Obama has my Iraq policy

I’ve been saying since at least as far back as 2004 that it would far cheaper to invade a troublesome Muslim country for three weeks once every five years, topple its regime, and leave, than to occupy the country forever, as we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now it seems Barack Obama has adopted my idea.

Charlotte Hays writes at the Corner:

I think Obama made a huge boo boo in last night’s debate. When asked what he would do if we pulled out of Iraq and the place turned into an al-Qaeda haven, he said he would re-invade. Smooth as butter, didn’t miss a beat.

The correct answer is: If I thought that was going to happen, I wouldn’t pull out. Senator Clinton dodged the question by pretending it was a hypothetical. Hypothetical it is not. There are few things a Clinton won’t say to get elected, but I think even Senator Clinton balks at saying, Hey, we’d just re-invade that country. (Maybe I am giving her too much credit.)

Obama’s answer—he didn’t hesitate—was cavalier and shallow and callow. This is something the Republicans ought to be able to work with. What a mess Obama World would be.
02/27 10:49 AM

“Smooth as butter, didn’t miss a beat.” Wow, Obama must have been reading VFR a lot.

But notice that Hays thinks his answer is absurd. She doesn’t think it’s absurd that we keep our men in Iraq fighting and dying forever, not for victory, but just to stave off chaos. Forever.

And if McCain is elected, the Forever people will be validated and will remain in power. McCain himself has said he has no problem with the U.S. occupation lasting 100 years.

* * *

I’ve turned up this, from November 2005:

What we’re doing now in Iraq is worse than our worst-case scenario

Excuse me, folks, but I’m so tired of the argument that we must stay in Iraq to prevent Al Qaeda from taking over the country. Let’s say that we did leave and the worst happened and Al Qaeda took over the country. If that happened, they would be in the defensive and vulnerable position, not us, and we would invade and destroy them and their regime in two or three weeks, as we did with the Hussein regime. But in our current situation, in order to prevent Al Qaeda from taking over Iraq, we have to stay in Iraq forever, with our men being picked off, killed or crippled, one by one, forever. In the 2003 invasion of Iraq, we lost about 100 men. In trying to control Iraq, we’ve lost over 2,000. It would be far less costly to re-invade Iraq than occupy and protect it forever.

- end of initial entry -

Steven Warshawsky writes:

I could not agree with you more. What is so frustrating from a partisan Republican perspective is that John McCain and those who support our continuing occupation of Iraq are prepared to risk losing the presidency and everything that goes along with it over their “steadfast” commitment to “victory” in Iraq. Despite the overwhelming unpopularity of the war, and the resounding repudiation of the Republican Party in the 2006 midterm elections in large part because of the war, they refuse to offer any new thinking on Iraq. Assuming the American people call McCain’s bluff and decide to reject him over this issue, which I believe is a real possibility, this means that McCain and his supporters are prepared to give up Republican control over the federal bureaucracy including the DOJ and law enforcement agencies, control over the military and foreign policy establishment, the ability to use the bully pulpit and set the domestic agenda, the ability to appoint judges to the federal bench including the Supreme Court, and so many other important aspects of presidential power—all because of the war in Iraq. This is so deeply foolish, in my opinion, that it borders on insane.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 27, 2008 11:11 PM | Send