive in the international world of Realpolitik in the 21st Century?”.

Many hunter-gatherer societies throughout history formed small defense units that bothered nobody and minded there own business. They did just fine until History brought about the city-state with professional warriors whose job it was to eat such quaint little communities for breakfast.

City states did just fine, endlessly quarreling amongst themselves, as in ancient Greece or the Pre-Columbian Aztec Empire, until an Empire that was much better at waging war than they were, such as Rome or Spain, landed on their shores and ate them for breakfast.

If you can find a magical island that will hide you behind a force field from the rest of the Planet Earth, you may do just fine simply minding your own business. Otherwise, you really need to think of such practical matters such as, “How can the U.S. survive?”

The Greek historian Thucydides gave the following version of the ultimatum that the Athenian Empire gave to the island city-state of Melos demanding it’s unconditional surrender to the Athenian Empire even though Melos had taken the utmost care to offend no belligerent during the Peloponnesian War:

Melos, exactly followed the path you are advocating and told the Athenian ambassadors so: We don’t stick our nose in anybody’s business. We have been very nice to you Athenians and have given you absolutely no cause for you to be upset at us for any reason. Why are you now going to wage war upon us?

The Athenian ambassadors replied:

”We shall not trouble you with specious pretenses-either of how we have a right to our Empire because we overthrew the Persians or are now attacking you because of wrong you have done us – and make long speeches that would not be believed……In return, we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible…….Since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

The independent, idealistic, island city-state of Melos rejected the Athenian Empire’s ultimatum. The Athenians then promptly wiped Melos off the face of the Earth and the Melians simply ceased to exist.

As I said, History has “Been there and Done that” several times and you do not need crystal balls to see the folly of some courses of action. As my namesake said over 2,100 years ago:

“I have recorded these events in the hope that the reader may profit from them, for there are two ways by which all men may reform themselves, either by learning from their own errors or from those of others; the former makes a more striking demonstration, the latter a less painful one." …… Polybius (200-118 B.C.), Universal History, Book I, Chapter 35

The “We have been nice to everybody” argument has already been tried. It was the death of Melos.

Right now, the Persian Gulf region contains 70% of the World’s known oil reserves, the Iraqi people are sick and tired of religious fanatics and are now on our side fighting them. Iran is still ruled by religious, suicide-martyr fanatics, wants control of that oil and is actively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons and the ICBM’s to lob them into the major metropolitan city near you.

Iran has said it wants to “wipe Israel off the map”, considers the U.S. a Greater Satan than Israel and its religious nutjob leaders believe that to die after they kill Americans by the thousands or millions guarantees them an Eternity in Paradise.

With that kind of power, Iran can have complete control over whether or not the U.S. goes into economic Depression and reversing that military status quo would require nuclear war with million of American casualties. Once the mullahs decide that Eternity in Paradise Day is here, they will have the power to incinerate tens of millions of Americans regardless of what we do or don’t do.

And your brilliant suggestion is The Darwin Award-winning Melos Defense: “But (whine) we minded our own business (whine) and we were (whine) nice to you! (whine … whine … whine)"

Didn’t work then. Won’t work now.

Nations are like pioneer families in the Old West before the Higher Power of the U.S. Marshals and the U.S. Army arrived. Whether or not they survive depends on what they do to protect themselves.

You propose walking around the pioneer settlement properties like a 20 year old beautiful widow being nice to everybody and minding her own business as the guarantee of Goodness and Safety.

The World ain't like that, Pollyanna.

On some properties, as a pioneer wanders around, he will see some families baking a pie for that nice girl.

In another property, a pioneer finds Crazy Jeb sharpening a butcher knife by his shed.

“How’s it going, Crazy Jeb”

“Just fine! I’m having sex tonight. I’m going to rape the Widow Jenkins then I’m going to murder her and bury her body. Next month, it will be your daughter’s turn ”

"That's not a nice thing to do, Crazy Jeb. The Widow Jenkins is nice to everybody and always minds her own business. My daughter's the same way."

"Piss off!"

"But, that's just not right! I, too, have always been nice to you!"

"Piss off, I said!"

< under breath mode > Damn! The Parson's advice isn't worth a bucket of warm spit! < /under breath> "Well, ain't that special! See you in a while, Crazy Jeb”.

The pioneer that puts survival at a greater importance that having his head in the clouds then goes home, grabs his shotgun and, if nobody else in the settlement wants to mess with Crazy Jeb, he walks into Crazy Jeb’s property and locks him up in a cage in Crazy Jeb's own cabin so he has complete control of him in Crazy Jeb's own property or, if that's not feasible, he just blow Crazy Jeb's brains out.

For Nations, like for Old West settlers: SURVIVAL COMES FIRST.

And no, it most certainly does NOT fall under "common defense" any more than "gay marriage" falls under "equal protection".

Whatever you say, Widow Jenkins.

I will write that down;

"Doing what it takes to avoid the future violent deaths of hundreds of thousands of millions of Americans does NOT constitute "providinbg for the common defense".

Got it.

You worry about smiling at everybody and the rest of us that keep you alive will worry about the Crazy Jebs of the World.

[Dead Corpse]

9-11 happened BECAUSE of idiots like McCain. The war has gone on as long as it has BECAUSE of simpering "bi-partisan" hacks.

More of the same and expecting different results is the very definition of insanity.

[Polybius]

9-11 happened BECAUSE of idiots like McCain. The war has gone on as long as it has BECAUSE of simpering "bi-partisan" hacks. More of the same and expecting different results is the very definition of insanity.

You are not only ignorant of older History. You are also ignorant of two year old History.

Back in 2006, when everybody was floundering about what to do in Iraq, McCain was almost alone of anybody, in either Congress or the White House, in steadfastly advocating the path that is now winning the war even though his "Aggressive Surge" stance had an only 18% public approval rating, was vehemently opposed by the liberal media, was vehemently opposed by the Democrats and was even opposed by Rumsfeld and George W. Bush.

See Post 49

We are NOW winning the war BECAUSE John McCain's very unpopular "Aggressive Surge" policy was implemented after Rumsfeld was fired.

We may very well LOSE the war in 2009 because people like YOU are trying to get Obama elected Commander-in-Chief.

**********

Obama 17 months ago:

Published Jan. 30, 2007 ...... Obama wants troops home by spring ’08 ……. Illinois senator, presidential candidate introduces bill to force redeployment

**********

McCain 18 months ago:

Published December 27, 2006 ..... Novak: McCain's 'aggressive surge' stance backfiring ........ conservative columnist Robert Novak suggests that Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) "aggressive" push for a U.S. troop expansion -- or "surge" -- in Iraq may be costing the top 2008 GOP contender in the polls, especially when matched against another presumed front-runner, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY). "The decline in the polls of [McCain], as measured against [Clinton], reflects more than declining Republican popularity ......... "It connotes public disenchantment with McCain's aggressive advocacy of a 'surge' of up to 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq

"I understand the polls show only 18 percent of the American people support my position. But I have to do what's right, what I believe is right and what my experience and knowledge and background tells me is the right thing to do in order to save this situation in Iraq ... In war, my dear friends, there's no such thing as compromise. You either win or you lose." - Sen. John McCain's reaction to the Iraq Study Group Report, 2006

**********

Seven months ago in Iraq:

Troop Surge, Iraqis’ Anger Puts al Qaeda ‘On the Run’

**********

Because of your ignorance of History, you want to hand over the role of Commander-in-Chief to Barack Obama so he can set you up on a blind date with Crazy Jeb.

Congratulations, Widow Jenkins.

You have now earned one more medal for a total of two so far.