[Updated]
In an earlier post, I endorsed Barack Obama as the best choice for Democratic nominee, but that doesn’t mean I think he should be president. The two most important issues for me are the economy (which I’ll address in a later post) and the War against Militant Islamism, and the most important part of the war is Iraq. I have serious problems with Obama’s “plan” and statements and political record on the subject. In last Tuesday’s debate, Obama brought up the familiar refrain about judgment and the choice to go to war in the first place. Quote:
Well, Senator Clinton I think equates experience with longevity in Washington. I don't think the American people do and I don't think that if you look at the judgments that we've made over the last several years that that's the accurate measure. On the most important foreign policy decision that we face in a generation -- whether or not to go into Iraq -- I was very clear as to why we should not -- that it would fan the flames of anti-American sentiment -- that it would distract us from Afghanistan -- that it would cost us billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and would not make us more safe, and I do not believe it has made us more safe.
Obama’s brilliant answer killed a flock of birds with one stone: He differentiated himself from an opponent where there is little real daylight between the two, he made clear that his opinions are more closely aligned with the party base, and he successfully skirted around the fact that he is a freshman Senator with basically two years of legislative experience on the national stage. Most importantly, he successfully diverted the discussion away from his judgment on an issue of equal (if not greater) importance: Whether to draw down our troops or make a fundamental change in the strategy. In January 2007, during Iraq’s darkest hour, Obama was clearly against the surge strategy.
Meanwhile, Obama said he told the president directly that an "escalation of troop levels in Iraq was a mistake." Obama was among more than a dozen senators of both parties who were invited to the White House to discuss his plans for Iraq. Bush plans to continue to meet with lawmakers and is expected to announce his new Iraq strategy next week in an address to the nation. "It was an open-ended discussion," Obama told reporters after the meeting. "The president asked for our opinions. I think both Republican and Democratic senators expressed grave concern about the situation in Iraq. I personally indicated that an escalation of troop levels in Iraq was a mistake and that we need a political accommodation, rather than a military approach to the sectarian violence there," said Obama.
Obama’s comment betrayed a lack of understanding of what the strategy was really about, because the whole point of the COIN strategy is to create an environment where insurgents will choose to resolve differences through the political process rather than by violence. Either that or he was being less than honest. Obama had the chance to further examine Petraeus' strategy, and in hypocritical fashion, Obama voted "yea" in confirming Petraeus to four-star general yet four days later he introduced process-oriented legislation that would gut the Petraeus plan.
Wanting to learn a little more, I checked his campaign website and was even more disappointed, starting with this sentence:
At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006.
The statement is flatly and factually false, as seen in the graphs below (hat tip to Engram for the graphs).
Suicide bombings—which are the exclusive province of al Qaeda—killed 213 of 566 civilians last month, or 38% of the total, and al Qaeda was responsible for 291 killings or 51% of the total. Despite comparatively small numbers, they remain lethal. Shiite hit squads are also a problem. There were 97 extra-judicial killings last month, meaning that these groups hunted down military-age Sunni males and killed them execution-style. But basically, there are 1,000 fewer civilian deaths per month under the current surge strategy. Under the Obama “plan”, there is every reason to believe civilian casualties would have looked like this.
Why? Because going by Obama’s proposed legislation, his “plan” called for unilateral troop draw downs during a time when terrorist attacks and extra-judicial killings were raging. Of course, the trend lines are arguable, but the conclusions in the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate are not, which said:
The Iraq conflict has become the cause célèbre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
It couldn’t be clearer to me that the McCain/Petraeus plan has made significant strides in convincing jihadists that they are failing in Iraq. Obama’s so-called plan, which called for cutting and running when suicide bombings were peaking,
would have signaled our defeat at the hands of these terrorists. Obama’s short-sightedness on troop withdrawals would likely have inspired al Qaeda & Co. to carry on the fight, using Iraq as a propaganda tool for recruiting more terrorists into their fold. I am convinced that there would be more militant Islamists today if Obama got what he wanted back in January 2007. Then there’s his next sentence, which is a whopper:
Moreover, Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war.
Muqtada al-Sadr is a political leader, and he stood down his JAM militias last August and he recently extended his ceasefire. That's political progress. Although progress has been halting, political leaders in the national government have made significant strides at resolving political differences. Although no oil revenue sharing bill has passed, political leaders have set up a system for sharing oil revenues. When Sunni tribal sheiks joined the coalition and turned their collective backs on al Qaeda, political progress was made. Obviously, much work remains to be done, the fact remains that Obama’s statement is outrageously untrue.
Also, it is arguable that there is a civil war in Iraq, but Obama and the Democratic Party continue to trot out this storyline. There are competing factions, to be sure, and those factions frequently resort to violence. But calling Iraq a civil war glosses over the actions of al Qaeda, whose primary goal is to foment a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis, and they are failing in that endeavor. It ignores the fact that northern Iraq is stable. It ignores the fact that southern Iraq is virtually all Shiite and run by Shiites. It ignores the fact that Anbar province is virtually all Sunni and is run by Sunnis. The fact of the matter is that there are mixed Sunni-Shiite areas in Iraq, especially Baghdad, where sectarian violence has occurred and has sparked a refugee problem. Calling it a “civil war” is a matter of opinion, not fact, and that’s what Obama does all too often. He conveys opinions, giving the impression to impressionable voters that they are facts when they are really not. It is slickness reminiscent of Slick Willie himself. More from Obama’s campaign website:
As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of "an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences."
Obama was not a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2002. He ran for a U.S. House seat in 2000 and lost, and in 2004, he resigned from the State Senate to run for the U.S. Senate. In 2002, Obama was running for reelection to the State Senate, a position he held since 1996. His district has a huge Democratic majority, so he was an incumbent with a safe seat; therefore it is ridiculous for him to claim that he put his career on the line. Obama continued this lie in last Tuesday’s debate when he said, "My objections to the war in Iraq were simply -- not simply a speech [referring to his October 2002 speech against invading Iraq]. I was in the midst of a U.S. Senate campaign." Obama’s "career on the line" nonsense is under the section titled "judgment you can trust" on his website, which leads me this question: How can you trust a man’s judgment when you cannot justifiably trust his facts?
[Update:] Having seen Wagster's diary, I checked a little further. In mid-2002, Obama formed a campaign committee to challenge Peter Fitzgerald. He did not form an actual campaign. Obama was interested in the job, and he was preparing to run for the job, but he hadn't entered the race at that time. Another blogger checked some history and came to the conclusion that Obama's statements were deceptive, and I agree.
Here is what I found on Obama's own site:In a December 2nd, 2002 article from Roll Call newspaper entitled, "Democrats and Even some in GOP Ponder Senate Challenge" by Lauren W. Whittington, "Other Democrats expected to enter the raced in coming months are state Comptroller Dan Hynes, state Sen. Barack Obama and wealthy investment banker Blair Hull, who are all working behind the scenes to secure money and support before making their intentions official. Both Obama and Hull have formed exploratory committees."
Later in the article there was this, "Meanwhile Obama and other Democrats are nervously watching Moseley-Braun, who continues to be coy about her intentions. If she does enter the primary, Obama has indicated that he will not run."
In a November 29th, 2002 article from the Springfield State Journal-Register entitled "Lahood, Fitzgerald Trade Jabs"by Bernard Schoenburg, Political Writer, "Besides Moseley-Braun other possible Democratic candidates for the U.S. Senate in two years include former Chicago School Board president Gery Chico, who has already filed as a candidate; state Comptroller Dan Hynes; Chicago investor Blair Hull; state Sen. Barack Obama of Chicago; and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Evanston."
[...]
The first one was a January 29th, 2003 article from the Hyde Park Herald entitled "Moseley-Braun backs out, Obama in the Senate race" by Todd Spivak. It contains the following, "Moseley-Braun?s [sic] withdrawal thrust opne th edoor for another Hyde Parker, seven-year state Sen. Barack Obama (D-13), who has already emerged as a top contender among what will likely be a crowded field of Democratic candidates. Convinced that a raace against the popular and better-known Moseley-Braun would have split the state?s [sic] African-American vote, Obama for months has waited on pins and needles for her announcement."
The next paragrah says, "?[sic] would have deferred to Carol had she decided to run,? [sic] said Obama, 41, who formally announced his candidacy yesterday in the Loop. ?[sic] was waiting with everyone else to find out her plans."
Emphases mine. Obama surely wanted to be a candidate, and he was preparing to be a candidate, and I'm sure that he felt like he was a candidate in his own mind. But on October 29th, 2002, Barack Obama wasn't a candidate for the 2004 U.S. Senate seat. He was a potential candidate. A pre-candidate. Thinking about it another way, if Carol Moseley-Braun had sais "yes" to running instead of "no", do you think it is plausible that Obama could still claim that he was a candidate in 2002 for the 2004 race for the U.S. Senate? Or that he was in the "midst of a campaign"? The answer, to me, is no.
It looks to me like Obama was trying to backdate his Senatorial campaign to make it sound like he was a U.S. Senator and candidate for longer than he really was. I don't believe that this is a "Change We Can Believe In", to paraphrase his little slogan. Some are going to quibble that there's no real difference between a candidate and a potential candidate, but as Bildstein notes, if you're interviewing a couple of fellas for a college-level job, all other factors being equal, are you going to go with the college graduate or the potential college graduate? The difference is pretty fundamental. As I keep telling my conservative friends when it comes to "amnesty" and my liberal friends when it comes to "fascism", words mean things. [/end Update]
Again going by his campaign website, Obama believes the following:
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.
This is troubling on multiple levels, first because Obama says not a word about strategy and tactics. It’s all about sending troops home, nothing about the situation on the ground. Second, Obama’s timeline conflicts with General Petraeus’ timeline. Finally, Obama's large and precipitous withdrawals conflict with the latest National Intelligence Estimate, which says the following:
Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation.
Obama’s logic is the exact opposite of the NIE, and he is on the wrong side of the issue. Finally, Obama's phased surrender plan conflicts with his own words in 2004:
Now, us having gone in there, we have a deep national security interest in making certain that Iraq is stable. If not, not only are we going to have a humanitarian crisis, we are also going to have a huge national security problem on our hands-because, ironically, it has become a hotbed of terrorists as a consequence, in part, of our incursion there. In terms of timetable, I'm not somebody who can say with certainty that a year from now or six months from now we're going to be able to pull down troops.
Now his mantra is that, by leaving, reconciliation among Iraqis will happen and everything will get better, even though such significant withdrawals will likely destabilize the country, reintroduce chaos and reignite sectarian violence. The environment Obama seeks is the very same one which allowed al Qaeda to grow and fester. Here’s some more illogic:
He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
Newsflash. Al Qaeda is in Iraq right now. They’re the ones responsible for 51% of civilian deaths last month, and they’re the ones who General Petraeus still considers our biggest challenge there. Obama’s statement makes no sense because it assumes that al Qaeda is already gone.
Obama also wants to "surge our diplomacy". Another newsflash. It’s already happening. Ambassador Crocker is in Iraq, coordinating his efforts with General Petraeus and working constantly with the various Iraqi factions to help them achieve their political benchmarks.
Obama’s statements on Iraq lead me to believe that he would be a foreign policy disaster for America. If he gets his way, Iraq would destabilize, reversing all the hard-fought gains made and adversely affecting our national security. Even if you accept that he made the right judgment in 2002, his judgments in 2007 and 2008 on the surge strategy are more important because they are current and because losing in Iraq could have calamitous repercussions on our country. Vietnam was bad enough. As Tom Maguire notes, Obama is not running in 2002 and he’s not running against George W. Bush. The issue on the table is what Obama would do in Iraq today. To me, it looks like he'd rather surrender, no matter all the remarkable gains we've made since September.
--
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left -- Ecclesiastes 10:2
Yoo hoo! [waving arms at moderators]
(#83362)I made a necessary update to the post, which pulled it off the front page.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
Out of interest, is the Iraq war abnormally expensive?
(#83029)Historically speaking, it seems rather a lot - to have spent a couple of trillion dollars. Is it because of the increase in cost of munitions? Mechanisation? Salaries?
Are there any comparable figures for similar wars? Do these figures get audited?
No, it isn't
(#83379)Given that the strain of war-fighting is placed on a sovereign state with (in modern times) virtually unlimited powers of taxation and debt issuance, the right measuring stick is against the GDP from which that state can draw resources. By that measure, this hasn't amounted to much. Keep in mind how large the U.S. economy is, and how it has grown in both real and nominal terms since 1945.
-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
parentThat is a pretty intuitive idea. n/t
(#83778)- reply
parentWe still want 2 sticks
(#83382)The one we were talking about measures how expensive this is, yours measures how much we can afford such an expense.
... oh, and we still need another stick to chase you down the street with. make that 3 sticks.
- reply
parentYou lost me.
(#83386)What's the point of measuring an expense beyond whether or not it's affordable? I worry more about my mortgage than a guy making a million every year would precisely because my mortgage is a large expense for me vis-a-vis my income while it would be much smaller for the million-in-income dude. OTOH, increase his mortgage proportionally and he'd worry about it to a much larger extent.
To put it another way, the statement "the war in [x] is the most expensive in history" becomes a trivial one as the years roll by, because the economy generally grows and prices usually go up.
I understand that I'm in favor of the war and you aren't, but my objection runs a bit deeper than that. I'd say the same thing if you said this was the most expensive year ever for the Social Security Administration or that 9/11 was the most expensive act of political violence on U.S. soil ever. In both cases the claim may be true in nominal terms but could be questioned in terms of the underlying reality of GDP, government revenues, population, etc.
-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
parentyou got lost coz i chased you too far away from home
(#83406)with a stick.
I understand that I'm in favor of the war and you aren't, but my objection runs a bit deeper than that.
Buh?
you must picture my mental life as 'Me against war. me hate measuring as % of GDP'.
anyway...
What's the point of measuring an expense beyond whether or not it's affordable
All kinds of reasons in the general case as well as this one in particular.
perhaps someone is curious why a war w. a fraction of the causalties and troop levels as Vietnam is nevertheless more expensive (using adjusted-for-inflation #s, BG, not nominal figures, sheesh.)
That can lead to e.g. discussion of the respective injure/kill ratios, equipment expenses, etc.
... I'm lost how you can be lost.
- reply
parentThe fact remains no war since [edit: except] WWII
(#83389)has ever cost this much in adjusted dollar terms, so compared to other wars, this one has certainly been expensive.
There's also the fact that it's all being put on Uncle Sam's credit card, and with the off chance of a credit/energy crisis in the next 20 years....
And we haven't gotten to the question of what we got out of it all for our trouble.
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentAdjusted for inflation....
(#83399)....which still doesn't account for the relative sizes of the underlying economies. Also, most wars get financed via debt, for good reason. In the end, it still comes out of taxes (or inflation.)
We can, of course, argue about the return. You and I differ on that, but it's arguable. The "most. expensive. evah!" argument, OTOH, just looks dumb to me.
-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
parentIt's a simple fact.
(#83424)This relatively small campaign plus occupation in Iraq has cost us more in inflation-adjusted dollars than: WWI, Korea, Vietnam, the Revolutionary war, the Civil War, the War of 1812, and of course the hundreds of smaller engagements in between. Big expense, small return, any way you slice it.
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentNegative retrurn n/t
(#83428):)
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
- reply
parentIt seems rather a lot
(#83045)I see the lovely tradition of understatement survives in India. :)
I'm just waiting for someone to ask McCain whether the US should spend another trillion dollars in Iraq, and his response: "Make it a googol!"
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
parentUS CBO estimates $2.4 trillion in long-term costs
(#83041)with much of that going to payments on interest, since the Bush admin is financing much of the war on credit. It far exceeds the cost of Korean War, Vietnam and WWI. WWII cost the US $4-5 trillion.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2450753720071024
For a fun comparison, Pentagon & CBO analysts were predicting a cost between $20 & $80 billion in 2003:
http://dwb.sacbee.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/story/774997p-5568446c.html
Notably Gulf War I cost the US only about $7 billion, the rest of the $60 billion price tag having been picked up by the Saudis, Kuwaitis, and other wealthy bankrollers.
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentThanks for the links. Especially the second one. n/t
(#83296)- reply
parentJoseph Stiglitz has a book out on the costs
(#83031)called the 3 trillion dollar war.
He counts things like increased healthcare to injured vets.
One unique cost of this war is that the injured to kill ratio is higher given greater protection to the troops. Then that means $ for the federal gov. to look after them.
If he's right, this is the most expensive war since WWII.
... I don't have a handle on the war profiteering re this war as compared to others. I know in the past we've had a tax to ensure that companies didn't make an inordinate amount off of hostilities, but there isn't currently anything like that.
... just exposing my ignorance there in case anyone wants to lend a hand...
- reply
parentAh yes, I forgot about the injury-to-death ratio
(#83295)amazingly low in this war. Presumably costs of flying out to the Army hospitals in Germany and the Walter Reed - for intensive care too.
So one group making money out of the war are suppliers to the US Army. Medical supplies, instrumentation etc. I get it.
Two points. Shouldn't this be regarding as inward investment - rather than 'spend' per se? And secondly, this is a low-intensity conflict. Does it rule out, economically at least, the possibility of commercial sustenance of a high-intensity conflict - say with China over Korea or Taiwan?
- reply
parenti don't know what you mean by 'inward investment'
(#83298)it's $ we wouldn't have spent otherwise. it goes into the costs for the war.
- reply
parentI mean it is investment in US companies rather than sourcing
(#83301)supplies overseas for the troops, creation of jobs etc.
- reply
parentGiven the extremely lax accounting,
(#83037)my expectation is that war profiteering is at incomprehensible levels.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentCOIN doctrine.
(#82997)I'm sorry, but I don't see any justification for saying that we're following COIN doctrine when we're grossly violating required troop levels.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
Bird Dog, many of your links point
(#82866)right back to the forvm.org.
I actually am interested in running some of these down. For example, if Obama's web site actually says he was running for US Senate in 2002 that would be a genuine gaffe.
Also there is a Petreaus quote I'd like to see in context and the link points at a forvm page.
Can you help?
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
I replaced all quote marks in the html
(#82879)The links should work now.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentThe great thing about a McCain-Obama election
(#82792)is that they are both very clear where they stand on Iraq.
If McCain wins Americans will have made clear they are willing to continue the fight.
If Obama wins the opposite message will also be clear.
In either case I expect Americans (well, a majority o voters at least) will get what they want.
This place is my vacation.
I don't *think* Obama's the opposite of McCain.
(#82811)As I understand their positions, McCain's "in it to win it" while Obama's in it for damage control. Both are playing to the lunatic fringes on either side to some degree, but I don't think their actual policies will be that much different. If pulling out results in a civil/regional war, then it becomes a US security problem all over again, so we're going to stay until we can leave a reasonably stable Iraqi government in our place.
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentThey are presenting themselves as opposites
(#82827)They may do something different once in power but in terms of what the voters will be choosing from they are in opposite poles.
personally I don't think Obama will have much room to maneuver. If he doesn't get out soon he will be a one-termer, unless somehow the violence ends.
This place is my vacation.
- reply
parentThis is one of the big reasons
(#82801)that I am glad the two candidates don't have any crippling personal vulnerabilities (that we know about -- knock wood). The 2008 election has the potential to be a clarifying one on many levels.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
parentScare tactics
(#82754)The US won't suffer any "calamitous repercussions" by leaving Iraq. We didn't suffer any when we left Viet Nam, Somalia or Cuba. You are giving Al Qeada much too much credit.
I don't understand what horrible things will happen if we leave Iraq. Especially if, as you suggest, there is no civil war there. If AQI is truly the "biggest challenge" then the Iraqis can get a lot more brutal than the US can in regard to ridding their country of this threat. Are you suggesting AQI is a threat to the US?
"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion
Do you think there's any likelihood of Iranian excursions
(#82783)into Iraq if we leave? If so, does that trouble you?
AFA Vietnam is concerned, I completely disagree. Once the (overwhelmingly Dem) Congress cut off aid and very publicly nullified Nixon's bombing threat, the North Vietnamese overran the border and ultimately, the entire country. Executions and forced labor camps became the norm. According to Wikipedia,
The ammo and bombing threats had been promised to Thieu as part of the arm-twisting to get him to sign the Paris Peace Accords, which he strongly opposed. Two key provisions in the accord were:
-- There would be negotiations between the two South Vietnamese parties — the Republic of Vietnam and the PRG — towards a political settlement that would allow the people of South Vietnam to decide their future in free elections. -- Reunification of Vietnam was to be "carried out step by step through peaceful means."
Again, Wikipedia describes what happened when we reneged on our promises:
I am deeply ashamed of our country's behavior after we withdrew from South Vietnam. We've broken our promises to protect people before (Bay of Pigs, e.g.) and after Vietnam. Each such instance reflects very poorly on this country, in my opinion.
I'm not suggesting Vietnam is like Iraq, but I do challenge your statement that "We didn't suffer any when we left Viet Nam." Technically that may be true, but many suffered in our stead.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentAnd how did any of that affect the US?
(#82789)The answer is, it didn't. Iranian incursions into Iraq won't affect the US either.
If the pro-war crowd wants to argue that leaving Iraq would be bad for the US then they need to explain why it would be bad. BD uses overly broad language to describe the consequences, and you use an example that proves my point, leaving wouldn't affect the US. If there truly were horrible consequences to leaving then they should be easy to describe. The fact that no one can describe them leads me to believe they don't exist.
"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion
- reply
parentThe Vietnam War, and particularly its end, deeply affected
(#82791)the US by any reasonable measure. If you're saying that no North Vietnamese ever blew up buildings here or attacked barracks and embassies overseas after we withdrew, obviously that's true, but I think it misses and trivializes the whole matter of abandoning people we've made promises to.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentYou are talking about an emotional response
(#83012)I want to do what is best for the US. If your main reason to stay in Iraq involves an emotional response then it isn't a very good reason to stay. Our country shouldn't do things based on emotion.
Re: abandoning people
It happens every day. Life isn't fair. Anyone who lives long enough learns to avoid making promises simply because so many things our out of our control. If Bush & Co. made promises they couldn't keep then maybe we should hold them accountable for being stupid enough to make promises in the first place. Obama or whoever the next President is shouldn't be bound by a bunch of promises that Dubya and his band of idiots should never have made in the first place.
Also, we have to leave Iraq sometime. If five years of occupation and 100's of billions of dollars isn't enough to keep our promises, whatever they are, then how do you know 10 more years and a trillion more dollars will be enough to keep our promise. What, by the way, did we promise Iraq? It is hard to have a discussion about breaking promises when we don't know what these promises are.
"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion
- reply
parent(a) I agree with you about Vietnam
(#82820)to the extent we did abandon people we made promises to.
(b) Who in Iraq do we owe promises to? And how will it be different 10 years from now?
Letting Turkey invade Kurdistan kinda breaks certain promises also.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
parentWhat promises did we break?
(#82823)nt
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
- reply
parentAt a minimum not helping more
(#82825)South Vietnamese escape.
However given our current relations with Vietnam, today, I see little or no lasting geopolitical damage from South Vietnam being conquered.
Human tragedies? Yes. Far too many.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
parentA genocide or two are fine
(#82829)as long as everything works out in the end.
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
- reply
parentI started out in agreement with the notion
(#82842)that we broke promises in Vietnam.
You asked me what promises, and I replied "in essence" protecting our friends from the human tragedies associated with the North overrunning the South.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
parentI hate to tell you this
(#82839)but the US killed far more South Vietnamese than the North did.
I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
parentWhat is your basis for that statement?
(#82847)-0-o-0-
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentThat the US betrayed the South Vietnamese is clear
(#82796)and shameful. The question is, when did we betray them? When we failed to deliver on a promise, or when we promised what we couldn't deliver?
The little matter of forcibly rearranging their government to suit our purposes must enter the discussion at some point as well.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
parentWhat happened to the Diem brothers certainly
(#82821)played a role, but cutting off funds a far bigger problem.
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
- reply
parentSo ARVN could have held off the North indefinitely
(#82830)as long as we were willing to foot the bill?
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
parentI would be the last person to justify our intervention;
(#82803)it's arguably the dumbest thing we did as a country in the twentieth century. I'm glad there's a generation of kids now who don't remember it first-hand.
I'm just pointing out that there can be serious consequences to the national will and psyche from abandoning another country, regardless of the sense or non-sense of making promises in the first place. If the national will is to pull out our forces ASAP, so be it. But we need to face up to our responsibility if the whole thing goes pear-shaped as a result.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentIf Maliki becomes friendly with Iran
(#82818)Who abandoned who?
As far as al Qaeda goes, why can't the Anbar Sunni and the Shia deal with the terrorists easily enough?
If we "abandon" Iraq who would we abandon it to?
Turkey?
Iran? Eh, see that other photo
Saudis? Nope.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
parentThe Iraqis would be responsible for their own fates in that
(#82845)instance, not us, obviously. Good, in a way - their choice to sup with the devil.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentTake a look at the top of the page
(#82860)Right here at forvm.org
That great Iranian devil himself Ahmadinejad is posing with Maliki and a obviously happy Hakim.
If our goal is to limit Iranian influence, al-Sadr may soon be our best ally. Ironic, no?
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
parentThere's a cost if we leave
(#82807)There's a cost if we stay.
A majority of Americans appear to think the latter is greater.
This place is my vacation.
- reply
parentThe impact on the national will and psyche
(#82806)depends on what lessons are drawn from the tragedy. The lesson drawn from Vietnam -- thank you, Ronnie and Rambo -- was that we just didn't try hard enough, that the Democrats yanked the rug out just before we could win. This was a pure fantasy concocted by the Republicans for domestic political gain.
Our biggest responsibility post-Vietnam was to make sure it didn't happen again. It did. Whose fault was that?
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
parentActually, the lesson I drew is don't start something
(#82838)you're not prepared to finish. And don't make promises you can't keep; in fact, don't make promises.
Reliving the failures of forgotten history is every country's problem to a degree, but this one's bitten us in the ass pretty hard before, and probably will again before you and I visit that Bar & Grille in the sky. Bets?
AFA Vietnam, the rug-yanking happened after we'd already left, and therefore had already lost. Nixon got elected in large part on a promise to bring the troops home, and his ability to keep the plates spinning on the ends of their sticks came undone as a result of Watergate. But Congress knew when it defunded the South what the result would be because Congress was told in so many words. And that was a Dem Congress - there's no dodging that.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentWell, as I asked Timmy above
(#82844)What would have happened if Congress hadn't defunded the South? This is where the myth-making creeps in. Vietnam was irrevocably lost by 1973 and Nixon's phony cease-fire. (The implication that Nixon could have brokered a lasting peace and an independent South if not for Watergate is equally laughable. Nixon's promise of peace with honor was, like almost everything else the man uttered about Vietnam and Cambodia, an outright lie.)
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
parentDon't know where you're getting the "but for Watergate"
(#82854)implication, but it ain't from me. That's not remotely what I said, or think. You must mean someone else.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentI figured that was what the plate-spinning comment meant
(#82855)Sorry to misinterpret you; what did you mean?
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
parentIt's an old reference going back to the Ed Sullivan Shoe
(#82861)and to me at least refers to someone who's got so many schemes/scams going that he can't keep them all straight, and runs out of time to the point where they all collapse simultaneously. Maybe it lost something in the translation.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentIn any event, Nixon was at least STUPID
(#82850)for doing Watergate and undermining his own political capital.
= = =
Ken Starr and the Congressional Republicans went WAY WAY WAY overboard but Bill Clinton deserves at least a touch of the blame for unzipping his pants and squandering political capital for personal gratification.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
parentYep.
(#82840)I think the lesson you posit is accurate -- but that would imply that the folks currently making decisions take US (or Iraqi) security or interests into account when doing so.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentNot to be negative, but what are the odds this won't happen
(#82852)again in the future? You or I could do everything In our power to prevent it, but that wouldn't ultimately amount to much except for voting for and supporting the campaign of someone we hope will do better. And like someone above pointed out, we all promised ourselves (well, I did, anyway - don't know your age) never again after Vietnam. But here we are. Again, the two wars are completely different in many important ways, but the "leave/stay, keep/break promises made going in" elements are depressingly similar.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentVietnam ended before I was born.
(#82998)Making it all the more ironic, I suppose, that I viewed Iraq (correctly) as nothing but a parallel quagmire.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentThe paralels are limited.
(#83000)"Quagmire" was coined by a contemporary writer (I forget who at the moment) as part of an attempt to examine the details of the fairly complex political and diplomatic issues and pressures that led to intervention, escalation and withdrawal. The Vietnam war began in a completely different way, was prosecuted differently (I've never heard that Bush approves individual targets while meeting with his staff in the WH bathroom, for example), and the details of how it ended probably couldn't be reproduced Iraq. It would be a mistake to assume that Teddy Kennedy devoted any deep thoughts to using the term before he whipped it out in a speech.
My point is broader: In Vietnam we mucked around in what was already a shooting war where the North was making incurions into and preparing to invade the South. We succeeded in stopping the invasion despite some very lethal gaffes by our military command and micromanaging by a megalomaniacal President. But when he situation at home compelled a withdrawal, we made promises to the
South's leaders to get them to agree with our terms, while knowing that only force would deter the North Vietnamese from immediately breaching the promises they made as part of the Paris Accords.
Then, after all our soldiers, workers and embassy personnel were back on American soil, Congress cut off the funding and materiel the South needed to hold off the invasion; as a result, the South fell to Chinese-supplied tanks from the North with in six months. Which is when the executions, forced labor concentration camps, and massive refugee flight began.
Not a lot of parallels in all that, just the potential outcome of a withdrawal.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentI think an important difference is that Vietnam was irrelevant,
(#83009)economically and strategically.
And the fact that it was a continuation of a frank colonial war of occupation.
- reply
parentAlso, there is a difference in temperament to war
(#83008)from the generation who grew up in WWII and the current post WWII and post Vietnam generation.
- reply
parentWe do that all the time
(#82795)A security argument should be based on security concerns.
All we have appeared to do in Iraq, even if the country stabilizes (and it will, all countries do eventually) is turn what used to be an enemy of Iran into an ally.
This place is my vacation.
- reply
parentI don't think that will ever happen. The Arabs and Persians
(#82917)have never been allies. Religion is not important here.
- reply
parentYou say AQI is the problem
(#82741)and we can't leave Iraq because AQI would become a terrorist recruiting poster, etc. Then in the next breath you say the surge is working, even though it seems apparent that the surge has damped down sectarian violence and done little if anything to rein in AQI.
This is an obfuscation. Can we beat AQI? That's the only relevant question, when it comes to the propaganda value of Iraq. Is there some level of troops or some tactical approach that will completely eliminate them and thus prevent them from claiming victory when we leave?
Here's what Iraq looks like to me: the troop surge, combined with some demographic realignment, has helped keep the lid on the ethnic/religious kettle; what will happen when the lid is removed is fairly predictable, but anyway. AQI is still doing the dirty work and is responsible for an increasing share of the casualties. The logical progression, if we maintain current troop levels, is that at some point AQI will be responsible for nearly all the violence, and then they'll really be able to claim that they ran the Americans out. They'll even be able to take credit for whatever sh*t subsequently hits the fan as a result of Sunni/Shiite/Kurd conflict.
In short? AQI is a Bush creation with no obvious solution or countermeasure, and the longer we stay, the worse it gets.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
It's not just me saying AQI is the problem
(#82745)Gen. Petraeus is saying that al Qaeda remains our biggest challenge. They are losing not just because Sunni sheiks turned against them, but because they turned to us for help in destroying this group. The plan has worked. All you have to do is look at how many civilians have died from suicide terrorist attacks. The numbers are way down. Last month, we raided an al Qaeda house and found a 16-page letter from an al Qaeda leader who was despairing about what was happening to them. I honestly don't know how you can claim that it's getting worse. But the work isn't done. Hot spots remain north of Baghdad, in Mosul and other places. They're religious extremists and many of them won't be stopped until they're jailed or dead. Such is the nature of an enemy that will use mentally-retarded girls for suicide bombers. But it's pretty clear to me that they're getting obliterated. It just isn't done yet, so "are we there yet" anti-war types continue to lament that we're not there yet.
There still remain Shiite death squads and Iranian-backed Special Groups, and there still remain groups that chose violence as a means for political advancement instead of negotiation.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentWhat is the metric for AQI no longer being a problem?
(#82851)Because of the "success" of the surge are we now committed to stay in Iraq for many, many years to come?
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
parentDo you have a link showing the numbers for suicide bombings?
(#82748)If the numbers are indeed "way down" following the troop surge, I'd be prepared to concede that as a pretty good reason for us to remain in Iraq. My feeling was that the troop surge has been good at containing sectarian violence, not so good at containing AQI. I'd be happy to be wrong, though.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
parentIt's right there in the graph
(#82751)The data is taken from the Iraq Body Count, which is no friend of Bush. It takes them several months to gather and analyze the data, which is why it's only through September. You can also go to this website and do some compilations.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentDid the compilations...
(#82757)Here's the total number of suicide bombings by month, January 2007 to September 2007:
16
16
23
23
22
22
20
17
17
I don't see any evidence that the troop surge is affecting those numbers, which was my point. The surge has contained sectarian violence. It has done much less to contain AQI, which is reflected by the fact that (as you point out) they have an increasing share of the casualty count despite no increase in activity.
Iraq Body Count does not break casualties down by perpetrator, at least not as far as I can tell.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
parentAnd there were 18 in October
(#82759)The point is that the lethality of the attacks has diminished, which is why are fewer civilian casualties. Over time, they been less successful at getting away with the large, spectacualar attacks.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentMaybe so
(#82766)although the data you've posted so far do not support this contention, but even if true, the fact remains that AQI is being less affected by the surge than the broader sectarian conflict is. From the standpoint of the propaganda war, that's not a good thing.
As BN mentioned earlier, it might even be the case that the Iraqi government would be more effective at dealing with AQI than we are. Whether that's true or not, though, it's hard to cite "we need to stay in Iraq to beat AQI" as valid logic when we are not, in fact, beating them right now.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
parentI'm not sure policy decisions based on IBC make sense.
(#82762)IBC is explicitly an absolute minimum for actual casualties. They've got the most conservative methodology for counting deaths which is physically possible.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentIt's a long piece, but let me just take issue with two points
(#82740)Are you under the impression that one wakes up on the year of an election and decides to run for U.S. Senator for Illinois? In 2002, the primary jockeying for the U.S. Senate seat was in full force. If the war had been successful (and thus popular) in 2004, the odds are that Obama would not be in the US Senate. A pol's position on the most important foreign policy issue of his day does not just fade away into the woodwork. HIs future career was plainly at stake, probably more than an incumbent's would be, since incumbents rarely lose.
Also, you term his voting to confirm Petraeus but voting against the surge as "hypocrisy". Truly, would you be more comfortable if he voted against the most qualified man just because he disagrees with the policy he's been hired to execute? You might disagree with your wife that the house needs a new coat of paint, but if it's going to happen anyway, why not hire the best painter?
This sort of fault-finding defies plain sense and weakens the rest of your points.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
GOP Management 101
(#82788)You might disagree with your wife that the house needs a new coat of paint, but if it's going to happen anyway, why not hire the best painter?
To sabotage the policy so later you can tell your wife you told her it was a terrible idea in the first place?
- reply
parentWait just a golderned minute, wags.
(#82785)BD has pointed to what potentially is a significant misrepresentation on Obama's campaign site, and your defense doesn't hold water. First, Obama announced his candidacy in 2003; your argument that he was a candidate in his own mind when he made his 2002 speech doesn't fit the facts.
Second, he had no incumbent to defeat because he was vying for an open seat after Sen. Peter Fitzgerald retired. His major opponent in the primary, Blair Hull, was knocked out when domestic abuse allegations from his ex-wife surfaced in divorce records, which were released under pressure from the media and the Obama campaign. (Hull was never charged with anything.) His opponent in the general election was Jack Ryan*, who dropped out when - surprise! - his divorce records were unsealed over his objections and revealed allegations by his ex-wife of sordid conduct. (Ryan was never charged with anything, and was given custody of their child.)
Ryan's place was taken at the last minute by Alan Keyes. Keyes predictably was creamed by Obama, who got 75% of the vote. So the "taking his political life in his hands when he opposed the war" meme doesn't ring true; the biggest factor in him winning his Senate seat arguably was unfounded allegations by two opponents' ex-wives made in sealed divorce records.
That doesn't mean he's not a great guy who would have won the seat anyway, and I bet every campaign has made fibs and misrepresentations like this. You can argue its significance, but you have to do that based on the facts.
*I'm not defending Ryan, who by all accounts ran a sleazebag campaign.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentNo, Tomsyl
(#82858)A Senate challenge takes some prep. You need to recruit talent, line up contributors, line up support. It can't be done in one year. Al Franken has been working on his Minnesota run for at least three years already.
Besides, when he started isn't the point. If you want a national political career, your stand on the most important foreign policy decision of our generation is going to matter. If he were only now running for Senate, and he had made a bad call back in 2002, do you really think his political opponents are going to say "Nah, let it be. The Iraq invasion was a long time ago"? They would not, nor should they.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
- reply
parentWell, Alan Keyes and "opponent" aren't synonyms,
(#82864)at least in that race.
Sorry but I'm just not buying the argument that the statements are accurate merely because he had decided to run for something higher when he made the speech. If the website says he was "a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002" when he hadn't announced for that seat, it's hard to argue that that's not spin, to put it kindly. Ame with the "I was in the midst of a US Senate campaign." And it's unnecessary spin; I presume he said what he believed when he gave the speech, so why try to give his words mystic significance by implying that he was taking his very life in his hands by uttering those words?
I think "I was right and Hillary Clinton was wrong" rings more true than "I'm a very ambitious guy, but I was willing to risk my ambitions for high office in order to tell a small group of people that I opposed the war."
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentSmall group of people = The World
(#82875)When the Chicago newspapers are covering the speech.
And frankly, I think you're parsing like crazy when you say that you need to make your big announcement speech before you're a candidate for office. I think Hillary and Barack have been candidates for Prez since at least 2005, not the middle of last year, but maybe that's just me.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
- reply
parentI'm definitely not the one who's "parsing like crazy", wags
(#82991)C'mon, we're all grownups here. The statement BD quoted from the Obama campaign site is misleading at best, even with the most charitable spin put on it. It's carefully crafted to give the impression that the guy risked all to take an unpopular position in the midst of a heated battle for a Senate seat, which isn't true.
If that's the worst resume inflation the guy's done, he would be running one of the cleanest campaigns in recent memory. But nobody's perfect, not even Barack Obama.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentHe wasn't planning to run against Keyes in 2002
(#82870)He was trying to figure out how to score the Democratic nomination, which might have been difficult if he had a rep for saying boneheaded wrong things about the Iraq war.
The '04 Dem Senate field was pretty competitive since IL is a pretty blue state and the one-term GOP incumbent, Pete Fitzgerald, was seen as vulnerable. Later on, Fitz decided to retire and Jim Ryan took his slot. Keyes came later when it was determined that Obama was going to win in a walk.
Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
- reply
parentWell, one reason Ryan was going to get walked on
(#82873)was the divorce file angle; though as I remember there was some intra-party angle to that, too. Anyway, I'm not saying Obama had a way of knowing his opponents would fall like tenpins, just saying what happened as I remember it. (I watched because Ryan's self-immolation was fascinating in its own way, like watching an accident in slow motion. And the guy struck me as a jerk, but maybe that's just me.)
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentPressuring your wife to go to sex clubs...
(#82929)...goes well beyond my definition of "jerk", but YMMV.
I remember that story well, partially because Jack Ryan's wife was Jeri Ryan, she of the well-filled silver jumpsuit on Star Trek:Voyager.
Keyes was picked because Obama at that point was considered fairly unbeatable and nobody else was stepping up to take the job. I think the GOP solons of IL decided that, since they were going to lose anyway, they'd throw Keyes into the meat grinder since he could drum up his own financing.
In retrospect, it was a supremely stupid idea. Even if the race was all but lost, they could have run some up-and-comer from the GOP ranks to give him or her a little experience in a statewide election. Plus, having the nutjob Keyes representing their party was just terrible.
Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
- reply
parentI'm not defending Ryan, but those were allegations,
(#82992)not proven facts. In fact, IIRC he got custody of their kid when everything was said and done, suggesting the claims of his ex-wife either weren't proven or weren't deemed significant by the divorce court.
That said, he sucks as a person and a politician as far as I could tell.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parent*nods*
(#82983)If I had been living in Illinois at that time, I most definitely would have voted for Obama--if for no other reason than to express my disdain for the pitiful state of the Republican Party there insofar as Keyes was the best candidate they could come up with. California Republicans are a pretty sorry bunch these days, but even they haven't sunk that far.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--from Ulysses, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson
- reply
parentYes, the silver jumpsuit. . . .
(#82934)That series went downhill in a hurry once they put her in the brown jumpsuit. It just wasn't the same.
- reply
parentIn October 2002,
(#82746)Obama was actively running for reelection to the State Senate. He quit his State Senate seat in 2004 to campaign for U.S. Senate. Obama and his website are simply wrong on the facts, which can be pesky and inconvenient things when you're running for president.
Yes, I do believe it's hypocritical to confirm the general yet reject the plan for which the general is the architect, and then make every attempt to undermine a plan that said general had previously written a 500-page book about. It would have more intellectually consistent and honest to simply vote "nay" on the confirmation vote.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentObama's website is a rather large place
(#82843)Can you help direct me to where you found this quote:
Your story doesn't seem to offer that link, unless I am overlooking it.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
parentBroken links
(#82876)I fixed 'em.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentBy that sterling logic...
(#82778)McCain won't be running for President until he resigns his Senate seat.
And how can the Senate only confirm a General who is willing to contradict his commander-in-chief? That alone is grounds for disqualification, in my book. The argument you're making is absurd on its face.
PS: The book Petraeus wrote was a counter-insurgency manual, not a plan for Iraq.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
- reply
parentSorry, no
(#82841)The facts are pretty simple. You don't run for two separate offices at the same time.
And you're playing semantics on the surge strategy. The plan for Iraq is pretty much Petraeus' COIN manual. There were no secrets about that, and it was a primary reason that we was selected by the president in the first place.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentYou don't run for 2 offices at one time?
(#82863)You apparently don't remember the Lieberman Senate/VP race of 2000.
But of course, that's not even the standard of proof you have to meet. What you would have to prove is that his opponents would not have used his Iraq position against him, if the war had turned out to be popular. And of course, that is absurd.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
- reply
parentNevertheless,
(#82872)he announced his candidacy for U.S. Senate in late 2003. Those facts remain pesky and inconvenient. Wags, I know you like the guy, but the facts on his website are just plain wrong.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentsee 82875
(#82881)nt
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
- reply
parentHere's one take on it
(#82865)Obama was nobody, politically, in 2002. He had nothing to lose, because if he washed out of politics he had a lucrative legal career to fall back on.
So he took a flier by backing the underdog on what was bound to wind up as a huge issue. If it paid off, his shot at high national office would be immeasurably enhanced. If it didn't, oh darn, he'd have to be stuck at K&E in a corner office on the 90th floor of the Sears Tower.
Cynical? Yes. True? Maybe, maybe not. Implausible? No.
- reply
parentCalculation, thy name is Obama
(#82880)That's why the President of the Harvard Law Review goes back to work as a community organizer in the southside of Chicago. If he cared about money, he would have gone to a NYC corporate firm and made 200K in his first year. If he cared about power, he would have clerked for a Supreme Court justice. The only possible reason to go back to his old job is if he cares about people.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
- reply
parentI have to side with you on this one.
(#82993)In a way it goes back to the discussion about reasons for charitable giving that crop up here now and then. Of course people ultimately give because it makes them feel good about giving, but branding that as self-centered (or here, ambitious) misses the whole point.
I'm not saying your reason is the only possible reason so much as I'm saying just look at what he did, instead of speculating about his reasons for doing it.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentAs has been noted before,
(#82846)Petreaus's COIN manual calls for a force ratio of 20-25 persons per 1,000, which we do not have. Thus, the plan for Iraq is very much not Petreaus's manual.
Iraq's population is 27,500,000. Now, let's say that the Kurds are irrelevant, as they're running their own affairs, and they're 17% or so of the population. So that's about 22,800,000 Iraqis.
That's 450-570,000 troops. We don't have a third of that.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentwhat are the last 'surge' arrows pointing to
(#82672)in your first 2 graphs?
==
You posted this at redstate but didn't tell us!
Is that coz of last time?
We can handle the truth!!!!
The dark purple bars
(#82679)I never tell anyone that I cross-post anymore. I just do it. I also posted this at Swords Crossed. Quite frankly, the last three or four weeks I decided to concentrate my time at Redstate to convince my fellow conservatives that McCain is the best choice for president, and that it would be foolish and counter-productive to stay home or vote for a Dem or vote for a 3rd party candidate. My work on that project there is more or less complete.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentgot it. all the dark purple bars are during the surge
(#82683)and both arrows are pointin at the purple bar section.
(I thought maybe each arrow signified some specific event like the Golden mosque bombing.)
'my work is complete' sounds ominous ... did you threaten them, convince them, just give up? redstate update, please.
- reply
parentDidn't mean to sound ominous
(#82685)Me and a growing group of McCain supporters were trying to use our powers of persuasion to convince anti-McCainiacs to reconsider. It wasn't easy but I think we reached a level of success, although there remains a small clatch who rather emigrate to Mexico than vote for McCain.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentGood post. Instead of "war on militant islamism", though
(#82692)you should probably write "search for suitable proxies" who can carry on the struggle against militant Islamism. Because this struggle cannot be fought by or in the USA.
Ultimately it has to be and will be fought within the Islamic societies themselves. It is the identification of and support for the correct proxies that will the true measure of success of US policy in the ME. There can be no other long term solution.
- reply
parentExcellent point: moniker needs work though. :) -nt-
(#82813).
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentThe abandonment of the surge worked!
(#82662)The purpose of the Surge was ostensibly to facilitate a political solution. Our commanders on the ground sensibly realized that this was impossible, so they concentrated on force protection by bribing local militias into laying low.
This is, of course, the opposite of a long-term political solution, serving to empower the centrifugal forces at the expense of the centripetal forces. But those who hold our soldiers' lives in sacred trust have more important things to do than feed the fantasies of armchair imperialists.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
Providing a stabilized, secure Iraq...
(#82669)...is elemental to a successfuly counterinsurgency, PM. You can't have political progress without creating a workable environment. Now that this environment has held for the last several months, we're seeing political progress. All because of that fascist Petraeus.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentDid you see
(#82686)Andrewsshi's picture in his diary? Is that the political progress you're referring to? Note that Ahmadinejad didn't have to sneak in or out of the country like US leaders do.
The withdrawals begin soon, the warring factions are laying low until we start pulling back. Where you get this idea that anything we've done will wind up in a "success" is beyond me. It was a mistake to go in, and whatever tactical bandaids you put on it won't change the fact that we have committed to an open ended occupation without any end or success in sight.
I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
parentYou're begging the question.
(#82675)I say that there is a difference between buying militias off and actual political progress.
You say that the fact that a militia has been successfully bought off is political progress.
And I believe you -- it's political progress. But for conservatives in the US seeking electoral gain at the expense of US prosperity and security, not for Iraq.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentBaby steps, PM
(#82684)I thought liberals were all about process and not immediate results. But when it comes to Iraq, you're all about immediate results and to hell with the process of reconciling the various factions. That's why it takes five to ten years for COINs to succeed. It won't be easy incorporating onetime Sunni insurgents into the Iraqi government or military, but that's exactly what the political component of the surge operation is trying to do.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentResults
(#82688)Okay, we've gone beyond comedy and into farce.
My point is that the immediate results which you are touting in this diary are the results of a counterproductive process. That is, yes, liberals are into process, which was exactly my critique. There weren't that many paragraphs, man. It's not like I hid the thesis.
In addition, there is no way on God's green earth that the American public is going to stand for a decade more of the War of Bush's Wang. Start writing your dolchstosslegende diaries now, because you're gonna need them when the grownups take over and accept that wishing for something doesn't make it so.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentPlease explain how the process was counterproductive
(#82738)What other options did Sunnis have to rid al Qaeda? There were certainly none coming from the government or the Iraqi security forces. The current situation is improved from what it was but it doesn't mean the process has ended. But thanks for reminding of your constant refrains of dolschtossglende because it reminds of your past statements chock-filled with conservative bigotry.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentI already answered this question.
(#82761)I said that I agree with the commanders' decision. I think they did the right thing, because I view a political reconciliation as vanishingly unlikely long as we are there, so making one even more fantastically improbable is a trivial cost.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentBigotry
(#82760)If Obama comes to the conclusion that the candle isn't worth the flame and decides to pull out, then one of the things which is a risk -- Iraq falls into civil conflict and effectively partitions after a terrible human cost -- takes place, do you really think the conservative response will be, "Well, reasonable people could disagree on whether or not Iraq was 'winnable,' and we were spending a lot of resources there, so I'm basically glad I don't have to make those kinds of decisions."?
No, it will be, "Man, we could have won Iraq just like we could have won Vietnam, if it weren't for those evil/stupid/anti-American Democrats/liberals/hippies."
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentWhaddya mean "if"?
(#82781)Obama already came to his conclusion that we've already lost, no matter how the surge has done to date. The conservative movement will have a valid case to make that Obama cut and run well before any prospect of defeat, and especially since we had stabilized the security environment. Dolschtossglende would be a silly and inapt comparison because there is no question that Germany was completed routed in WWI.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentHeh.
(#82832)Nice first draft.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentNo, they won't have a valid case to make
(#82810)Not that that will stop them from making an invalid one.
The blame for Iraq rests on the people who got us into an unwinnable* war for spurious reasons. Now, whether (like me) you think that their actual reasons were utterly nefarious, or whether you think they were sincerely mistaken, the blame is still theirs, first, last, and only.
*Unwinnable, meaning that the stated reasons for going into Iraq (depriving Saddam of WMDs he didn't have, and the Democratic Domino Effect that couldn't be) were impossible to achieve. The goal posts have, of course, moved substantially since 2003.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
parentObama already came to his
(#82800)Obama already came to his conclusion that we've already lost, no matter how the surge has done to date. This is dishonest... It is viewed by most if not a vast Majority of people that the cost has been to high... If we move the goal posts then you might be able to spin this as a post-hoc the dems lost it... For all intents we have moved so far from the fallacy's that got us into this that Victory is almost an elusive wet dream...
Also we will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in... Obama will have to make a real world decision when he gets all the briefings from the ground commanders.. In fact I remember our esteemed Ken White talking of the culture over their being one that action and pressure are the only thing that gets people moving... In fact the political progress that we have seen seems to correlate with the US presidential elections and the Democratic Party putting pressure on the Iraq government or the Administration doing the same for political reasons to try and change the meme of the upcoming election.. If the conversation is about the surge then McCain has a shot in the debate if it is about the whole process over the years and the costs related to that and the decision on the war then Obama will win the argument...
Their is a nuanced difference between surrender and a movement towards a phased withdraw...
Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- reply
parent16 months is phased surrender
(#82836)If we went into full-blown cut-and-run mode tomorrow, it would still take at least a year to get all our forces out, under the very best of circumstances. Of course his mind's made up.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentHow many months would not be phased surrender?
(#82853)26?
36?
96?
206?
Thus the origin of McCain's 100 years quote.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
parentHow many months?
(#82856)How many months would not be phased surrender?
My guess: no more than 56 (from today) - i.e. just in time for the 2012 Presidential election. After all, that sort of timeframe worked for Richard Nixon: why shouldn't it suit McCain or Obama?
- reply
parent"The War of Bush's Wang" and the d-word in one post - congrats.
(#82697)Has "BDS" been outlawed here yet?
And what will you yourself do when the "grownups" take over?
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentCelebrate.
(#82708)Then finish my Ph.D. and see how I can contribute, of course. There's a lot to do and people are dying until it gets done.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentActually, it was intended as a "back at ya."
(#82782)I'll sneak up on this to avoid the appearance of impropriety by using a Venn diagram. Let's say the "grownups" you refer to are in one circle, that your comments suggest you are in another, and that the two circles have no common area.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentHeh.
(#82849)I was unaware that I personally was to be taking over anything. Is there a plan I should be familiar with?
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentYou will be replacing Paul Krugman at twice his salary.
(#82859)Your life will be rich and satisfying.
You will give all of your money to a great cause.
You will purchase and read from a bible in which every word is bolded.
Beware of Japanese waitress bearing fortune cookie.
***
OK, that's twenty bucks for the palm reading, bub.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentWe do start from one similar place
(#82657)I'm talking about the idea that Obama has used his '02 speech as a kind of foreign policy Bat Utility Belt that can solve whatever foreign policy problem or question pops up.
I'm also, like yourself, not altogether pleased that both major Democratic candidates have a get-out-no-matter-what Iraq plan. But really, it's inconceivable that anything else could win the Democratic nomination this year, and in fact pretty questionable as to whether anything else could win the general.
But I sure like get-out-no-matter-what over McCain's "Remember the W!" strategy of no change. I just can't agree with you on the effectiveness of the surge. It was always known that the surge would be a temporary condition and that it could be waited out. Given that, a cease-fire for consolidation is to all the combatants' advantage, and not something we somehow "forced." The various sides need to prepare for possible war after we leave, not fritter their power away in harassment attacks on us, when they already know, or at least they think they know, that we'll be leaving soon.
I'd like a President who would try to take Iraq more seriously by putting the economy at least partially on a war footing, and who will at lest try to get the world to take it more seriously, which realistically would have to start with something at least very much like an apology. Failing that, we should get the hell out. We're just making it worse now.
Here's a prediction: if we have this election and Iraqis see on the other side of it that we're not really going to leave, after all? Hell will break loose.
Two points
(#82666)First, you're spinning when you talk about "McCain's 'Remember the W!' strategy of no change." McCain has advocated a change to a proper counterinsurgency strategy as early as Nov-2003, and the implementation of the strategy in Feb-2007 is a fundamental change to what was there before. It was Bush who came over to McCain's principles, and prior to Jan-2007, McCain was the one GOPer in Congress who outspokenly criticized Bush's plan and troop levels and leadership.
Second, a real counterinsurgency strategy isn't a "temporary condition". Historically, the successful ones have lasted five to ten years because they're damn hard. It is both surprising and beneficial that the situation in Iraq turned as quickly as it did, but as Petraeus frequently says, the environment is still tenuous and fragile because he knows it takes time for these things to take root.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentOK
(#82690)How about "McCain: Change Bush Can Believe In."
I'm sure you and I have different ideas about the consequences of a long-term counterinsurgency strategy, but politically, that ain't going to happen. Nothing like the status quo will continue indefinitely.
- reply
parent