FrankRep
06-12-2008, 05:42 PM
McCain Is Obviously Committed to Building Empire
The John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
June 12, 2008
ARTICLE SYNOPSIS:
Asked if he thought troops in Iraq might be coming home soon, GOP presumptive nominee John McCain changed the subject. He said he doesn't want them home. He wants them stationed in the Middle East just as American troops have been stationed in South Korea, Japan, and Europe for decades.
Follow this link to the original source: "Democrats Criticize McCain on Strategy in Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/politics/12campaign.html)"
COMMENTARY:
Interviewed on NBC’s Today show, John McCain was asked if the troop "surge" he has long advocated was successful enough to predict when the troops in Iraq might be returning home. He immediately said he didn't have a prediction, and then added, "but that's not important." And he clearly indicated his desire to see only a reduction in casualties, not a reduction or an end to U.S. presence in the war-torn country.
Many will recall that only a few weeks ago, McCain suggested that U.S. troops could be stationed in Iraq for "50, even 100 years." During the Today interview, he pointed to the U.S. troop assignments in South Korea, Japan, and Germany as an example of what he would like to see occur in Iraq.
The problem is that America's forces shouldn't be stationed all across the globe. The hidden reason for such a policy is to establish an American empire policed by U.S. troops with American diplomats telling everyone how their affairs should be run. That's a pretty succinct definition of empire.
The McCain attitude, shared by numerous Bush administration leaders who formed the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) a decade ago, has long advocated forcibly establishing American influence everywhere. PNAC members Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Khalilzad, Bolton, and a coterie of neoconservatives launched their effort during the 1990s and then brought their plans to government with the Bush administration in 2001. The PNAC Statement of Principles points to America's "global responsibilities," the need to "challenge regimes "hostile to our interest," and extend "an international order friendly to our country."
Doesn't that sound like empire?
This is hardly what the American people pay enormous taxes for. Wasn't the Defense Department created to "defend" our nation? How did it become a force to shape policy in other nations, even to force "democracy" on Iraq?
McCain defends his attitude with the claim that the "consequences of failure would be chaos and genocide in the region." What is his definition of "failure"? What is his definition of victory? According to the role he wants for American forces, it is their responsibility to keep some Iraqis from killing other Iraqis and to force democracy on a people who never asked for it. How far we have traveled from those days five years ago when the supposed reason for invading Iraq was to destroy weapons of mass destruction and prevent Saddam Hussein from using them. That he never had any such weapons, and that he had no role in the 9/11 attack, has been conveniently ignored as the building of an American empire — likely the hidden goal from the start of this war — takes over.
Troops aren't needed in Japan where they have been stationed since 1945. Japan is no enemy and can take care of herself. They aren't needed in South Korea where they have been stationed since 1950. The South Koreans have their own military establishment and don't want our forces in their country. Nor are they needed in Germany under NATO, a UN subsidiary created in 1949. We were told of a need for troops in Germany to thwart possible Soviet expansion. But the USSR imploded in the early 1990s. Add to these troop assignments the stunning fact that American forces occupy bases in a total of 130 different countries!
Can it be said too often that the purpose of maintaining a military force should be only to protect the lives, liberty, and property of the American people? Yet, McCain wants them in Iraq and elsewhere (everywhere?). His dangerous policy will swell anti-Americanism as it bankrupts this nation. Democrats jumped on McCain for his remarks. But they, too, ignore the only constitutional reason for maintaining a military force.
The answer to McCain and others is simple: Bring the troops home. When? The sooner the better.
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/node/8376
The John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
June 12, 2008
ARTICLE SYNOPSIS:
Asked if he thought troops in Iraq might be coming home soon, GOP presumptive nominee John McCain changed the subject. He said he doesn't want them home. He wants them stationed in the Middle East just as American troops have been stationed in South Korea, Japan, and Europe for decades.
Follow this link to the original source: "Democrats Criticize McCain on Strategy in Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/politics/12campaign.html)"
COMMENTARY:
Interviewed on NBC’s Today show, John McCain was asked if the troop "surge" he has long advocated was successful enough to predict when the troops in Iraq might be returning home. He immediately said he didn't have a prediction, and then added, "but that's not important." And he clearly indicated his desire to see only a reduction in casualties, not a reduction or an end to U.S. presence in the war-torn country.
Many will recall that only a few weeks ago, McCain suggested that U.S. troops could be stationed in Iraq for "50, even 100 years." During the Today interview, he pointed to the U.S. troop assignments in South Korea, Japan, and Germany as an example of what he would like to see occur in Iraq.
The problem is that America's forces shouldn't be stationed all across the globe. The hidden reason for such a policy is to establish an American empire policed by U.S. troops with American diplomats telling everyone how their affairs should be run. That's a pretty succinct definition of empire.
The McCain attitude, shared by numerous Bush administration leaders who formed the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) a decade ago, has long advocated forcibly establishing American influence everywhere. PNAC members Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Khalilzad, Bolton, and a coterie of neoconservatives launched their effort during the 1990s and then brought their plans to government with the Bush administration in 2001. The PNAC Statement of Principles points to America's "global responsibilities," the need to "challenge regimes "hostile to our interest," and extend "an international order friendly to our country."
Doesn't that sound like empire?
This is hardly what the American people pay enormous taxes for. Wasn't the Defense Department created to "defend" our nation? How did it become a force to shape policy in other nations, even to force "democracy" on Iraq?
McCain defends his attitude with the claim that the "consequences of failure would be chaos and genocide in the region." What is his definition of "failure"? What is his definition of victory? According to the role he wants for American forces, it is their responsibility to keep some Iraqis from killing other Iraqis and to force democracy on a people who never asked for it. How far we have traveled from those days five years ago when the supposed reason for invading Iraq was to destroy weapons of mass destruction and prevent Saddam Hussein from using them. That he never had any such weapons, and that he had no role in the 9/11 attack, has been conveniently ignored as the building of an American empire — likely the hidden goal from the start of this war — takes over.
Troops aren't needed in Japan where they have been stationed since 1945. Japan is no enemy and can take care of herself. They aren't needed in South Korea where they have been stationed since 1950. The South Koreans have their own military establishment and don't want our forces in their country. Nor are they needed in Germany under NATO, a UN subsidiary created in 1949. We were told of a need for troops in Germany to thwart possible Soviet expansion. But the USSR imploded in the early 1990s. Add to these troop assignments the stunning fact that American forces occupy bases in a total of 130 different countries!
Can it be said too often that the purpose of maintaining a military force should be only to protect the lives, liberty, and property of the American people? Yet, McCain wants them in Iraq and elsewhere (everywhere?). His dangerous policy will swell anti-Americanism as it bankrupts this nation. Democrats jumped on McCain for his remarks. But they, too, ignore the only constitutional reason for maintaining a military force.
The answer to McCain and others is simple: Bring the troops home. When? The sooner the better.
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/node/8376