- If, as you hope, U.S. troops will be in Iraq for 100 years, what will that do to the perception that the U.S. seeks to dominate Middle East? Given the widespread dislike in Iraq and in the Arab world for the U.S. occupation of Iraq, what would the 100-year bases do to the standing — among its own people and among its neighbors -- of an Iraqi government that would reach such a long-term basing deal? Are you concerned about that?
- Your reference to the long-term U.S. troop presence in Germany, Japan and Korea is designed to illustrate that U.S. troops can be present in foreign bases without facing daily combat or casualties. My question is: How soon and at what cost in blood and treasure do you believe that the situation in Iraq — specifically the situation regarding the safety and normalcy of U.S. troops in Iraq — will resemble the situations in Germany, Japan and Korea?
- Your stay-until-victory policy (we'll leave for another day the question of how, precisely, to describe and define "victory"), will impose more costs, new costs, in blood and treasure...what might those additional costs be, in lives lost and lives shattered and dollars extracted from U.S. taxpayers and damage to the U.S. reputation in the world, before the situation of the U.S. military in Iraq resembles the situation in Germany?
Critiquing the rationality of public policy, ruminating on modern life,
and exposing my inner nerd.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Good questions on Iraq for Senator McCain
Courtesy of political writer Eric Black:
Labels:
Iraq,
John McCain,
Republicans
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment