John McCain says U.S. troops could conceivably have to occupy Iraq for the next 100 years or more, and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton say no, that would be awful. It?s their preference to get out in a matter of months, despite what that could mean ? genocide and the possible loss of who knows how many American lives.
No doubt McCain was politically stupid in stating the obvious truth that a long-term military presence could be necessary for the good of the United States, but Obama and Clinton have been intellectually stupid in preaching unconditional retreat as a means for our immediate gratification.
It doesn?t seem to matter to them that withdrawal by timetable could leave life-risking allies in Iraq at the mercy of mostly subdued forces that might then rise up and slaughter tens of thousands of them, and that it would be our fault, “an act of commission,” as one commentator has put it, as opposed to an act of neglect.
The peril, after all, derives in part from our intervention there, and it?s hard to imagine something more dishonorable than calling others to our side when it seemed the path ahead could be a relatively easy one, and then deserting them when grave difficulties appeared.
We also have a not-so-tiny self-interest in getting Iraq stabilized and then keeping some troops close in case quick assistance is needed. Skip away before basic goals are met and you could well hand the country over to al Qaeda, which could then use it as a base for future attacks in the United States, including nuclear ones. Some express outrage that this possibility should even be raised, but a number of experts have made a convincing case that there is more than a small chance of A-bomb calamity.
Examiner Columnist Jay Ambrose is a former Washington opinion writer and editor of two dailies. He can be reached at [email protected]
