Why do we still have troops in Germany?

The problem is not that McCain keeps saying this - it's that reporters never follow up and ask him to tell us in what magical fairyland this state of affairs exists. Sure - it would be no problem to keep troops in an Iraq as peaceful as Japan or South Korea, just like it would be no problem to eat ice cream sundaes three times a day in Candyland. But a realistic person doesn't plan his diet around the latter any more than a realistic would be Commander in Chief plans his military policy around the former.

the iraqis think we'll be using the bases to attack iran.

Why do we still have troops in Germany?

To protect them from East Germany. Or Poland. Or something.

Of course, the fine citizens of Okinawa are less than thrilled with our presence.

I know this is totally off-topic, but just because Kevin writes about it a lot and I know a lot of people who are interested in it may read this, an important piece on peak oil is located at this link.

This is all a penis thing.

When it comes down to it, nothing makes any sense, except that it is a penis thing.

Why will we stay in Iraq forever? It's a penis thing.

Why do we prevent poor people from having affordable health care? It's a penis thing.

Why do we let American cities drown? It's a penis thing.

And there's a broader question anyway: even if casualties did drop to zero, would we really want a long-term neocolonial presence in Iraq anyway?

If Iraq magically became peaceful, democratic, and friendly all at once, a visible commitment to support Iraq, as an Arab democracy, both with troops and direct aid, might be a way to counterbalance the effect on our perception in the region resulting from our support of Israel and various Arab dictatorships and monarchies. Given Iraq's oil wealth, it might also reduce the strategic need for our support of those other regimes.

OTOH, for a large number of reasons, including both the fact and conduct of the invasion and occupation to date, and the exact problems that a relationship with a magically-transformed Iraq might mitigate, Iraq isn't going to get anywhere close to the state where that would occur as long as we are there, so the issue is moot.

I think Obama should just take the rest of June off and let McCain self implode. McCain is starting to make Bush look like a C+ student.

> Why do we still have troops in Germany?
> Al

That's obvious. It's to fight the Nazi's who are trying to overthrow the government. What's the matter, Al, do you want Hitler back in power?

We need a presence in the area so that the troop casualties per day due to our presence in the area are reduced to zero for at least a thousand years.

Why is it so hard for liberals to understand simple logic?

Why do we still have troops in Germany?

Policy inertia.

Fuck and yes!!

We need to fight and fight and fight to prove to the red states that their representatives in Washington are actually doing something.

Pathetic.

Kevin pondered: "Why? To protect the oil? That was pumping just fine before we were there."

But the profits from pumping Iraq's oil were not flowing "just fine" to Cheney/Bush cronies and financial backers in the US-based transnational oil corporations.

It isn't about whether the oil will be pumped or not. It isn't about who gets to buy the oil and burn it. It's about who gets the trillions of dollars in profit from extracting and selling one of the world's last, best, biggest, largely untapped reserves of cheaply extractable, high-quality oil.

The purpose of the Iraq Hydrocarbon Law and the permanent, large US military occupation that Cheney and Bush are trying to force on the Iraqi people is to ensure that those trillions of dollars in profit go to their cronies and financial backers.

And that's the policy that McCain will continue. And like Cheney and Bush, McCain is willing to send any number of young working-class Americans to their deaths, murder any number of innocent Iraqi civilians, and spend however many billions of the US taxpayers' dollars it takes to secure those profits for his corporate owners.

Why do we still have troops in Germany?

To protect them from East Germany. Or Poland. Or something. Posted by: thersites the peace troll

It's a legitimate question. Except for their nuclear weapons, Russia's a military cripple these days. Same is true for N. Korea and Japan. The U.S. presence in the latter would not "save" Japan if China really wanted to attack.

Perfect illustration of:

'One of the severe side effects of imperialism in its advanced stages seems to be that it rots the brains of the imperialists. '- Chalmers Johnston

But, but, he's a maverick! Don't you get it Kevin?

Energy...we're going to maintain permanent bases in Iraq, whether with Barack Obama or John McCain, because of energy policy. Until oil becomes a non-viable resource, we're going to be there because of energy policy.

To this day, I cannot believe the American people could allow themselves to be hoodwinked, or either be complicit in their self-denial: for a country to expend all those finite resources (blood and treasure) for an idea such as Middle East pacification was naive. It could have been part of the reason, but I maintain that it wasn't the reason that required our commitment. It was about oil, it always was.

The debate was whether that was a good reason to go to war. Certainly not before we went, but now that we see the vulnerabilities that the United States faces without stable access to oil supply in a world where China and India are demanding just as well? It's all a mess.

Maybe we can find a way to finally get that peace dividend.

Is it time to pull out of Japan, Germany, Italy, Kyrgystan, Iraq, Afghanistan and most other places where we have no national security business?

If we did that maybe we'd have enough resources to finally guard our borders and focus on Al Qaeda enough to put that puppy to bed.

"How the hell many do we need?"

One more. Always one more. That's how you build a New American Century, Kev.

Hmmmm. Not so many months ago, a commenter named Hacksaw assured me that this administration had absolutely no intention of building permanent bases in Iraq, all evidence to the contrary. He claimed to have insider info about this. He must be off working on the McSame campaign these days. . .

McCain's a Google.

"This is all a penis thing."

Exactly. The only way we lose to those brown people is if we leave. How do we win? Stay forever! My Pee Pee told me so.

.

I think McCain committed a gaffe if you define "gaffe" as being when a politician tells you what he actually believes. John is committed to the proposition that Iraq has all that wonderful oil, and we need it. In short he is committed to neo-colonialism just like the Cheney/Bush administration and Joe Lieberman.

Why are we in Germany? Because we are in Iraq. The German bases have little to do with the Cold War anymore. They serve as a regional base for actions in the Middle East theater. And previously, Kosovo.

I think a lot of this has to do with the neocon illusion that if they could set up a functioning democracy somewhere in the region, it would take root and spread throughout the region. Iraq looked like a pretty good bet up until a few years ago. Even under the brutal dictatorship of Hussein, and with the international sanctions, Iraq managed to keep the best educated and most secular population of any nation in the region. What better place to start a democratic revolution?

Problem was, there were sectarian populations in Iraq and Bush I recognized that, which is why he did not support the 1991 uprising by the Shia in Southern Iraq. He seemed to realize that loosing the sectarian elements would destroy what was good about Iraq. But not so Bush II. He went ahead and knocked off Saddam and feigned surprise that these sectarian militias would suddenly spring up out of nowhere...duh??

There are probably still some neocons who, not understanding the dynamics of the situation, think that there is some sort of outcome where the secular educated elite will end up in charge. You know all those Iraqi refugees in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc etc.? two to four million strong? More than 10% of the total population of Iraq? Probably 80% or more of them are from those secular educated elites. They were targeted by the militias from all sides and were the first to book it and will be the last to return, if they ever return. So long as the government of Iraq is controlled by sectarian parties they will never return and Iraqi politics will be dominated by sectarian parties till they return. Neat little Catch, that Catch 22, eh?

So the neocons still want long term bases in Iraq so that they can hope to influence their elections and turn them into a secular democracy because they seemed ripe for that when Saddam was in power, never realizing that their disasterous miscalculations have pretty much forever distroyed that hope.

Swan, linking to yourself while disingenously referring to the link in the third person as an "important piece" makes you look like a dimwitted blogpimp. Actually, if it quacks like a duck ...

Operation Iraqi Liberation

or..

McCain Only Needs Enough (of) Yours.

Choose your acronym.

I bet oil is secretly being pumped within some of our Mega-bases,,, and maybe even flown in military transports to secret transfer points.

prove me wrong!

Out of fairness back before this when we had no problem with the oil flowing we also had troops in Saudi Arabia.

Now we don't, ironically giving bin Laden part of what he wanted while claiming to be fighting him.

So we still need cheap access to oil. Well, as cheap as we can get it.

Oh, and in the interest of supporting our troops (which I have always done) let me just say that being stationed in the Middle East, even if it does ever become peaceful, will be no where near as good as being stationed in Germany, the Philippines, or even South Korea.

Hot as hades, no booze, no babes, not even any pron.

Never say I let the troops down.

majun wrote: "I think a lot of this has to do with the neocon illusion that if they could set up a functioning democracy somewhere in the region, it would take root and spread throughout the region."

The so-called "neocons" -- actually a gang of career corporate criminals and war profiteers masquerading as "neoconservative" ideologues -- had no "illusion" about setting up a "functioning democracy" anywhere. That was a line of BS that they fed to the rubes.

The "neocon" plan was to set up a subservient authoritarian puppet government headed by convicted embezzler Ahmed Chalabi as the "new improved Saddam", that would hand over the control of, and profits from, Iraq's oil to western oil corporations and accept a US military occupation to enforce that control.

The plan to set up a puppet government headed by Chalabi failed, of course, because Chalabi was -- if such a thing is possible -- even more of a corrupt fraud than Cheney and Bush, and had bamboozled them into thinking that he could walk into Iraq and take over in a "cakewalk". In reality he had no base of support at all in Iraq. The so-called "neocons" have been more or less thrashing about ever since, trying to find some other way to achieve their goal.

Why do we still have troops in Germany?
Part of the answer is empire maintenance or force projection. And part of it is policy interia, as one person suggested -- yes, the Cold War has been over for nearly 20 years, but a massive ship has a very long turning radius. But I think more than anything else, the answer is economic. The German towns that border US military sites generally have long profited from that association, both in terms of jobs and services. It's also a question of ecomonics here -- where would be put the returning troops and would a large scale reduction in overseas US military presence necessarily lead to a reduction in the size of the US military? I think it would, and that means more unemployed and a smaller defense industry pie -- both of which are of course political nightmares.

The occupation of Iraq is not just to get control of the oil contracts and ship money back to Texas; it is intended to be a base for the projection of American power in the region. It is supposed to foster stability for the oil states in the Gulf and for Israel and to act as a check on the Syrians, Iranians, Russians, Chinese and anyone else interested in playing the great game. America’s ability to deliver stability protects the petrodollar.

The high-end dream is to transform the occupied societies into bastions of democracy, rule of law, open markets etc. This is just liberal imperialism of the old British kind. In theory it has strategic value. It cements the intentions of the occupier by creating a wealthy and cooperative vassal state. In the late '90's the neocons regarded the Middle East as the last large region outside of the American order. In one way they were completing the great realm of Pax Americana.

But liberal imperialism co-exists with naked ambition, greed, exploitation, and brutality when the ungrateful natives resist. Americans, just like the British before them, ended up the wrong empire. They intended to deliver the blessings of liberty and wealth but instead they enslaved half the world and were quite surprised to find good intensions resented by the very people they were trying to help out from the darkness of oriental tyranny.

As Rudyard Kipling told us:

Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

There are no armies, navies or air forces threatening the security of the US or Iraq. Neither country requires the huge military the US has spent so much for in the name of national defense. This is also true for the so-callled 'war on terror,' because no terrorist group has an army, navy or air force to protect ourselves or the world from. The purpose of our huge military and the purpose of creating a permanent military presence in Iraq are not for the defense of our national security, but for offensive wars of acquisiton to benefit the already wealthy and powerful.

Why do we still have troops in Germany?

Well, those drugs and hookers aren't gonna do themselves!

100 years just isn't that long to McCain. McCain's first 100 years have just flown by.

As Kevin points out, this is the second time McCain has expressed the same idea: It's ok to stay in Iraq forever if it's a peaceful occupation. But why doesn't someone calling himself or herself a journalist ever follow up with "How long is it ok to take casualties trying to get to that place?"

McCain's plan appears to be:
1. Troops die violently in Iraq.
2. ?
3. Peace! (and Profit!)

America is a great country, but we are now viewed as
an unwelcome Uncle across the globe.

Obama knows this. McCain is oblivious to this reality.

We are at the threshold of a new paradigm of what America is/could be.

McCain doesn't even know what paradigm means.

To stay in Iraq is not in America's best interest, only the filthy rich (or many in the Greedy Ol' Party!) have benefited by our multi-trillion dollar foray into the heart of the Arab World.

"How the hell many [bases] do we need?"

According to the Iraqi government, the answer must be 58 more, because the Administration is asking for 58 separate bases in Iraq.

OMG, Kevin has seen the light: And there's a broader question anyway: even if casualties did drop to zero, would we really want a long-term neocolonial presence in Iraq anyway? Why? To protect the oil? That was pumping just fine before we were there. To fight al-Qaeda? They're in Pakistan.

You mean, you mean you think that we invaded Iraq for OIL? McCain is like a flashlight, so I expect the Republican Party cockroaches will scurrying in all direction here pretty soon. Or McCain is kind-of-like a Democratic Stealth Bomber – flying in past the radar and dropping the horrible truth about this war and the Republican Party RIGHT in front of the faces of millions of American viewers/voters. If this keeps up, McCain is going to be sharing exactly the same poll numbers as Prez Dubya.

The AWFUL fact is that Republicans don't care about democracy in Iraq anymore than they care about victory, unless of course victory is synonymous with taking all of Iraqs oil for Western oil contractors.

Bush LIED about WMD to get oil. Greenspan was right - the war is about oil and it has never been about any damn thing else. So I'm wondering, since Bush denied torturing and denied wiretaping and has also denied the war in Iraq is about oil, can it be much longer before Bush admits the war is about oil, than tells us we need to pass a law to protect that oil that we're stealing, and just continue the pumping it while Iraqis fight among themselves, killing each other - so what, long as they stay off OUR oil feilds in Iraq?

Ah, the golden morality of the Christian Right.

bellumregio at 3:11.

Excellent summary. Brilliant!

Oh yeah, the peak oil bullshit. We got our oil a lot cheaper before the war in Iraq, and now it really looks like Iran is going to get those fields. Mostly because Bush basically just handed those fields to Iran.

IRAQ IS MANY THINGS, but mostly it is YOUR TAX DOLLARS, that's where the SERIOUS MONEY is. The TRILLIONS come out of YOUR pocket. (the kid's and the grandkid's pocket too)

Remember the GOOSE THAT LAID THE GOLDEN EGG? Well that's YOU, THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER. Bush and Cheney just thought they'd cut it open and get it all.

They [British] intended to deliver the blessings of liberty and wealth ....

Really? Was bringing democracy and wealth to South Asia the charter of the East India Company?

That's news to this Indian.

Similar to McCain, I want the police force here in San Diego to be disbanded by 2013 -- as long as crime has dropped to zero by then, that is.

Q: A lot of people now say the surge is working.

A lot of people? Where are these "lot of people"? And this interveiw was obviously a staged event but somehow McCain still disastrously botched it. I am definitely going to have my popcorn ready on the first town meeting betweem Obama and McCain - it promises to be a riot. I can't wait. It'll be the best comedy on TV in long time.

Kevin, what you're clearly missing is that as soon as the Iraqis have had their doors broken down and their sisters and mothers thrown on the floor by American soldiers enough, the Iraqis will develop an awe, a man-crush on our soldiers just like guys from Tennessee and Arkansas and Texas have, and expect everyone else (not just them) should have. It's so freaking obvious. Like, why should they get mad about this shit and want to fight us for it like people normally do when you invade their country when they can get a man-crush on our pampered suburban whiteboy asses, since we're do great.

"To ensure a presence in the area? We already have bases in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and elsewhere. How the hell many do we need?"

Kevin, one word - logistics. Think about it - if you're were charged in picking a location in the region that would allow the US to project its power in the region, but without having to maintain a large military presence to do so, which country would you pick? Ideally, you would like to pick a country that's

A) somewhat central to our adversaries in the region - Syria, Iran, and potentially Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - (this rules out Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Oman);

B) large enough that allows for the prepositioning of material/equipment over a relatively large geographic area (this rules out Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar);

C) Relatively decent transport/telecom infrastructure to allow the rapid movement of men and material While in theater theater (this rules out Afghanistan and Oman);

D) Access to the sea (rules out Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan);

E) large enough that allows for the rapid deployment of large number of troops, especially if one is considering using them as an invasion force (this rules out the smaller Gulf countries as staging areas);

F) access to ready energy source for war-fighting purposes (oil);

and G) one with a government that wouldn't object to our massive deployment of troops into the country and the mobiliztion of material/equipment for war fighting (this rules out Turkey and why we decided to leave Saudi Arabia).

Obviously, G) has been a bit problematic, but that was an assumption going into the war (we would be greated as liberators, get rid of Sadam, put in place a complinent leader/government, and secure basing rights from here to enternity).

The goal, here, is to have the ability to project power at a moments notice in the region. Given our superiority in military technology, we can do this rather easily if we have bases that will A) allow for the deployment of large numbers of troops (can fly them in from Europe and US quickly) and B) allow for the prepositioning of material (much easier to access and use material already in theater rather than having it shipped from US and Europe).

The goal was always just to get a foothold in there, so that we could keep that foothold. There are a lot of reasons: oil, Israel, Iran, forward operating base, economic influence, control, and on down the line. Iraq is not a country full of people who should be able to govern themselves and pursue life and liberty, etc., it's a totally crucial spot on the map for us to be. It used to be good enough when Saddam kind of did our bidding for us, but it's always better to be able to run shit yourself. 9/11 provided that golden opportunity to finally do that. Mission accomplished!

Imperialism: the gift that keeps on giving. And taking.

Why do we still have troops in Germany?
Posted by: Al
Because of German subsidies, it is cheaper to base troops there than in the U.S.

"even if casualties did drop to zero, would we really want a long-term neocolonial presence in Iraq anyway? Why? To protect the oil? That was pumping just fine before we were there. To fight al-Qaeda? They're in Pakistan. To ensure a presence in the area? We already have bases in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and elsewhere"

Oh kay. But why stop there, then? Why not withdraw from Bahrain and Kuwait, too? And why the hell do we need a base in Japan anyway?

More bases = better. Especially in a region that's (1) strategically and economically important and (2) a goddamn politico-socionomic clusterfuck.

We continue to have military bases throughout the world for diplomacy. The service members are our best ambassadors. The places where we have military bases are our strongest allies. The service members live next to the locals and spend time on the town with them. These are our best young people and it’s very hard not to like them.

That's what I like about this pathetic McCain campaign--utter insanity with off the cuff stupid ass remarks on prime time tee vee that will upset people, show his limitations and ultimately doom his Bushlite candicacy. Every day there is something absolutely goofy. Imagine it as time goes on. Obama will be untouchable

Why do we still have troops in Germany?

Because President Putin of Germany wants it that way?

Bernie obviously has no idea what he's talking about. Another example of idealizing the troops and ignoring the reality of the situation.

I was one of the young service members many years ago and I can tell you without a doubt:
1. These are NOT our best people. Especially now, with all the exemptions being granted for criminals and people who don't score high enough on the entrance tests. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure some of these kids are 'the best', but most are there because they have limited options elsewhere.

2. The locals do NOT, in many/most cases, like us... at all. They like our money, sure. Politically it may be advantageous to have a US base located in a particular place. But the actual service members themselves? Not so much.
I was in Korea for a year. It seems crazy, but the locals somehow failed appreciate the drunken bunch of teenagers/young 20-somethings that were sent to live in their country, especially when many of these teenagers/young 20-somethings were of the opinion (and stated it loudly and repeatedly) that OUR country is so much better than THEIR shithole country and they should be grateful we were there. What's not to love?

In Bernie's head, the troops are glorious, upright (Christian, I'm sure) young men and women
who place honor above all and live to serve their country, no doubt doing good deeds in the countries they have been sent to protect.
In the real world, most of the 'troops' are a bunch of real young people/kids who are there for a variety of reasons. Most are probably decent human beings but these real young people/kids act like real young people/kids do when there are bunches of them around and limited/no supervision.
They drink too much. They fight. They have sex, with each other, locals and the with prostitutes that seem to congregate around US bases in foreign countries. They show off and are generally obnoxious to other people. I was also in a fraternity in college later and, honestly, it was really the same kind of atmosphere.

Am I maligning the troops? Not at all.
The fact that I recognize that they are human, rather than robot patriots, does not mean I don't respect what they do. For the most part they are performing their missions well, doing what they are being asked to do, even if I (and probably many of them) question whether what they are being asked to do is the right thing. That many/most service members look at it as a job, rather than a glorious call to service, in no way diminishes what they do.

I think the true disrespect for the troops is the idealized 'troop' that most Republicans claim to support, while sending them to die in an unecessary war, not supplying proper armor, minimizing the PTSD that many of the homecoming soldiers from Iraq are suffering, not funding Veteran's health care.

That's a messy troop and Republicans prefer theirs shining and magnificent (no real issues, please, go serve quietly and gratefully).

maybe you morons should read a book called i believe Insha'Allah or some such thing [God Willing] - wise, practical Iraq war vet makes same point McCain does: these people need help and if it means staying there 100 years then so be it. The alternatives are unpalatable. McCain is gonna beat The Chosen One over the head with this shit come November.

Hell, this cancer-riddled, senile old fool thinks Vladimir Putin is the President of Germany!

He belongs in the Alzheimers wing of the nearest VA hospital....

I think the true disrespect for the troops is the idealized 'troop' that most Republicans claim to support, while sending them to die in an unecessary war, not supplying proper armor, minimizing the PTSD that many of the homecoming soldiers from Iraq are suffering, not funding Veteran's health care. - on

Hear, fucking hear.

I think the true disrespect for the troops is the idealized 'troop' that most Republicans claim to support, while sending them to die in an unecessary war, not supplying proper armor, minimizing the PTSD that many of the homecoming soldiers from Iraq are suffering, not funding Veteran's health care. - on

Hear, fucking hear.

maybe you morons should read a book called i believe Insha'Allah or some such thing [God Willing] - wise, practical Iraq war vet makes same point McCain does: these people need help and if it means staying there 100 years then so be it. -Oddlong

What? The British tried colonizing the place and it wasnt because those people needed help. Recall that TE Lawrence and Churchill thought using poison gas would be a good thing to use on uncivilized tribes. Who is the uncivilized one here? You, oblong, also forget what Greenspan said,"Its mainly about the oil" I dont see any compassion in that statement about helping those people.

Why, when at look at the world on a larger scale, its still tribal warfare...gone international. The whole human race needs help.

In the real world, most of the 'troops' are a bunch of real young people/kids who are there for a variety of reasons. Most are probably decent human beings but these real young people/kids act like real young people/kids do when there are bunches of them around and limited/no supervision.
They drink too much. They fight. They have sex, with each other, locals and the with prostitutes that seem to congregate around US bases in foreign countries. They show off and are generally obnoxious to other people. I was also in a fraternity in college later and, honestly, it was really the same kind of atmosphere.

Well Said!

They are no better or no worse than their counterparts in civilian life. And neither were we in our day.

But, I do think the thought of death on a daily basis makes them want to live a little harder when they get the chance. And that sometimes leads to big problems.

What REALLY pisses me off is that people like Cheney and Bush, who either never served or served at their own pleasure, would throw our young men into such a Hell hole and keep sending them back again and again. And sending in the National Guard with 50+yr old guys...WTF?

May Bush and McLame and their 100yr war rot in hell.

I was going to address Bernie, but my point was made by someone at 10:14.

oblong: I'll simply pass along what my newest housemate told me upon returning from the Iraqi theater of operations; "They don't want us there anymore."

But, what would they know, huh?

Winning hearts and minds.

McCain makes a lot more sense on this issue than Obama does historically. Troops stayed in Germany, Japan, Korea, Panama, Phillipines, Bosnia but with Obama's reasoning this would ensure that they never became pacified. What in fact happened is that troops did cause some disruption but eventually this effect is minor compared to other factors.
To argue that troops cannot be stationed in a country without creating the unrest they are intended to stop is just nonsense. If it were true there would be no such thing as UN peacekeeping.
And this is the problem between the way the Republicans and Democrats look at this. Bush was wrong to go in there, but once there historically the best way was to leave troops to pacify and draw them out gradually. That is what McCain and Hillary wanted, and Obama thinks he knows better.
Even Vietnam is not an analogy because troops were pushed out rather than left on their own. In the book Fiasco it was clear that Petraeus was the right man for the job, and many of the problems would not have happened if he was in charge from the start.
Most of the war was bungled but the plan is now reasonable to solve the problem, not cut and run like Obama says. In fact even Obama is hedging on whether he will really leave quickly or not.
The surge made good sense, like in policing where a surge of police patrols can often stop a crime wave. The threat of a new surge stops criminals because they fear the next crackdown.
Bush was an utter screwup in Iraq but something strange happened and about 3 years ago sensible people started running things there. McCain knows military matters better than most and sees the situation best. Obama was just lucky his guess about the war turned out right, and we don't know about whether his guess on how to fix it will be as lucky.

RC, at what cost are you willing to let the troops execute this nice plan? How many more trillions? How many more lives? How many more years? What does "pacified" Iraq even look like?

"Obama was just lucky his guess about the war turned out right"

Some guess that was.

Kill me now.

Explain me this one?
We can stay in Iraq for a hundred years as we successfully reduce troop casualties to zero.
But, if we leave, we are surrendering.
To whom? Mr. McCain? I can't quite follow the logic.

This war was never about winning. We have no intention of winning and coming home.

This war is about staying to make sure we save the high grade Iraqi oil for the Peak Oil times when we really need it.

We made a deal with the Saudis. We get our bases out of Saudi Arabia and they look the other way while we take out Saddam (as long as we don't completely screw over the Sunnis).

So, we just moved our bases out of their Holy Land.

Guess that means Osama won?