Odierno Rejects McCain’s ‘100 Years’: No ‘Need’ For Permanent Military Presence In Iraq
Odierno Rejects McCain’s ‘100 Years’: No ‘Need’ For Permanent Military Presence In Iraq
In today’s confirmation hearing, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) asked Gen. Raymond Odierno what the “end point” of U.S. military involvement in Iraq would be. “In military terms, what do you see as the end point in our strategic direction here with respect to our involvement in Iraq?” Webb asked.
Odierno responded that the “end point” would be when Iraq has a “self-reliant government,” a “professionalized security” force, and major political reconciliation. Webb asked what the U.S. presence should be if those conditions are met:
WEBB: Well, what — what is the end point of the United States’ involvement in Iraq? Let’s say that Iraq meets the conditions you just talked about. Should there be a United States military presence in Iraq?
ODIERNO: I think that’s a discussion we would have along several levels. Not only from the MNF-I command or the Central Command level and obviously our civilian leadership to decide what their policy would be in the future toward Iraq.
WEBB: Do you believe that if those conditions are met, there would be a need for the United States military in Iraq?
ODIERNO: I do not. I believe what we would want, though, is to maintain obviously military contacts as we do with many countries over the world.
Watch it:
Odierno’s statement pours cold water on Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) infamous claim that the U.S. should “maintain a presence” in Iraq, for as much as 100 or 10,000 years. “Fine with me,” McCain says, “as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.”
But as Odierno said today, in the case that those conditions are met (a “big if,” as Max Bergmann notes), the U.S. military does not “need” to keep troops in the country. “That’s a very important clarification,” Webb concluded.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
19 Responses to “Odierno Rejects McCain’s ‘100 Years’: No ‘Need’ For Permanent Military Presence In Iraq”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
But…but…but… we have to stay in Iraq! Otherwise they might starting thinking all that lovely oil is theirs!!
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:36 pmWe don’t need a long term presence in Iraq. In fact, we don’t need a presence their now. BRING THEM HOME NOW
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:45 pmU.S. should “maintain a presence” in Iraq, for as much as 100 or 10,000 years. “Fine with me,” McCain says, “as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.”
- - By the way, the ONLY way that happens is if we get the water treatment plants fully functioning. Then drop tons of Paxil into the daily water supply to the Iraqis.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:45 pmI think John is so old that when he thinks of a military presence he thinks in terms of the military presence he encountered growing up. I bet the military bases where John spent his formative years were all staffed by military people and civilians from the country they were in, not by soilders and civilian contractors while excluding the locals from working there.
I’m sure that being the son of an active duty Admiral helped develop John’s belief in the inerrancy of the military.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:51 pmThe 104 Acre U.S. Embassy in Baghadad = Occupation Forever
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:54 pmI’ve never been a fan of Odierno, but it looks like he may at least have been trying to answer a question honestly.
That’s more than I can say for Bush, Cheney, Graham or McCan’t.
Propaganda IS Peace!
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:54 pmIs there a need for US presence in Iraq?
“Well, that depends on how much money you are attempting to make” said the general. “If you are well connected and support the oil industry then you know that Mission Accomplished was meant to occupy Iraq forever. In that sense it is a resounding success.”
“If you are paying the price of the war in any respect say, taxes, blood, or the heavy toll it is taking on our reputation worldwide then maybe not so much” said the general.
The Cabinet officials and congressmen at the meeting rose to give the general a round of applause. “Give that man another medal” they all yelled out in unison.
Foolish stupid Americans.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:56 pmGeneral Odierno is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He wishes to assure Webb that the U.S. has no desire to stay permanently in Iraq but then says that the U.S. wishes “… to maintain obvious military contacts as we do with many countries around the world.” As Chalmers Johnson notes in his seminal work the Sorrows of Empire, the United States has about 725 military bases stretched around the world. If the U.S. supposedly has no desire to stay in Iraq for any great length of time, then there should be no need to add to the empire that the United States already has throughout the globe. Keeping “military contacts”, as he puts it, is never going to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:56 pmOh Oh! Looks like someone isn’t going to get that 4th star!
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:58 pmKeeping “military contacts”, as he puts it, is never going to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.
Well said, Erroll.
Perhaps he ‘misspoke’ & meant ‘military contracts’?
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:59 pmIf Iraq has a perfect puppet government that does everything the US wants (most importantly concerning OIL). There’s not much chance of that happening.
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:06 pmOMG, when pressed into service Odierno only had the partial lobotomy, not the Full Monty? By tomorrow (or earlier) this will be “clarified” by McCain’s BushCo 3rd Term Team (see RoveWatch), on Odierno’s behalf…
Hells bells, people, get it right, Odierno must have “mis-spoke!”
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:07 pmImagine an Iraqi army occupying America for a hundred years…
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:09 pmImperialism is not pretty and it is not moral.
Did anyone ask him for comment on there being more suicides than combat deaths in the services? Or was it with people deployed to Iraq?
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:13 pmEven the most neo-conservatives know that it is time to leave Iraq. I think Bush & Cheney have done enough damage and tarnished our reputation worldwide. They will forever be remembered as liars and criminals. With the thousands of lives that have been lost, their “war on terror” has been proved that greed and profiteering were part of their goals.
Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno has to deal with damage control all the time; it’s evident that he feels we should pull out soon also. The healing needs to start soon. Major political reconciliation is not going to happen if we keep interfering. There are too many Iraq’s that hate us with good reason. With the losses of whole families that can never be replaced. I think Lt. Gen. Odierno sees the writing on the wall, it’s time to go. Someone has to say it out loud.
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:53 pmWell actually if they are true neocons (such as PNACcios) then the goal is more permanent presence in the middle-east. Don’t expect them to leave - ever. Or atleast not until there is no more oil.
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:35 pmZimzone at #10
Perhaps this is one of the very few times that the truth managed to slip out. But alas, it seems to mean nothing, as no one in that hearing seems to have called him on what he said.
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:42 pmGreg Palast explains today that the White House is reducing Iraq’s oil output to raise the price of oil. Exxon’s reserves have risen $2 TRILLION in the past six years!
http://www.ourfuture.org/ blog-entry/ obamas-secret-war-profiteering-tax
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:31 pmHow do you spell “Iraq”? Try: “H-A-L-I-B-U-R-T-O-N”.
Why is that no one, in the press, has addressed the matter of a good-sized number of America’s Generals have resigned their position to work with this company? Could it be that they were offered higher pay scales by working for Cheney’s people? Is it possible that the reason why we are so involved in the middle east is for Haliburton to be an earmarked road to fabulous riches for a few old Generals while the “few good men” that we send over there are to protect their positions as multipleheads of a monstrous international company?
We need to hold the press accountable for this story!
May 24th, 2008 at 1:10 pm