Amateur Hour: Obama’s Big Flip-Flop on Iraq [Reader Post]

Pass the barf bag. First, these reporters(?) are so damn biased, it’s oozing out of their foreheads. They are spinning the victory ala, “for now” instead of reporting that Al-qeada has been crushed in Iraq and popular muslim opinion is turning against their horrific violence.

Second, they are providing lots of pivot room for Obama because they know he must start to convince us that well, of course I’m glad things are working out. His butt boy, Axlerod, stated last week, why Obama has said all along that a surge of troops would lower violence-LIAR

Do you think maybe we could raise the level of the rhetoric just a tad?

Absolutely, but we’ll be sorry to see you go.

And I promise never to use a bodily function metaphor.

We don’t need that crap.

Well, don’t look now but ….

Just for discussion. The following is a quote from the testimony of Ryan Crocker before a House Committee in September 2007:

“Electricity supply has improved in many parts of the country, but is woefully inadequate in Baghdad. Many neighborhoods in the city receive two hours a day or less from the national grid, although power supplies for essential services such as water pumping stations or hospitals are much better. The Minister of Electricity said last week that it would take $25 billion through 2016 to meet demand requirements, but that by investing the $2 billion a year the Ministry is now receiving from the government’s budget, as well as private investment in power generation, that goal could be met.”

Success in Iraq involves stability. And stability, among other things, requires an adequate infrastructure. A reduction in violence wrought by additional troops and deals cut with Sunni warlords (Remember Afghanistan in the 80’s) are not enough.

We didn’t really go to the moon.

That was a movie set.

Or somethin’ like that.

Your question has been answered in the main part of this thread.

“Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable;”

Sounds familiar. Wonder where we’ve heard that before?

According to the Army Corp of Engineers, Baghdad has electricity for 12 hrs. p day, when the power goes down enterprising Iraqis in some neighborhoods have a system of generators that kick in. Is it perfect, of course not, but repairing and rebuilding an antiquated system that’s been neglected for centuries will take the time and money the Iraqis, Crocker, etc. have already acknowledged.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/general/1360748/in_baghdad_power_supply_may_get_worse/index.html

Dave: Your comments are typical of the non-serious lefties who simply want to play games while undermining support for one of the most important national security goals our nation has faced this decade.

Quibbling over what are essentially minor points is what Obama would call a “distraction” from the real issue as to how we succeed.

You DO want us to win don’t you Dave? You DO understand the benefits of a VICTORY in Iraq don’t you Dave?

Please don’t waste my time with a response that asks to define what Victory is. It’s clear enough.

Thank you Missy. I know you made an honest effort, but the official White House version, though more comprehensive than the shortened version, is no more specific. A plan needs specific metrics, benchmarks.

Will the job be done when the short term goals are met? I don’t think so because they merely describe process and progress, not an end state. General Petraeus himself admits the progress we have made is “fragile.”

Will the job be done when the medium term goals are met – What does “in the lead” mean? Or more pointedly “well on their way”? When I pull out of my driveway in the morning I can argue I’m well on my way to work. Can I say I’m well on my way to work after I’ve gone at least halfway? Why isn’t one-third of the way to work “well on my way” to work? I would argue that at that point I’ve made substantial progress in my trip to work. Do you see the problem?

Or will the job be done when we reach the long term goals? I have to say that looks an awful long way off and I think you would be very hard put to find someone inside or outside the Administration that was particularly sanguine about reaching those goals.

“An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.” That is a pretty lofty goal for a country that was cobbled together out of the remnants of the Ottoman Empire with no regard to potential ethnic and tribal conflict (and possibly with just the opposite goal) and that for 35 years was ruled by a brutal dictatorship. We on the other hand were heirs to the Enlightenment and an imperfect but effective constitutional monarchy. Our “man on the horse” got down off his horse and became our first president. We were uniquely blessed.

What has to happen in Iraq before we can withdraw the first pre-surge unit?

P.S: Could you give me a link or direct me to the article you read this morning?

The article is linked in this blog entry:

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=8671

I linked to the blog article because I agree with most of what the author says as he analyzed the WaPo column.

Even though I have a loved one in the fight and have the utmost care and concern for bloggers from FA that have been there and will probably go again, I don’t think we need to be in a hurry to leave Iraq.

OBL and Zawahiri are clearly losing their chosen central front in the war(Iraq), they still have much to draw from in Pakistan while they wait for the US to become complacent. And, Iran will continue their attempts to muck up any progress made by Iraq and Coalition forces. The war doesn’t end because Iraq becomes peaceful. As the President said in the beginning, our efforts in the global conflict will take generations. It’s my opinion that the longer the Iraqis allow us to stay in country, the better it will be for us in the long run.