Sometimes I wonder how exactly McCain plans on winning by embracing the Iraq War. Today, he said that when troops come home from Iraq is “not too important.” Nice.
Granted, his argument is that if troops stop dying, then all is well. There are two problems with this, however.
The first is that the American people have shown no inclination to want to keep troops in Iraq, even if the situation settles down. Even now that it has been perceived that violence is much lower than it used to be, we still have over 60% of Americans who want to pull troops out in “1 to 2 years” at the latest and only 30% approve of the war. (though I should note to the people who wish to defund the war…despite everything, the last poll I saw still only showed 22% who wanted to pull out immediately)
The second is the same problem as McCain’s 100 years in Iraq statement, which is following the same philosophy as his statement today: OK, if things are all well and good if troops stop dying, how long are you willing to stay in Iraq until you accomplish that? How many more years of troops dying are you willing to have? He has never answered this, and some fantasy “but things WILL get better, so don’t you worry about it” attitude isn’t an answer.
Update:
You knew it was coming:
I mean the obvious fact is that more than most any American, Senator McCain knows the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform make, and the burden that their families bear. And it really is wrong to suggest otherwise. And obviously he knows that from his own — well, from his father’s service, and the impact it had on his family; from his own service and incarceration…
So, since McCain served in Vietnam, he can’t be wrong. But what about Kerry who also served in Vietnam? Well, I guess being a POW makes you an even bigger expert on whether it is “important” to being troops home.
Look, I think McCain could be honored for his service in Vietnam, and no one should go through what he went through as a POW, but look: saying that he’s a veteran and a POW and thus he can’t be wrong is a fallacious argument, if for no other reason than because we have such people on both sides of the debate. They can’t both be right, and it’s obviously a logical fallacy to argue that the only veterans who are right by virtual of being veterans also just happen to all agree with your position.
Obviously whether a person is a veteran or not is not the determining factor on whether someone is right or wrong in this debate, and if that’s the case, then what *is* the determining factor? That question may have various answers depending on who you ask, but one of the answers is definitely not “because he’s a veteran.”
