One of the lingering problems for theories of voter choice is that the Republican party, on the other hand, completely switched gears in between 2000 and 2004, going from Neo-Isolationism to Neo-Imperialism. McCain is looking to continue the Imperialist model, but to be fair, he was already on board with it in 2000.
What the retreat-from-the-world and dominate-the-world models have in common is their disregard for the world. The foreign policy of the Republican party, in its declining stupid phase, is just pure Nationalism.
I'm reminded of this, observing this early phase of the McCain/Obama race, because of the sheer stupidity of the arguments. It doesn't matter that conservative commentary about Iraq focuses on Al-Qaeda, even though AQI is a nuisance at best, because these arguments aren't directed at people who know anything about the situation. It doesn't matter that McCain doesn't seem to know the difference between Sunni and Shia, because his voters don't either. In fact, these schmucks can get away with anything, as long as they sell it as blindly pro-American.
I love this one, in particular:
I guess they're hoping that people are going to assume that McCain wants WAR for another 100 years. That isn't what he wants. He wants us to have a presence in Iraq--for 100 years, or less, or more, whatever it takes for it to be stable there.See? McCain doesn't want a 100 years of war, he just wants us to keep fighting until Iraq is stable, even if it takes 100 years! That's totally different!
By the way, I think McCain's Iraq position requires graphical representation.
Get on anywhere you like, but you can't get off!
2 comments:
"See? McCain doesn't want a 100 years of war, he just wants us to keep fighting until Iraq is stable, even if it takes 100 years! That's totally different!"
I know you guys have to carry water for Obama here by taking things out of context, but come on! If you're as smart as you claim, you know full well that's not what he meant; the "100 years" was clearly a reference to the bases the US has in the UK, Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. Are we still fighting insurgencies there? But yeah, I know, some political points need to be scored...I wouldn't expect anything less from a guy who supports a guy who's wife has never been proud of her country. -_^
Anyway, as one of those neo-imperialists who thinks the American military is generally the good-guys, and its dominance is a positive thing, I have no problem with it if the Iraqi government agrees with long-term bases. The American military remains powerful because it can project force through bases in allied countries. Those countries benefit because they get a kick-ass air force, and maybe some ground dudes to stop someone from invading, at almost no cost (airplanes are expensive). This has worked petty well in the past, allowing destroyed nations like Germany and Japan to rebuild without having to defend their borders -- it's also, consequently, why they are total wuss nations today (except in beer drinking and karate). =)
I actually don't think I'm taking McCain out of context. His position is simple: the occupation will take as long as it takes, the U.S. won't leave until Iraq is stable.
Now McCain would clearly like it to be less than 100 years, but so what? I'd like Iraq to magically become stable overnight too. McCain has said that he is willing to fight as long as it takes, and I believe him.
Post a Comment