Questions for Senator McCain about Iraq War Policy

donna | 5/17/2008 10:25 am | Daily Briefing

Ever since John McCain remarked that 100 years in Iraq would be fine with him, his political opponents have made a point of reminding voters about this. Senator McCain has complained that his remark is being used to unfairly imply that he would stay in Iraq even if we were still taking casualties. Instead, he was referring to the South Korea model. I agree with Senator McCain that, at some times, his view has been distorted. However, in the "he-said, she-said" flap over this remark, no one is asking McCain questions about what he really did mean. Here are the questions I would like to have Senator McCain answer.

1. In January, 2005 you appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews and rejected the idea of a long-term arrangement similar to South Korea in Iraq. You said that you did not feel it was necessary and you wanted to bring all of the troops home. You also said that many Iraqis resent the presence of the U.S. military and we should reduce our visibility. Now you are saying that, as long as Americans are not being harmed or killed, it's fine with you if Americans stay in Iraq for 100 years. This appears to be a complete change in your position from three years ago. What caused you to change your mind?
2. Last month Joe Klein wrote that Iraq is a terrible candidate for a long-term basing agreement because it is now and always has been a volatile area that is as sensitive as Saudi Arabia to the presence of infidels. In your 2005 interview, you appeared to agree with this assessment. What makes you think that, given the volatility of the country and the religious sensitivities, Americans could stay in Iraq over the long-term without taking casualties?
3. Your plan is to keep Americans in Iraq as long as there are no casualties. How long are you willing to keep combat operations going in Iraq if we are taking casualties? Would this be at least until the end of your four-year term as president?
4. The Iraq war is costing us approximately $100 billion every year. To date, every penny has been borrowed, often from foreign governments. The result has been a $1 trillion increase in our national debt. When you add the cost of interest on the debt, veterans' benefits, and other war-related costs, estimates are that the true cost is up to $3 trillion, to date. You have said that you plan to make the Bush tax cuts permanent and to make other tax cuts. Does this mean that you will continue the Bush policy of borrowing money to pay for the Iraq war? If so, what is your plan for eventually paying down this debt?
5. Recently the Congressional Budget Office estimated that a non-combat, long-term presence in Iraq would require approximately $8 billion in up-front costs plus $10 billion per year, at minimum. Over a 100 year period, that will be $1 trillion. What is your plan to pay for this?
6. For the second year in a row the Pentagon recently reported to Congress there is a significant risk of the U.S. military not being able to respond to any new crisis. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the cause. The current level of deployment in Iraq is unsustainable and is putting great strain on our military and their families. Our equipment is also being degraded. How do you plan on continuing the wars in Afghanistan while also reducing the combat readiness risk and not further over-stretching the troops and their families? Where will the troops and equipment come from?

Before I could even consider supporting John McCain's war plan, I will need to hear his response to these questions.

2005 Hardball interview:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6895182/

Joe Klein's column about long-term basing in Iraq:

http://www.timeblog.com/swampland/2008/04/100_years_war.html

combat readiness:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,161717,00.html

blog entry tag reference

fiscal policy | Iraq | politics

go to Daily Briefing | Digg this story | add to del.icio.us | print | email