Friday, July 18, 2008

Hold the phone, Iraq critics

I read Real Clear Politics first thing every day, since it generally does a good job of presenting one or two of the best articles out there on whatever the big topics for the day will be. RCP is generally un-biased, but the articles they link to aren't necessarily so. Here's an example of an excerpt from Politico:

John McCain, who once voiced concerns about Bush and Cheney’s handling of the war, is now unrestrained in his enthusiasm for the indefinite occupation of Iraq.


The article is trying to argue that McCain has become more conservative for a general election audience, which obviously he has (but not nearly to the degree Obama is veering to the center). But this is exactly the kind of backhanded little statement conservatives need to to a better job fighting against.

For those of us who have been following Iraq, we know that Bush/Cheney were botching the hell out of a war that should have been a cakewalk for US troops to win. Of *course* McCain spoke out against their mis-management, anyone who knew anything about the military was speaking out against it. But that doesn't mean his support for the war ever weakened. He was always one of the most vocal supporters of the Iraq war, regardless of calling Bush/Cheney out on their terrible mismanagement.

We also know "indefinite occupation" is misleading. Recall that US troops are technically still occupying Germany, Japan and Korea- countries we haven't been at war with for decades. We do this to offer support to nations still adjusting to post-war life and to help them out should they have any trouble. We also do it for strategic reasons- having troops in South Korea ready to go to battle at any moment is a good plan considering how things are going with North Korea lately. We will probably never need to engage these troops, but it's good to have them there.

Iraq is in the middle of the hotbed of the Middle East. Of COURSE we would keep troops there indefinitely. It doesn't make sense not to. Should anything happen with Iran 5, 10, 15 years from now our troops are right there waiting for it, and in the mean time they're helping the new Iraq security forces keep the newly democratic nation running. It would be stupid of us to spend billions of dollars in Iraq and then leave without having any way to ensure our investment is paying off. We didn't liberate them so they could go back to exactly how things were in 2001.

With a bit of critical thinking we conservatives know the above statement is misleading bullshit, but lots of people see this sort of thing as fact. We really need to do a better job of correcting each and every person who makes statements like this. If we can't call Obama a Muslim then liberals can't say things like this.

1 comment:

The_Libertarian_Tree said...

"We also know "indefinite occupation" is misleading. Recall that US troops are technically still occupying Germany, Japan and Korea- countries we haven't been at war with for decades."

Those countries were a different situation. Wars fought then were different, because there was a clear surrender from a sovereign nation, and the occupation was "peaceful." In Iraq, the insurgents are fighting from the underground, with no loyalty to any country, just their own cause. Moot point, though, we shouldn't have invaded in the first place.