McCain Abandons ‘South Korea Model,’ Says ‘Nature Of Society In Iraq’ Will Force ‘Eventual Withdrawal’
McCain Abandons ‘South Korea Model,’ Says ‘Nature Of Society In Iraq’ Will Force ‘Eventual Withdrawal’
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has long supported a 50-year troop presence in Iraq — or the “South Korea model” — set forth by President Bush and Gen. Petraeus. “We have had troops in South Korea for 60 years and nobody minds,” he said in June. On the Charlie Rose Show in August, McCain said the Korea model was “exactly” the right idea.
Yesterday on Charlie Rose, McCain changed his position, arguing that the Korea-like presence is not an “analogy” he would use for Iraq. Recognizing the “nature of the society in Iraq,” McCain suggested that Iraqi opposition to a permanent U.S. occupation may make the South Korea model implausible:
ROSE: Do you think that this — Korea, South Korea is an analogy of where Iraq might be, not in terms of their economic success but in terms of an American presence over the next, say, 20, 25 years, that we will have a significant amount of troops there?
MCCAIN: I don’t think so.
ROSE: Even if there are no casualties?
MCCAIN: No. But I can see an American presence for a while. But eventually I think because of the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects of it that America eventually withdraws.
Watch it:
In the heat of his presidential run, McCain seems to be tacitly acknowledging that “the nature of society in Iraq” is unlikely to support a Korea-like presence, and the U.S. will therefore have to “eventually withdraw.” But in the meantime, McCain couldn’t care less what the Iraqis want.
UPDATE: Last night, McCain also alleged he was “the only one that spoke strongly against” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s strategy.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
19 Responses to “McCain Abandons ‘South Korea Model,’ Says ‘Nature Of Society In Iraq’ Will Force ‘Eventual Withdrawal’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
We win we stay. We lose we stay. makes me think we’re staying. For what, I don’t know–oil?
November 28th, 2007 at 2:48 pmI was for Enduring Occupation, until I was against it…..
November 28th, 2007 at 2:49 pmWe also didn’t illegally invade Korea, start three or four civil wars there, try to set up a neocon free-trade paradise there, and poison the country with depleted uranium. But details, details…
November 28th, 2007 at 2:49 pmHe’s such a maverick.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:56 pmApparently McCain and the corporations are on the outs.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:57 pmJohn “Weathervane” McCain speaks!
Bully for him.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:58 pmFlip flop, flippity floppity, flippin floppin. He was for it, before he was against it. He was against it, before he was for it. The wind blows north, so he heads north, south then south, east then east, west then west. We’ve had enough of these say anything to appeal to the majority people. We need leaders, not fools like McCain.
November 28th, 2007 at 3:01 pmYou don’t get it, Tender Chicken. These are the qualities that make him great! See, you can’t pin him down, unlike the VC. You never know what he’s going to say next that completely contradicts what he said a short time ago. He’s such a maverick.
November 28th, 2007 at 3:05 pmSo he’s declaring surrender?
November 28th, 2007 at 3:06 pmSo he’s declaring surrender?
Comment by republicans hate facts — November 28, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
Yes, but surrender is now defined as victory.
November 28th, 2007 at 3:07 pm“America eventually withdraws” eventually, as in when all the oil has been contracted to our oil companies, is that what you mean John
Or are those PERMANENT BASES and HUGH EMBASSY there not so permanent?
Or just maybe when the Iraqi government tells us to leave, that they really don’t want our “help” any longer?
Bush/Cheney
Hague Trials ‘09
Buck Fush
November 28th, 2007 at 3:14 pmThe Bush administration will go to the Security Council once again for a renewal of this formal mandate – even though it declares, in effect, that Iraq remains a pariah among nations, which rankles the Iraqis. The idea is to transition over to a bilateral Iraqi-U.S. agreement that supersedes the UN framework and codifies the terms of the occupation in Iraqi law.
Whether the Iraqis will go for it, or the more nationalistic elements, such as the Sadrists, manage to stall approval of the declaration and derail the U.S.-Iraqi “negotiations” over the exact content of a future Status of Forces Agreement is a pretty even bet. What you can count on, however, is that we won’t hear a peep out of the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives, which doesn’t at all mind being in recess while the president commits us to an open-ended occupation
November 28th, 2007 at 3:22 pmComment by republicans hate facts — November 28, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
John McCain is a bum.
November 28th, 2007 at 3:24 pmall aboard the “zero dignity express”!!
November 28th, 2007 at 3:28 pmWheres that straight talk express thingy?
November 28th, 2007 at 3:34 pmKilo of coke;
Maybe the difference regarding Iraq, as opposed to the Bay of Pigs, is there has been many statements by your boy, and other Bushies that they are interested in the wishes of the Iraqi people. Stuff like “we’ll leave when they ask us to”.
Did JFK make promises like that?
November 28th, 2007 at 5:24 pmThe Bay of Pigs was facilitating one group of Cubans to overthrow another group of Cubans, and was dependent on the invasion triggering a massive popular uprising. It was all about what the people wanted.
And Kennedy’s Vietnam policy was based on propping up a legitimate government. Both were scurrilous and unethical, but neither involved invasion by American troops, overthrow of governments, and occupation.
November 28th, 2007 at 5:44 pmMCCAIN: No. But I can see an American presence for a while.
YEAH WHILE THE REPUGNISCUMS MAKE A BIG BLOOD PROFIT FOR YEARS AND YEARS!!!!
November 28th, 2007 at 7:28 pmI’m thinkin he see’s all the attention Ron Paul is getting for wanting the US out of Iraq….so he’s jumpin on the band wagon…..as for RP and his position on Iraq?That’s the only good one he has,and I wouldn’t trust him.I think he’s lying just to get elected….a republican wouldn’t lie,just to get elected.nooooooo…..not a republican.they wouldn’t do anything like that.
November 28th, 2007 at 8:24 pm