The Choice on Iraq

[hifigator]

Yes, I think that is a very reasonable and even mandatory question to ask of each of them. As for the 100 years comment, I think that his point was that we would finish the task, regardless of how long it takes. Someone has also argued that just as we have troops in Korea some 50 years after that war, so too would we have a minor presence in Iraq years from now as well. Personally, I don't think that was the intention of the comment, but I can understand someone having that interpretataion.

Getting back to the real issue: ed has pointed out repeatedly that we are there. Whether you or I wanted us there in the first place is essentially irrelevant. That is why suggestions such as immediate withdrawl, like Ron Paul was preaching are just plain silly. Similary, the 6 months proposal that Obama initially gave was bogus. I do think that his 16 months timeframe is much more reasonable. I think the point in any kind of timetable should be to encourage the Iraqis to work harder to become sustainably independent. In that regard, I can see it being a positive. But to apply it in a hand-tying sort of way works against us. That is the position that Bush has, although like so many other areas, he hasn't explained it well enough.

[Boz]

I'm not sure how this is really all that confusing:

www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm

McCain is careful not to use the word "victory," but I think he outlines several things that would define "success."

There are no dates, because McCain doesn't believe in dates as it pertains to this issue. You can be against him for that, that's fair, but I don't think he is really being vague as to what his definition of success is. In other words, he is stating pretty well WHAT ARE WE DOING, but he's not committing to the WHEN WILL WE BE DONE part. If you don't agree, again OK, but I don't think this is obfuscation.

By contrast, here is Obama's page....well, his "new" page:
www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Note no measures for "victory" or "success" there, just steps to end the war. That's fair, since he has been against it from the beginning.

Though events may make their positions more convergent than before, I do think the issue is pretty well defined by both.


As for the Anbar issue, it might help to get some opinions from places other than Keith Olbermann once in a while. I'm not saying McCain didn't make a mistake, he did. And a bad one.

But depending on who you are hearing from, the surge may not have been responsible for the inception of the awakening, but it sure as hell was responsible for its success. According to many NOT on the left -- you could try Fred Kagan -- this whole awakening movement was floundering and ineffectual before it gained the backing of US forces, and very well probably would have died without the surge.

So, yes, McCain screwed up by saying the surge began the awakening. But it's not exactly the outrage that MSNBC makes it out to be.

We could also ask Obama how he is such an expert on Afghanistan, his issue du jour, after holding exactly zero oversight hearings on the subject. That thing that's his -- you know -- job. He did meet with Karzai for a cup of coffee though, so I guess that's enough.

Just some snark in return today.

[Bando]

Snark is fine, Boz, and I believe is required to post here.

I'm sure this issue will be resolved as soon as we address the pressing matters of Czechoslovakia and the Iraq-Pakistan border.

[Boz]

Yes, yes, I'm sure Mr. Obama can figure it all out....after he remembers in which Senate committees he is actually a member.

(Hint: it's not the Banking Committee)

;D

[hifigator]

Now Boz, that's unfair. Only the left is allowed to point out speaking errors of their opponents. If someone from the right does it that is hitting below the belt. We all "know" that Obama knows what committees that he is on, just as we know that McCain knows that there isn't an Iraq-Pakistan border. Don't we

[theexorcist]

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?

There are about 7,000 answers to the first question, including stuff like spreading democracy in the middle east and deterring Iran. Best not to fight on that.

My views only: the better question is a different two-parter - what is victory and how do we achieve it. I think that the answer should be that victory is an Iraq that's democratic and stable, and and able to defend its borders. Ideally, it should be a positive force in the Middle East.

How democratic? How stable? How do you define "positive force"? These get more qualitative than quantitative.

[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?

Since Obama is now saying that we need more troops in Afghanistan then I think it's important to ask him (and McCain) "what are we trying to do and how will we know when we're done"

[hifigator]

Jul 23, 2008 15:11:01 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

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?

Since Obama is now saying that we need more troops in Afghanistan then I think it's important to ask him (and McCain) "what are we trying to do and how will we know when we're done"

I think that is an excellent point ed. So much is made of the fact that going into Afghanistan was appropriate while going into Iraq was not. Regardless of personal thought WRT that, there was pretty much universal support for going into Afghanistan. We went in and overthrew the Taliban. We arrested or killed many militant leaders and helped instill a democratic government. We had the Taliban and al-Queda in relative shambles -- unable to carry out serious attacks much of anywhere.
The next part gets a bit more dicey. Some will say that we lost our focus and got distracted by Iraq. Others will say that we simply spread ourselves too thin. Still others will say that we really accomplished our goals in Afghanistan, in spite of not capturing or killing bin Laden himself. Personally, I am not sure.

In any case, at this point in time I do find it somewhat interesting that people still view them so differently. I would suggest that there is not much of a difference right now between Afghanistan and Iraq. Both are very unstabel democracies. Both have a tremendous amount of infighting amongst tribal leaders in places. Both have shown signs of strengthening militant terrorist groups. In fact the key differences at this very moment are that since the surge, we have helped the local government in Iraq remain more stable than we have in Afghanistan. Doesn't it seem somewhat odd that many of those who are so staunchly opposed to everything about Iraq at least give lip service to being in favor of a refocusing on Afghanistan? I understand that bin Laden is still out there somewhere and I guess that is the primary motivation behind such views. But given everything that we can tell about Osama's current military organization and strength, I still find it somewhat odd that so many people could have such seemingly contradictory positions.

[SirSaxa]

Jul 23, 2008 15:46:07 GMT -5 hifigator said:

In any case, at this point in time I do find it somewhat interesting that people still view them so differently.

... I still find it somewhat odd that so many people could have such seemingly contradictory positions.

You don't understand why people view Afghanistan and Iraq differently?
What is the contradictory position?
As you mentioned, we invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban had taken over the country and they, in conjunction with their Al Qaeda partners, were responsible for 9/11. You also mentioned the entire world was with us in that action. It was justified. There was a legitimate reason. Someone attacks you, you strike them back.

Where's the problem? We never finished the job of even tried to finish the job. Never got Bin Laden despite all the tough guy "Dead or Alive" talk. We never finished off the Taliban or Mullah Omar. And we never enacted the "Marshall Plan for Afghanistan" that "W" talked about to rebuild the country. That would have been smart. It would have been magnanimous and it would have shown the Muslim world that the US had their interests at heart too. And it would have cost a LOT less money and no American lives.

No, instead we "flip flopped"? "Dropped the ball"? "Cut and Ran"? whatever you want to call it, we never even tried to finish the job in Afghanistan.

Remember all that tough talk about those who harbor terrorists? "You're with us or against us?" etc? What happened? The Taliban and Al Qaeda moved to Pakistan where they remain to this day, rebuilding their strength, and attacking AFG once again. And we don't do anything about it.

What did Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld do instead? They attacked a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 and was no threat to us, despite the best efforts by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice to convince us otherwise on both counts. That was wrong then and it is wrong today. It was stupid then and it is stupid today. From a strategic perspective to strengthen US and Global security, it was about the worst thing the US could possibly have done. Then, after the invasion, they completely and thoroughly botched the post war efforts and the occupation.

So we lost the world's support, thousands of American lives, 10's of thousands (at least) of Iraqi lives, Hundreds of Billions of dollars, seriously hurt the US economy and American prestige and credibility...and you don't see the difference between the two actions? Somehow you find people's views of them "contradictory"?

When I grew up in this country, we were always taught that America stood for the right things, for principles, for trying to be a force for good. It was inconceivable that America would CHOOSE to START a war, or abandon the Geneva Conventions, or approve of and utilize torture, or spy on Americans without warrants, or humiliate prisoners or war. The current Administration takes pride in having done just that. And the Iraq war is issue #1.

[FewFAC]

I think it's cute that McCain keeps hammering away at the only issue that showcases how out of step he is with modern thought in representing his "country" instead of his "political ambitions."

I don't exactly put a lot of faith in polls, but these numbers caught my eye:

Obama-McCain, country
64-4, France
62-10, Germany
60-15, UK

If foreign policy remains an issue for the next president, given the state of our overextended military, unilateral action is a nonstarter, and sharing similar policy goals will go a long way toward building coalitions of willing partners on the world stage.

[Bando]

Jul 23, 2008 15:03:04 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Now Boz, that's unfair. Only the left is allowed to point out speaking errors of their opponents. If someone from the right does it that is hitting below the belt. We all "know" that Obama knows what committees that he is on, just as we know that McCain knows that there isn't an Iraq-Pakistan border. Don't we

Ok, you guys have controlled everything for the past decade. Could we quit with the "things are unfair" whining?

[Buckets]

Jul 23, 2008 18:21:14 GMT -5 FewFAC said:

I think it's cute that McCain keeps hammering away at the only issue that showcases how out of step he is with modern thought in representing his "country" instead of his "political ambitions."

I don't exactly put a lot of faith in polls, but these numbers caught my eye:

Obama-McCain, country
64-4, France
62-10, Germany
60-15, UK

If foreign policy remains an issue for the next president, given the state of our overextended military, unilateral action is a nonstarter, and sharing similar policy goals will go a long way toward building coalitions of willing partners on the world stage.

But why would we want major European powers to, you know, like our President? Have you forgotten Freedom Fries already?! FREEDOM FRIES!

[Boz]

1. I think it's important that the European leaders like, respect and can/want to work with McCain, which they all do.

2. But no, I do not think it's important what European polls say on the matter of an American presidential election. This is a "cool factor" poll and we all know it. To which I say, "who gives a crap?"


For the record, I don't whine about unfairness, I just mock the Obama swoonery and point out the other side whenever the occasion presents itself.

Changy McOptimism gets plenty of good press. He doesn't need any from me.

[EasyEd]

I'm still waiting for Obama to give us his timetable for removal of troops from Afghanistan. Surely this is as important as removal from Iraq. Aren't American troops dying there too? And he's in favor of sending even more troops there to fight a "civil war"? And, what about timetables on troop withdrawals from Korea, Japan, Germany, Kosovo and the others?

Of course this post is mostly tongue-in-cheek and there are very important differences among all of these but thought I'd throw them out there just for the Hell of it.

[Bando]

Jul 24, 2008 8:49:21 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

I'm still waiting for Obama to give us his timetable for removal of troops from Afghanistan. Surely this is as important as removal from Iraq. Aren't American troops dying there too? And he's in favor of sending even more troops there to fight a "civil war"? And, what about timetables on troop withdrawals from Korea, Japan, Germany, Kosovo and the others?

Of course this post is mostly tongue-in-cheek and there are very important differences among all of these but thought I'd throw them out there just for the Hell of it.

Shorter ed: A childhood accident robbed me of the ability to see nuance.

[Boz]

Nuance is overrated. My friends below will agree:




(don't worry; it's family friendly; plus.....Spanish subtitles, since I hear it's important for us to learn that language ;D)


Well, I just thought we could all use a good chuckle is all.

[FewFAC]

Jul 24, 2008 8:07:46 GMT -5 Buckets said:

Jul 23, 2008 18:21:14 GMT -5 FewFAC said:

I think it's cute that McCain keeps hammering away at the only issue that showcases how out of step he is with modern thought in representing his "country" instead of his "political ambitions."

I don't exactly put a lot of faith in polls, but these numbers caught my eye:

Obama-McCain, country
64-4, France
62-10, Germany
60-15, UK

If foreign policy remains an issue for the next president, given the state of our overextended military, unilateral action is a nonstarter, and sharing similar policy goals will go a long way toward building coalitions of willing partners on the world stage.

But why would we want major European powers to, you know, like our President? Have you forgotten Freedom Fries already?! FREEDOM FRIES!

Sorry, I was busy enjoying my Freedom Toast.

[FewFAC]

I saw a poll today that put the difference at 6 points domestically, and to be honest, I'd bet that the machinery we saw at work in the Obama campaign versus HC for the Democratic nomination is probably far more efficient than McCain's campaign at targeting electoral college votes, so most of the campaign is a nonstarter for me. Right now, McCain's campaign seems strongly geared toward turning out core constituencies responsible for GHWB's victories, even though that is not what seems to resonate with the public in general.

So me, I'm waiting for McCain to recognize the best interests of his country and recuse himself from placing his personal ambitions ahead of the needs (and will, though I understand that doesn't necessarily count anymore in democracies) of his country.

[Bando]

Jul 24, 2008 22:23:16 GMT -5 FewFAC said:

Jul 24, 2008 8:07:46 GMT -5 Buckets said:

But why would we want major European powers to, you know, like our President? Have you forgotten Freedom Fries already?! FREEDOM FRIES!

Sorry, I was busy enjoying my Freedom Toast.

Back when "Freedom" was all the rage, I went to a diner near Bethany, DE and saw "Texas Toast and sausage" on the menu. I asked the waitress if that was french toast, and she replied "yes, but we don't care for the French around here." My protests that Texas toast is already a form of garlic bread and can't be co-opted for another food was met with a blank stare.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Dude you're like the Ignatius Reilly of our times.