The Choice on Iraq

[jerseyhoya34]

Al-Maliki's timing (and the WH's timing) could not have been any more damaging for McCain. On the eve of an Obama trip to the region, the WH has leaked a story in which Al-Maliki's support for the Obama Iraq plan could not have been clearer:

‘U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

This dramatic admission now creates a choice - support the will of the Iraqi government or "listen to the U.S. Commanders." If you choose the latter, as McCain has done to this point, you are only pointing out that Iraq is not truly sovereign and that the US troops still need to be there for security reason (which may be the case anyway). McCain has also boxed himself in a bit such that his best hope might be for al-Maliki to retract his comments. McCain can't easily back al-Maliki's comments or else he'd be the flip-flopper. It becomes tougher to justify being there when the government we're there to support no longer wants us around.

The brilliance of Obama's campaign has been that it is willing to fight on foreign policy, even against a more-experienced Senator. This al-Maliki story will not go away. McCain will have to answer questions about it all week while Obama is overseas. Attention to Obama's trip is only heightened, and the visit to Iraq will only get more attention/press.

[EasyEd]

Jul 19, 2008 15:52:23 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

Al-Maliki's timing (and the WH's timing) could not have been any more damaging for McCain. On the eve of an Obama trip to the region, the WH has leaked a story in which Al-Maliki's support for the Obama Iraq plan could not have been clearer:

‘U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

This dramatic admission now creates a choice - support the will of the Iraqi government or "listen to the U.S. Commanders." If you choose the latter, as McCain has done to this point, you are only pointing out that Iraq is not truly sovereign and that the US troops still need to be there for security reason (which may be the case anyway). McCain has also boxed himself in a bit such that his best hope might be for al-Maliki to retract his comments. McCain can't easily back al-Maliki's comments or else he'd be the flip-flopper. It becomes tougher to justify being there when the government we're there to support no longer wants us around.

The brilliance of Obama's campaign has been that it is willing to fight on foreign policy, even against a more-experienced Senator. This al-Maliki story will not go away. McCain will have to answer questions about it all week while Obama is overseas. Attention to Obama's trip is only heightened, and the visit to Iraq will only get more attention/press.

Why did you leave out any observation that this implies we are winning the war in Iraq despite Obama's positions in the past that it was unwinnable? This would be a surprising outcome that Bush's policy decisions and the actions of the troops and negotiators are now making it possible for the U.S. to withdraw many or all of its forces, thereby electing a Democratic President.

[jerseyhoya34]

Well, I think one reason might be that it is unclear what "winning" means. In 2003, "winning" meant the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East, being greeted as liberators, etc. None of those things has happened. In 2008, having a "secure" Iraq is considered victory. And, if we cannot defeat the Iraqis using a traditional, security-oriented counterforce strategy, we might as well call ourselves French. It is a benchmark that is so dumbed down that it is almost meaningless.

The war as defined in 2003, however, was unwinnable, and Obama was absolutely right and is still right today because we have not achieved those objectives.

These were the objectives that President Bush set forth:

* In the short term:
o An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy. (muddled at best)
* In the medium term:
o An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential. (Iraq is not in the lead, so this has not been achieved, and we're behind the eight ball at the seventh word in the stated objective. Which other countries in the region have been inspired? Do the Iraqis provide for their own security?)
* In the longer term:
o An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency. (Terrorists still there, so not achieved in full.)
o An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country. (Unclear)
o An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region. (Unclear)
-------------------------
The surge has undoubtedly worked from a counterforce point of view, but it requires Cold War/Vietnam-type thinking to stop there, and that's where the Republican argument seems to stop. It is possible now to withdraw because we've at least achieved a face-saving position. To think we can withdraw based on an idea that we've achieved our objectives, however, takes some revisionism.

[EasyEd]

Update www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/19/almaliki.obama/

[EasyEd]

I continue to be amazed that Americans seem to be so invested in defeat in Iraq they can't accept that we might actually be winning. Note, I said winning not that we have won. It's a longer-term project to win and it will take some years before that becomes clear and the question to be asked at that time will be "is the world better off than before the Iraq war?" And, a second question: was it worth the cost, however you define cost?

Obama was opposed to the Iraq war but he was also against the surge and said the surge would not work. At least on the latter point he was wrong.

Whether or not we should have invaded Iraq, we are there. Now, what's the best strategy for obtaining the best output possible, whether we see all of the original intents met or not? I get the sense that too many Americans despise Bush so much that they secretly would like us not to succeed in Iraq because any success would reflect favorably on Bush.

Obama's "strategy" seems to be "let's pull out in 16 months" rather than "how do we end up with the best possible outcome for Iraq". If there's more to his strategy than the 16 months, I'd like to hear it.

[Bando]

Ed, as I've said before, winning the surge is not the same thing as winning the war. Even if the surge was responsible for the downtick in violence (and that's not at all clear, as the completion of ethnic cleansing is also a large factor), it still has not accomplished any of the political goals that were its entire reason for happening. Regardless of the violence levels, in this front the surge was an unmitigated failure.

"How do we end up with the best possible outcome for Iraq?" is not the same question as "What is in the national security interest of United States?" Warfighting and national security are not the same things, and I'm amazed that conservatives still think they are. The war in Iraq has done nothing to enhance the national security of the US, and in fact it has only weakened it, by attrition of our military, distracting from the real fight in Afghanistan, turning foreign opinion against us, and acting as recruiter's dream for radical Islam.

[EasyEd]

Bando, the surge is working. The democratiically-elected government of Iraq is now handling a large amount of the security of the country and that is increasing every day. This increased security has allowed the political process to make progress. About 75% of the "benchmarks" set up by Congress are now "satisfactory". Political progress is being made even if it's not as fast as you would like. Formerly warring factions have been joining to help bring political stability to Iraq. To me this represents "winning" the war - and, I repeat, I did not say we have won as we (with the Iraqis) must continue "winning" in the future to the point where our forces can leave.

You seem still to be fighting the issue of whether we should have waged war in Iraq. To concentrate on whether the war has enhanced the security of the U.S., or on the attrition of the military, or on distracting from Afghanistan, or turning foreign opinion against us, etc. is only re-fighting the subject of whether we should have gone there in the first place. We are in Iraq whether you like it or not. And we are there even if you don't agree with the reasons we went there. And we are there even if we never accomplish what you believe to be the rationale for our being there. We are there. What do we do now? That's the question.

[jerseyhoya34]

It should be noted that the sovereign Iraqi government has not released any clarification of Al-Maliki's statement, which the original source is standing behind. It was CENTCOM that released a statement after the White House placed a call to the Iraqi government. It is still unclear how "Obama" or any part of Al-Maliki's originial statement was translated "incorrectly." The statement from CENTCOM is a drive-by effort at best.

thepage.time.com/2008/07/20/maliki-clarifies-seemingly-pro-obama-remarks/

[EasyEd]

Two opposing views:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/20/AR2008072001666.html

newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/fareed_zakaria/

[EasyEd]

This is outrageous.

blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07/mccain-oped-not.html

[strummer8526]

What's so outrageous about a moderating party (a member of the media) trying to get one candidate to directly reply to the other candidate. What's more valuable to a reader: McCain just throwing his stump speech into an oped or McCain going point-for-point with his opposition? I'll take the point-for-point back and forth.

Obviously, if he doesn't believe in a timetable, then requiring a timetable is ridiculous. But there should at least be the expectation that he acknowledge and address Obama's points. I would be saying the same thing if this were done the other way around, too. This is non-partisan. It's just my preference that a "response" actually "respond" and not just turn into a rhetorical Editeding match.

Another interesting piece:

letustalk.wordpress.com/2008/07/19/dr-larry-hunter-lifelong-conservative-republican-economist-supports-senator-obama/

[Boz]

Jul 21, 2008 14:13:15 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

This is outrageous.

blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07/mccain-oped-not.html

So the latest Rasmussen media survey should come as no surprise to the NYT:
tinyurl.com/5uqem9

EDIT: As for this particular op-ed, it really doesn't matter, and the NYT should know that. Another paper (most likely the NY Post) is going to pick it up, everyone will still read it, and the Times will either look really petty and biased (if you think more like me and ed), or an objective arbitrator (if you lean more towards strummers POV).

But either way, I think they will look foolish.

[hifigator]

Jul 21, 2008 15:22:19 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

What's so outrageous about a moderating party (a member of the media) trying to get one candidate to directly reply to the other candidate. What's more valuable to a reader: McCain just throwing his stump speech into an oped or McCain going point-for-point with his opposition? I'll take the point-for-point back and forth.

Obviously, if he doesn't believe in a timetable, then requiring a timetable is ridiculous. But there should at least be the expectation that he acknowledge and address Obama's points. I would be saying the same thing if this were done the other way around, too. This is non-partisan. It's just my preference that a "response" actually "respond" and not just turn into a rhetorical Editeding match.

Another interesting piece:

letustalk.wordpress.com/2008/07/19/dr-larry-hunter-lifelong-conservative-republican-economist-supports-senator-obama/

With regards to answering a particular question, then I think you have a point. But what makes some things so difficult to accept in situations like this is that there isn't enough balance. There is a mysterious link between the more left candidate and the pugnaciousness with which the "unbiased" moderator tends to refocus the question. I am certainly not going to even suggest that a candidate from either side hasn't been guilty of skirting the issue to readdress the tone of the debate back to his strengths. That is fair enough to say. Accordingly, the mod's job is to keep the discussion on topic and to maybe clarify a particular or ambiguous point of view. What irks many of us on the right is that far too often, said moderator seems far more interested in doing so with the benefit of the candidate to the left in mind.

Historically, and even still now for that matter -- just not to the same degree -- the left has owned the mainstream media. You can/could name them all -- ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYT, Washington Post, LATimes, Miami Herald, Chicago Trib., etc... By and large, the Anchors and Editors view life from the left.

I honestly don't think that FOX is as slanted to the right as some claim, but in fairness, it is reasonable to presume that at least some of that is because I am inherently biased to one side. Similarly, I contend that is why some have tried to deny the media bias to the left.

That is to say that those who denied a left bias do so for one of two reasons:

1. They have either become desensitized to it because of the daily repetition, therefore when FOX comes out it is such a drastic change from what they were used to that the bias looked greater

or

2. Since they leaned to the left, they honestly thought they were seeing an objective view


I don't want to get too far off subject on this. My point on Fox, was that they have gone out of their way to not only hire, but feature prominently some correspondants, analysts and hosts from the left. Geraldo, Greta, Colmes and Estrich all come to mind. But in fairness, those shows tend to be commentaries and opinion is supposed to be part of the discussion.

That is why I have always been more irritated with the alphabet networks. When I am watching the evening news, I should get news, not editorials. When one side controls all of those supposedly unbiased, objective views, then it is quite apparent.

From the Brokaws, Jennings, Rathers, Cronkites, Walters etc... the left has had a free and unobstructed soapbox for a long time.


I close with this:

I honestly haven't seen that pointedness in Brit Hume. I have tried to open my mind and see whether that is just because I don't "want" to see it, or whether it simply isn't there. I would like to believe the latter.

Tying this back to the original point: I think we would all like to see the really tough questions put to both Obama and McCain. My satisfaction with McCain is well documented, so this should come as no surprise. However, I don't expect to see very many of these bulldog like attacks put on McCain from our "unbiased" mediators as we head into debate season. Hopefully I will be proven wrong ...


On Edit: obviously that is supposed to say my dissatisfaction with McCain is well documented ...

[EasyEd]

This is from the NY Times response to McCain:

"It would be terrific to have an article from Sen. McCain that mirrors Sen. Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms how Sen. McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troop levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate."

If anyone cannot see as outrageous calling for McCain to describe, in concrete terms, items he has repeatedly said he does not support (e.g. troop levels, timetables) then I can't help them.

[hifigator]

Jul 21, 2008 18:17:25 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

This is from the NY Times response to McCain:

"It would be terrific to have an article from Sen. McCain that mirrors Sen. Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms how Sen. McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troop levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate."

If anyone cannot see as outrageous calling for McCain to describe, in concrete terms, items he has repeatedly said he does not support (e.g. troop levels, timetables) then I can't help them.

Don't confuse emotional idealists with "irrelevant" facts. Facts are only, and I repeat "only" relevant, when supporting the preferential side of the argument.

Note to all: I argued, albeit with a degree of acquiescence, that -- while appropriate -- such additional and/or clarifying questioning should be applied equally to all candidates, ed's point, that the essential question is flawed, is equally sound.

If "timetable" and "withdrawal" are not specific enough, then I'm not exactly sure how a "detailed" strategy would be definitive enough, without ... for lack of a better word ... a "timetable" or "withdrawal."

Maybe we need a better word -- one that confers a "timetable" without any reference to the sun. Then ...

For you astro-nuts, I know there are other points of reference, but by the time we get to that point ... oh, nevermind ...

[The Stig]

The problem with Iraq is that it suffers from the "No Such Country" syndrome. There's no sense of Iraqi nationhood - no sense of a unified interests between different groups. Politics in Iraq is all about my group (be it ethnic, religious, or political) against your group, with no sense of a common good to benefit everybody.

The history of post-WWII Iraq is basically the story of all the diverse groups coming together to depose a leader and install a new leader, then going back to sqabbling amongst each other. Eventually they all manage to unite again to depose the leader they installed a few years before, and the cycle repeats itself.

Take a look at Iraqi history before Saddam. After WWII, Iraq had a King. Almost all the various groups in Iraq (such as the Kurds, Arab nationalists, Iraqi nationalists, the military, the socialists, the Communists, the religious groups) united in the early 50's to depose the King (who was promptly shot). The socialists took over under Qassem. Eventually everybody who had supported their overthrow of the king turned against him, and the Baathists and the military overthrew him (and promptly shot him). The Baathists took over, but the military (who had just worked with the Baathists to overthrow Qassem) promptly turned on them and took power for themselves. Unfortunately, they failed to shoot the Baathists. Aref (the military leader) then kept up the strong tradition of Iraqi leaders not enjoying a long retirement by dying in a helicopter crash. His younger brother took over, but was soon overthrown by the Baathists under al-Bakr and his sidekick Saddam. Saddam then pushed his mentor al-Bakr aside and took power for himself. Surprisingly, Saddam let both Aref the younger and al-Bakr live. You know you've had a brutal history when Saddam Hussein is compassionate by comparison.

Now that history may seem irrelevant, but it's actually repeating itself today. When we first overthrew Saddam (we should have shot him instead of hanging him), Iraqis did their usual thing of uniting behind whoever was overthrowing their leader. They then continued their tradition of turning on the power they'd just supported (us). But we weren't the only foreigners in the country by then - Al Qaeda and other foreign terrorists had followed us into Iraq. Iraqis initially supported them as a way to get rid of the US, but Al Qaeda and their followers went too far with their violence and the Iraqis promptly turned on them (what a surprise!).

That's when the Surge came. I thought it was an awful idea at the time, but I'm happy to say I was dead wrong about it. The increased troop numbers helped, but what really made the difference was a change in tactics, which saw the American commanders take full advantage of the Iraqis turning against the foreign terrorists. Instead of working against the Iraqis like we had been before, we were working with them against the foreign terrorists. That, along with some non-violent ethnic cleansing by the US to separate the Sunnis and Shias, was responsible for most of the decrease in violence.

Now the foreign terrorist threat in Iraq is almost beaten, and from that little history lesson we should know what comes next. Maliki's statement is a clear sign of the upcoming turn - Iraqis are basically saying "thanks for that, now go away." Our success against the foreign terrorists shouldn't be seen as a sign that we should stay in Iraq - on the contrary, it means we should get out now, before the Iraqis turn on us again and make it impossible for us to leave with any dignity.

Iraq will turn against itself no matter what we do - that was inevitable from the moment its borders were arbitrarily drawn so many years ago. I say it's better to watch that from afar instead of being the ones they turn against.

Besides, the Surge had the downside of exhausting our military, which was already badly stretched. We can't afford to push the military to its breaking point.

[strummer8526]

OK Hifi and Ed--Do you think it's reasonable to expect McCain to tell us what "winning" even is? After his 100 year comment (which I realize was an off-the-cuff sort of thing), I do think it's reasonable for the American people to want an answer to the basic questions: WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO DO AND HOW WILL WE KNOW WHEN WE'RE DONE?

[Bando]

I love that McCain apparently doesn't understand linear time now, in that the Anbar awakening happened months before the surge was announced.

[EasyEd]

Jul 22, 2008 19:17:55 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

OK Hifi and Ed--Do you think it's reasonable to expect McCain to tell us what "winning" even is? After his 100 year comment (which I realize was an off-the-cuff sort of thing), I do think it's reasonable for the American people to want an answer to the basic questions: WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO DO AND HOW WILL WE KNOW WHEN WE'RE DONE?

Yes, I think it is reasonable to ask this question of both McCain and Obama.

[EasyEd]

Two interesting articles on the subject. First, today's lead Washington Post editorial:

"THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy."
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/22/AR2008072202462.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

The second by Lanny Davis in the Washington Times:

"Surely we owe the al-Maliki government and the Shi'ite and Sunni soldiers who put their lives on the line against Shi'ite and Sunni extremists and terrorists at our behest some continuing presence and support and patience as they strive to find peace, political reconciliation - and maybe even the beginnings of a stable democracy.

The only question is, for how long?

Forever? No. 100 years? No.

But for how long? I don't know."

www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jul/21/confessions-of-an-anti-iraq-war-democrat/