By John Aloysius Farrell
George Bush and John McCain seem intent on proving that the worst things said about them by their critics are true.
Time, chance and the U.S. military have given them what any politician would savor – the chance to claim victory in a grueling war. They seem intent on squandering the opportunity.
Which inevitably raises the question: If not victory, what is it they really want?
First of all, let’s add a little reality to the current screeching by the military brass and the blah-gabbing know-nothings on CNN and Fox about precipitate withdrawals and conditions on the ground.
December, 2010 is 30 months away.
EVEN IF OBAMA GETS ELECTED AND MALIKI GETS HIS TIMETABLE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TWO AND A HALF MORE YEARS OF AMERICAN OCCUPATION!
You would think, from listening to the Bush-McCain-Pentagon talking points, that there are helicopters landing on the embassy roof.
By December 2010 (and of course all agree we will have “residual” forces in Iraq, and a division or two over the horizon in Kuwait) we will have spent a trillion or more dollars, some 5,000 or more American lives, and almost eight years in Iraq.
If that is “cut and run” then I’m beginning to believe that Mac really wants us there for a hundred years.
But, just as the president’s father low-balled the first Persian Gulf war (parades wouldn’t be prudent; we must guard against exuberance) Bush – and Mac – seem determined to see a glass half empty.
Why?
Well, first of all the rationale for another Republican presidency goes down the drain if Americans in Dayton and Daytona aren’t terrified that swarthy Arab terrorists are plotting to blow up the neighborhood shopping mall. Uber-lobbyist Charlie Black acknowledged this when he spoke about the possibility of another terrorist strike, and how it would help his candidate, McCain.
Victory would mean that American voters will put aside their GOP-nurtured fears of a global jihadist conspiracy and focus on the domestic mess.
Or, as the McCain campaign puts it, whine.
We’re surely not looking to the Republicans for their economic expertise. If Mac was not such a press favorite, his dithering on economic issues would have crippled his candidacy.
Next up, on a geopolitical scale, while “victory” means one thing to the American and Iraqi people, it means something different to Bush and McCain.
It is difficult to determine exactly what Bush and McCain want in the Middle East, but it is surely not their stated objectives when they were promoting the invasion of Iraq. Those goals have been achieved. Saddam Hussein, who tried to kill Bush’s father, has been captured, humiliated and hanged. There is no chance that Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction will be handed over to terrorist gangs.
But “victory” to most of us, and “victory” to Bush and McCain, mean different things. Oil, and superpower ambitions, and Israel, are the motivations here.
Put simply: As long as the U.S. has a superbly-equipped, highly-mobile army of 200,000 troops sitting in an Iraqi client state, the oil keeps flowing down the Persian Gulf; the Iranians and the Russians and Chinese have to think twice about mischief-making, and Israel’s military advantage is secure.
Put simpler still: He who has his tank divisions camped out on the world’s oil fields is a pretty persuasive fellow.
These may be good strategic reasons for having a semi-permanent U.S. occupation in Iraq. But they are difficult causes to defend in a presidential campaign.
Silly voters are apt to ask, “You want my son or daughter to risk their lives in the Middle East so we can pay $4 a gallon to the same Saudis who bankrolled and filled the ranks of Al Qaeda? Or so China will keep financing our ridiculous debt so that the wealthy can keep their tax breaks? Or so some crazed Jewish militants can defy the world and build settlements on the West Bank?”
No winning answers there.
Victory means the war is over. We won. We did it. We can go finish the job in Afghanistan, string Osama up by his heels, and bring the troops home – to be praised and hugged and thanked.
McCain and Bush can’t have that. And they can’t explain why not.
