Perhaps McCain and Obama are both right
Perhaps the "surge" was needed to establish security in Iraq (although bribery more than troops appears to have been the vital tactic) but going forward we cannot "win" unless we leave.
Matthew Duss, from the Guardian:
Despite attempts by the Bush administration and other war supporters to downplay the numerous statements from various Iraqi government officials over the last several weeks, there can no longer be any doubt that a strong political consensus exists among Iraqis in favour of a US commitment to withdraw its forces from their country. President Bush and John McCain have consistently tried to ignore this reality, each insisting that a US withdrawal would be contingent upon "conditions on the ground", and not on "artificial timetables". But there's nothing artificial about Iraqis' revulsion at the continuing presence of foreign troops in their homeland, and the political expression of this revulsion represents an important condition on the ground.
As long as we stay in great numbers, the goal of an independent Iraq cannot be achieved. More from Duss:
Maliki also seems to realise that he will only be able to establish his government - and himself as a leader - when he is able to stand on his own two feet. Maliki understands, as George Bush apparently does not, that no government which derives its authority from a foreign military occupation, or even appears to, will ever be seen as legitimate in the eyes of its own people.
It is time to take off the training wheels and withdraw substantially all of the US combat brigades from Iraq. Maliki needs to ride the bike by himself. And if John McCain embraces that approach, maybe we can agree to pretend that the surge in troops actually helped get us here.
--
. . . and it looks as though they’ll punish the monkey and let the organ grinder go . . .
- Bill White's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Conservative
Liberal
Moderate/Mixed/Non-Partisan
Non-Political/Reference
Related Sites -
Polisci Applied (Aaron)
Intrepid Liberal Journal (Intrepid Liberal)
Obsidian Wings (Bird Dog)
Open Hand/Open Eye (locutas)
Red State (Bird Dog)
Swords Crossed (brendanm98)
Wagster Speaks (Wagster)
WatchingAmerica (BlaiseP)
The Social Pathologist (TSP)
Foreign Affairs -
Abu Aardvark
'Aqoul
American Footprints
Council on Foreign Relations
CSIS
Democracy Arsenal
Intel Dump
The Fourth Rail
The Head Heeb
War and Piece
Politics -
Ace of Spades HQ
Andrew Sullivan
Balloon Juice
Belgravia Dispatch
Captain's Quarters
Crooked Timber
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical
Daily Kos
Democracy Arsenal
Eschaton
Firedoglake
Glenn Greenwald
Global Guerrillas
Hugh Hewitt
Instapundit
Jawa Report
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Liberals Against Terror
Matt Yglesias
Michael J. Totten
Michelle Malkin
Moon of Alabama
New America
OxBlog
Patterico
Political Animal
Political Wire
Publius Pundit
QandO
Reality Based Community
Talking Points Memo
The Agitator
The Belmont Club
The Corner
Truman Project
Winds of Change.net
War -
Counterterrorism Blog
Iraq the Model
Jihad Watch
Small Wars Journal Blog
Economics and Business -
Angry Bear
Brad DeLong
Daniel Drezner
Mahalanobis
Marginal Revolution
Roubini Global Economics
The Big Picture
Science and Tech -
Bad Astronomy
New Scientist
Real Climate
Science Blogs
Scientific American
The Panda's Thumb
Legal -
Balkinization
Conglomerate
Ideoblog
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Overlawyered
ProfessorBainbridge
ScotusBlog
Talk Left
The Becker-Posner Blog
Volokh Conspiracy
Sports -
Baseball Crank
Baseball Musings
Baseball Reference.com
ESPN.com
NFL.com
Only Baseball Matters
The Sports Economist
Books, Film and Music -
Amazon.com
Internet Movie Database
All Music Guide
News and Aggregators -
Asia Times
Boingboing
CNN
Digg
English Russia
Fark
Los Angeles Times
Memeorandum
MSNBC
Politico
Poynteronline
Slashdot
The New York Times
The Washington Post
References -
Although I haven't fact-checked it yet, if I heard today's news correctly (as I half-listened to it), today Obama made the perfectly legitimate point that as president, he would have to consider a request for resources from a general responsible for the Iraq war in the context of his (the president's) broader set of responsibilities (broader security responsibilities, and beyond that, broader responsibilities of all types, including, for example, the economy and potential alternative spending domestically), and someone speaking on behalf of the McCain campaign responded by harshly criticizing Obama for not taking the position that whatever that general says he needs, he should get.
My reaction, assuming this checks out to be an accurate and complete account, and the McCain campaign does not indicate differently: If McCain and his team don't stop going with campaign tactics and positions seeking to take advantage of ignorance, stupidity, and irrationality of voters (like his rhetoric on gasoline prices and related positions), they will succeed in making me feel too embarrassed to vote for him in November, and I'll stay home.
- Login or register to post comments
)Even avoiding the topics on which nobody will agree (iraq, abortion, guns, judges, energy, and health care), let's take a look at some of his issues:
Immigration: the only notable thing here is that he promises to eliminate the backlog. That's great, except the website has no information about how he supposes he'll do that (expanding by 20x the USCIS workforce? raising fees? changing the petition evaluation process?).
Ethics and transparency: this section is all rhetoric, all filler, 13 paragraphs of "lobbyists bad, transparency good." Zero proposals or specifics.
John McCain 2008: Bad things are bad. Also, he'll give you a pony.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Your argument is that one shouldn't vote for McCain because his website does not offer adequate specifics on his positions/policies? If so, wonder if you hold all candidates to that standard and if you apply it fairly.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Can you find specifics from McCain anywhere on these positions? In that sense, yes, I think that's a fair standard, unless you're ready to vote for me because I promise to make you rich and happy.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Let's see if I understand your argument.
Premise #1: McCain has been insufficiently specific about his positions/policies on immigration and on ethics/transparency.
Premise #2: The above is sufficient reason not to vote for a candidate.
Conclusion: One should not vote for McCain.
Correct representation of your argument now?
If so, even if your premise #1 is valid, I disagree with your premise #2 and therefore your conclusion. Why is insufficient specificity those two issues a deal-breaker, given all the other issues, as well as general ideology and the matter of the candidates themselves (experience/qualifications, strengths/weaknesses)?
Second, as for the validity of premise #1, I'll pass on doing that research, but maybe someone else will seek that info and present his/her findings here.
Third, if you plan to vote for Obama or anyone else other than McCain, you should present (or present a link to) that candidate's specifics on those issues to established that that candidate passes this (seemingly rather arbitrary) test.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I picked those two as representative of his campaign. I am positing that he is avoiding specificity on most issues.
You asked for a contrast, so let's look at Obama. His campaign provides additional documentation with each issue expanding on their position. For example, on ethics/transparency:
intro: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/
plan: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/TakingBackOurGovernmentBackFinalFactSheet...
speech: http://www.barackobama.com/2007/06/22/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_17....
from the plan:
On immigration:
You may or may not agree with his prescriptions, but at least that's more than just rhetoric. And yes, the Obama campaign should flesh out some of their arguments too, by pointing, for example, to more executive orders they would revoke and so on.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )By the way, one of the biggest issues of the campaign (arguably the biggest) is the question of whether or not we should withdraw the bulk of our troops from Iraq per a particular timetable, even if, as president, one comes to believe that sticking (at least roughly) to that timetable would jeopardize stability. Is Obama's answer to that question clear? If so, what do you think it is?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )So no, he does not answer your question directly, but why should he? That would be essentially buying into the Republican framing that withdrawal "would jeopardize stability."
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Yeah, I realize that's a crafty way for him (and you) to avoid answer a question about what he'd do in a scenario that is far from implausible, even if he thinks it's not the most likely: that, at some point between now and mid-2010, HE comes to believe that sticking to the timetable would jeopardize stability. Would he stick to the timetable or not? Does anyone know his answer at this point? Do you? If so, what is it?
But thanks for demonstrating how consistently you apply your standard.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Your question is similar to one asking a pro-choice person at what stage of development it's ok to murder a baby. Refusing to answer that isn't about lacking specificity, it's just not buying into your frame. To repeat myself for the umpteenth time, this is why upthread I mentioned issues that aren't really controversial, like eliminating the USCIS backlog and providing more govt transparency.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Nope, YOU, my friend, don't understand.
If you were correct that Obama is saying that he considers the scenario I mentioned utterly implausible (as opposed to just not the most likely scenario), than what you are saying makes sense, but that would mean that Obama is recklessly unrealistic and irresponsible.
I find it highly implausible that Obama thinks it is virtually impossible that he will find at some point between now and mid-2010 that sticking to his timetable would jeopardize stability in Iraq. Obama is too intelligent to think such a thing, particularly with all the formal and informal advisors he's got.
So while what you're saying would make sense if your premise were valid, it is highly unlikely that your premise is valid. Obama knows that the chance of the scenario I'm presenting is not infinitesimal or insignificant. But he simply does not want to answer the question, because, by making only vague and ambiguous statements, he can have it both ways, making himself less vulnerable to attacks during the campaign, enabling people to see in his statements what they want to see, and giving himself more wriggle room as president without costing himself votes in November.
Understand now?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The campaign has debated the merits of your premise: that your scenario is likely and relevant. Their position seems to be that 1: the scenario is unlikely, and 2: even if that were the case, staying 100 years isn't worth the cost. These arguments were quite public. What they won't do is assume _your_ premise: that staying is necessary. Get it?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Nope, YOU still don't get it. I realize we are both saying this, but I'm right, and you're wrong.
You are not getting the distinction I'm making between Obama considering a scenario just "unlikely" (as in much less likely than some alternative scenario) vs. considering it utterly implausible, as in virtually impossible (as in so utterly improbable that there is no point in a presidential candidate even thinking about what he'd do in such a scenario).
As for your #2, that's an argument supporting an answer he could give, but that doesn't change the fact that he isn't giving an answer, so it's irrelevant to what you and I are discussing, which is whether or not* Obama is answering the very important question I've stated.
ok, are you done repeatedly, erroneously asserting that I'm not getting it, and in the process demonstrating, with comic irony, that YOU are not getting it?
*Hint: not.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the same suggestion that the Obama campaign must acknowledge that staying 100 years -- or rather, indefinitely -- is necessary to avoid a lack of stability?
Oh great, what should we expect next from you? "I'm right and you're wrong"? "I'm rubber and you're glue"? I'm sorry that the Obama campaign is not making the same false assumptions on which you insist.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )How many times are you going to repeat the same suggestion that the Obama campaign must acknowledge that staying 100 years -- or rather, indefinitely -- is necessary to avoid a lack of stability?
One cannot "repeat" something that one has not done at least once.
Nice putting-words-in-mouth, goalpost-moving straw man.
This is quite uninteresting. If you're going to continue this exchange, please say something substantive or at least logical and relevant.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Funny you should say that (yet more comic irony). With regard to your original argument (or to be precise, the claim you eventually made, without any substantiation or even supporting argument, after I pointed out the weakness of your original argument), I repeat, for the third time now:
Oh, and do let me know if you ever come to understand, perhaps with the help of others, what I've been saying about Obama's position on Iraq vis a vis that scenario.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )nt
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It's the essence of their arguments.
--Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )nt
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )it ain't.
--Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )come up with this stuff?
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )when I'm in my element.
--Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ).
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )So far:
You started out with:
Leaving aside all sorts of big issues, McCain is insufficiently specific on his website on these two issues (immigration and ethics/transparency), and therefore no one should vote for him.
Then it was:
No, not just on his website, anywhere.
Now it's:
No, not just these two issues. Those are just representative of his insufficient specificity on most issues.
Feel free to flesh out the latest version of your argument. So far it's just your opinion, with the only supporting argument relatining to only two issues, and not the biggest issues of the campaign.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I hate these meta arguments, but if you insist..
I make a comment on #104911, avoiding topics that would spawn endless bickering where nobody agrees and pointing out a couple others, that McCain's "positions" seem to be mostly rhetoric, ie:
You try on #104940 to discredit my comment by making it look like I'm focusing on a trivial part of his campaign -- his website. I come back on #104951 and explain, without changing my argument, that no, it's not just his website:
Instead of arguing that the two issues I pointed out are not representative of his campaign, you change your line of attack on #104968 to make it seems as though my original comment was that the McCain campaign is embarrassing based on them having no substance on two issues. This is a different line from what you originally pursued (the website argument), though equally questionable.
I come back again on #104982, thinking that maybe you really misunderstand, to explain once more, without changing any part of my argument. I also respond to your request for a contrast.
Now you change your tune again in #104997, focusing on the thread instead of the comment, trying to make the case that me explaining English to you is the same as repeatedly changing my argument. Sorry, I'm done here.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I hate these meta arguments, but if you insist..
No, I don't insist on, nor do I even request, nor do I even desire to engage in such an argument. And I won't bother getting into it.
My point was what I said:
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )More likely McCain and Obama are both WRONG:
Obama: We're withdrawing most of our forces no matter what*.
McCain: We're staying in full force with the full scope of mission no matter what*.
* in particular, whether or not the Iraqi leaders make substantial progress toward political reconciliation and other benchmarks critical to ultimate stability.
What's probably better? We're staying in full force if you start and continue to meet these key benchmarks, and if not, we're reducing our support, including troop levels and scope of mission.
Why is that probably better?
See my diary of April 29, 2007, which I think still applies today: http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brooksrob/2007/apr/29/iraq_strategy_a_sens...
See also my 8/2/07 diary: http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brooksrob/2007/aug/02/a_common_sense_iraq_...
And comments of mine on (or soon after) 8/8/07 beginning here http://archive.redstate.com/blogs/mediahawk/2007/aug/08/the_nightmare_th... and continuing on that thread.
- Login or register to post comments
)legitimacy while being propped up by the US military?
That would seem to be one core pillar of Obama's approach.
When do the training wheels come off?
Related, America has limited resources, and vast demand elsewhere for those resources.
Should the challenges in Iraq "trump" the other challenges we face?
--. . . and it looks as though they’ll punish the monkey and let the organ grinder go . . .
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )All good questions. All worthy considerations.
But have you considered (or even read) the argument I made in the first link I provided in my prior comment?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Should we be willing to accept Maliki's word on these benchmarks or make an independent assessment?
Anyway, your benchmarks include:
(1) an oil revenue-sharing deal
If an oil revenue sharing deal is enacted with 140,000 US troops on the ground, why wouldn't disaffected parties cry "Foul" the moment we leave?
Kirkuk? What of Kirkuk?
Also, why should this be a pre-condition of our withdrawal?
(2) substantial reversal of de-Baathification
Maliki (of course) has been resisting this given his SCIRI & DAWA background. Also, our lack of speakers of Arabic makes it difficult for us to accurately judge progress or lack of progress on this front.
Maliki (for example) can be expected to trot out token Baath while Anbar tribal leaders will tell us insufficient Sunni are being included.
(3) new elections and constitutional reform to give Sunnis an opportunity gain proportionate political representation and secure minority rights
Is withdrawal contingent upon our vetting the Iraqi constitution and political process?
For how long do we keep our fingers on the strings of power?
(4) establishing effective, non-sectarian military and security forces, and some reasonable degree of amnesty for insurgents who have not targeted non-combatants
Excellent aspirations, but if we impose these requirements and our puppets nod and say "OK" what will happen the moment we leave?
(5) Without making substantial progress toward achieving these benchmarks, full-scale civil war is only being delayed, not prevented
True (perhaps) but we need to take off the training wheels sooner or later AND our resources are urgently needed elsewhere.
(6) Yet the Iraqi government (which is to say Shiite leaders -- politicians, along with the veto-wielding religious leader Sistani) has made little progress toward such benchmarks
Is this still true, today?
--. . . and it looks as though they’ll punish the monkey and let the organ grinder go . . .
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Bill,
When I was a freshman in college, my English professor came over to me with a paper he had graded. He expressed some pain that he could only give me an A- because, although he considered everything I wrote outstanding, I hadn't really included a conclusion.
You raise some very good questions. I assume you are not just asking questions, but are rather making particular points, with your questions actually being rhetorical.
You really should state your points. Makes it clear what your argument is, and makes it easier to respond to efficiently and productively.
Your points seems to be:
- that it would be difficult or impossible to reliably measure supposed achievement of the benchmarks.
- that they just aren't going to meet those benchmarks, even with more time (as indicated by the fact that they still haven't).
- that we have no reason to think that changes made in accordance with benchmarks would endure after we eventually withdrew most/all of our forces.
- that we need the resources elsewhere.
- that because of all of the above, delaying withdrawal to provide time to meet benchmarks, even if this delay were made contingent on (supposed) substantial, timely progress in meeting these benchmarks, would be an exercise in futility (they won't meet them anyway, and if they did, they would probably reverse course whenever we eventually partially/completely withdrew), and would keep us from deploying resources where they can do more benefit.
Did I get all that right?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Islam using an analogy from sailboat racing.
In a match race (America's Cup for example) it is head-to-head racing. One winner one loser, even if there are series or brackets or strategy related to the larger picture. Most professional sports is like this. A baseball team may watch the scoreboard but only plays to win the game they are in.
Fleet racing is different. Before I had children i sailed in multiple Chicago-Mackinac races and other less well known races in a rather large fleet. We would love to watch rivals enter match race mode -- two skippers personally at odds would sometimes dog each other fighting to prevail.
The rest of us would rather merrily stay far away. Let 'em fight while the rest of the fleet sails over the horizon.
As for Iraq? and radical Islam in general?
The United States has multiple enemies. China, a resurgent Russia. The European Union certainly does NOT favor war but does seek to best us economically. (EADS/Airbus versus Boeing for that refueling tanker contract and passenger jet sales). And so on.
Yes, radical Islam is a threat but it is not a threat that justifies a disproportionate allocation of resources.
Back in 2002 / 2003 I used to snark that our Iraqi adventure may end up costing us the ability to deny Taiwan's eventual unification with the PRC.
Why? If we expend our blood, treasure and public willingness to accept war trying to patch together a nation created by the British in the 1920s (Iraq) a nation that exists primarily in Western minds, we will have less available to spend elsewhere.
= = =
Did Saddam make Iraq or did Iraq make Saddam?
Perhaps ONLY the tactics of a Saddam can hold together the oil and water that is Iraq -- Sunni, Shia & Kurd and sub-tribes within each larger splinter.
How much debt do we incur trying to do this? How many soldiers must die? Are we any less safe against bin Laden and al Qaeda?
= = =
These are a few of the reasons I was against the Iraq invasion in 2002/2003.
= = =
If Iraq existed in isolation and America faced no other challenges then we could discuss ideal strategies for Iraq.
But triage is another potential analogy. Other patients are being ignored while we waste resources on a less vital situation.
Or maybe like a homeowner who wants to re-decorate before fixing a leaky roof.
America has finite resources. Military, diplomatic, soft power, economic. We are spending a disproportionate share of those resources in Iraq harming our overall national interests.
--. . . and it looks as though they’ll punish the monkey and let the organ grinder go . . .
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )That's a long way to go to make the point that we have more than security threat and therefore must allocate our resources wisely.
I'm guessing that was a rather arbitrary copy & paste job of something you've written previously, since it was essentially non-responsive to the comment to which you were replying. Oh well.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ). . . and it looks as though they’ll punish the monkey and let the organ grinder go . . .
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )than Obama
Heather Wilson (R-NM):
Obama is standing firm with his position that American resources are being unwisely spent in Iraq -- resources that are desperately needed elsewhere:
. . . and it looks as though they’ll punish the monkey and let the organ grinder go . . .
- Login or register to post comments
)that's certainly a new development.
But is he prepared yet to define the 'conditions'?
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )likely explanation. IMHO. Her re-election is not as secure as she might like.
--. . . and it looks as though they’ll punish the monkey and let the organ grinder go . . .
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )from the linked essay
--. . . and it looks as though they’ll punish the monkey and let the organ grinder go . . .
- Login or register to post comments
)