Some of my friends follow politics closely. Most do not. The Obama campaign has done an absolutely wonderful job of presenting and repeating the message of CHANGE with Senator Obama’s candidacy, but the problem comes when Americans (Democrat, Republican, Independent? No…AMERICANS) see that message of CHANGE, and they ask, “So, what’s he gonna change?”
Yeah, a lotta people think America can be doing better economically. I know I personally could be, and you probably could be too, but how about the nation as a whole? Is it the job of the President of the United States to make sure I have more than just pizza money for tonight? If it’s the President or the government’s job to make sure we have money, then why doesn’t the Federal govt just send us all money? The answer is simple: it’s not their job. It’s mine, and yours. It’s our own responsibility to make sure we have enough money. No doubt we WANT money from the Feds, but do they owe it to us? No. We owe them. We owe them for assembling a military that can protect us better than any other in the world. We owe it to them for a long list of reasons. We all know this, and we all know a President can’t do too much about the national economy, but he can sure wreck it (past Presidents have proven that well). Will Sen. Obama put a chicken in every pot, a pizza delivery at everyone’s? Will he payoff all of our mortgages, get each of us caught up on our bills, maybe make sure every American gets a brand new car for free? Will he make sure that the 4-5% of Americans who are not working can get a job? C’mon. Get real. The national economy is not your economy or mine, and if CHANGEs anything, you’d better be real prepared ask “HOW?”
Ok, he (or any President) can wreck an economy, but what about foreign policy? Will he end the war in Iraq? Newsflash: it’s ending, and it’s ending because President Bush did something at the constant nagging of Senator McCain. Now, whether it’s Bush, or McCain, or Obama…the DNC 2008 platform makes it perfectly clear that all three have the same policy in Iraq: continue the withdrawal of US forces slowly. Bush just agreed with the Iraqis to pull US forces from Iraqi cities by June30, 2009. McCain is broader and more realistic in that he wants US forces out as soon as possible, but it depends on the conditions on the ground-not on some calender date set for a politician to beat his chest and claim that THEY somehow won the war in Iraq. Obama had said he wanted to pull out 2 combat brigades a month, but…apparently he had no idea what it takes to move a combat brigade (or maybe even what one is), and when thousands of Generals in the Pentagon and retired said that such a move was as realistic as making an aircraft carrier fly….well, he changed that to 1-2 combat brigades a month “depending on conditions on the ground”(ie, McCain’s policy since 2005). In the end, if some politician tells you that HE will be The One to end the war in Iraq….he’s kissing your ass and hoping your ignorant because the war is ending, and everyone has the same idea on how to get US troops out. Sometimes they like to tell us that “John McCain wants to keep the war in Iraq going for 100yrs!”, but when they tell you that, they’re liars, and they’re not only assuming your ignorance on the fact, but expecting you to be stupid because it’s not at all what John McCain said. What he really said was that it doesn’t matter how long US forces are in Iraq-they could be there for 10yrs like in Kosovo, or 60 yrs like in Japan, Italy, and Germany, or they could be all out in a year or so, and the reason it doesn’t matter is because what DOES matter is the casualties. If there’s no casualties in Kosovo, Italy, Germany, Japan, or Iraq….then who cares how long those troops are there? Historically, the longer they’ve been in a country, the better ally that country has been, and the more the people of that country have respected the American people.
Afghanistan. Senator Obama loves to tell us that America “took its eye off the ball” and invaded Iraq instead of getting Osama Bin Laden, but the problem is that Osama and Al Queda left Afghanistan in Nov/Dec 2001, and Iraq wasn’t invaded until almost 2 yrs later. Heck, the prep work to invade Iraq didn’t even start until 9 months after Bin Laden and AQ escaped Afghanistan, and when a politician tells you that somehow invading Iraq took forces from Afghanistan…they’re lying. NATO forces came into Afghanistan, so US forces left (had they stayed, politicians would have claimed that the other members of the Coalition of nations fighting in Afghanistan were all small contributors-that’s the line they gave on Iraq). But what will President Obama CHANGE? Despite the intrinsic faux-anti-war sentiment in the Democratic Party base, he’s gonna send as many troops as he can to Afghanistan (ignoring his base, and in direct contradictin to his claims that the US military is overextended and about to break-a claim he’s been making for 3 yrs now). Will more troops help in Afghanista? Sure, but what’s needed there more is reconstruction people, low level diplomats to deal with tribal leaders and village elders, and money. Senator Obama has no plans to send any of those. Just more troops (ie the same strategy that worked so well for the Russians in Afghanistan).
The Russians eh? What’s Senator Obama going to do differently with Russia-especially since they invaded Georgia and are threatening to attack Poland? Well, the DNC platform says they’d follow the same policy as President Bush: back Georgia w rhetoric, and nothing else. Since the invasion, Sen. Obama called on the UN, the UNSC, the EU, NATO, and every other diplomatic collage of coaltions to denounce the invasion. None of that worked. Seems that somehow talk is cheap on a battlefield where the attacker knows completely that no one has the courage to actually take an iota of action towards stopping them.
Iran? Well, Senator Obama plans to CHANGE the way the US deals with Iran’s nuclear program. He wants to get the EU, UN, UNSC, IAEA, NATO, and other countries to present Iran with tougher diplomatic rhetoric (a policy that’s been tried and failed since the Iranian program began during the Clinton years). That kind of tactic didn’t work with Russia, but he thinks it will with a nation that backs suicide bombers, and has 40,000 English-speaking volunteers already signed up to be suicide bombers inside the United States. Sen. Obama also thinks it’d be good to talk to the Iranians. President Bush’s admin tried that, and it didn’t work. In fact, the Iranians LAUGHED at the meeting for all the press corps and world to see. That leaves HOPE and airstrikes as the last options to prevent Iran from making nuclear bomb factories then handing out nukes for suicide bombers to use in Israel, Iraq, inside the US or anywhere. He hasn’t ruled out HOPE, but…..he hasn’t ruled out airstrikes yet either (the same exact policy as President Bush’s past 8yrs and Sen McCain’s-though Sen McCain could actually fly the airstrikes himself).
How about getting Osama Bin Laden? how will that CHANGE w President Obama? Well, President Bush has tried covert operations and airsitrkes in Paksistan w Pakistani permission for the past seven years. That tactic doesn’t work. Sen Obama has said if he has intelligence like what President Bush has had, he’ll unilaterally invade the nuclear-armed Pakistan just to get the one tall Arab guy who has lost most of his power. It’s an ironic CHANGE given the faux-anti-war base of his party, but it appears that President Obama sees getting Osama Bin Laden as more important that starting a nuclear war with a country of 300million people that has nukes.
Ok, what does CHANGE mean?
Same Iraq policy as President Bush
Same Iran policy as President Bush
Same Russia policy as President Bush
A more warmonger-like policy for getting Osama Bin Laden than President Bush
and
he wants to tax the wealthiest Americans who also happen to the be the employers of most Americans (cuious, will that spur pay raises from people who are getting taxed more? Will the increase in their tax bill inspire wealthy employers to hire more people?)
CHANGE
It’s just a word on a podium, but-to quote Sen Obama, “Words DO matter.” In the case of CHANGE, there is more to it than just a word. There’s an expectation that you (not Democrats or Republicans or indpendents, but AMERICANS) will be too politically apathetic to ask, “What’s he gonna CHANGE?” It’s an expectation that you’re either gullible or lack the courage to ask, “If all politicians spin, distort, mislead, and lie….then how is this man distorting, misleading, and/or lying to me” Or are you gullible enough to believe he’s not?
See author page
This is excellent I wish this writing you did would be in every newspaper on the front page.
Obama …’same as Bush’ ? …on Iraq? on foreign policy??
Your “analysis” is ridiculous.
Hehehehehe, ME TOO WILD THING!!!!
me too….
Thanks
🙂
Johnny-come-lately-Obama’s plan for withdrawal in 2006 is only now feasible in 2008… no thanks to him. So Scott is correct that under both Obama and McCain, a withdrawal will be in progress.
However Doug is also correct. McCain will listen to both commanders on the ground and Iraqi govt officials on the timing, making sure to pause and resume as events dictate.
Obama? Only if he feels like it…. a third finger in the wind to gauge popularity polls perhaps?
In early July 2008, Obama said:
Then of course, the candidate of “change”… meaning speak with forked tongue for political expediency… required His Supremeship Wesley Clark, to come to the aid of His Messiahship, BHO, after meeting Petraeus in Iraq (since he apparently didn’t have the time when Petraeus was in Wash DC either time).
In other words, as a CIC he’ll listen to the lead ground commander in a battlezone, but not heed his advice if it doesn’t suit his particular designs. “I’ll listen”.. and despite what the general said, he “refined” with his typical no-answer nuances.
I have no doubts that Obama will treat the Iraqi’s advice and requests the same. New TV show in America… “Obama Knows Best”… right along with his co-host, Joe “let’s divide Iraq” Biden.
Needless to say, tho Obama has the support of Hamas, Chavez and other despots… as well as the US communist and socialist community, the Iraqis are none too thrilled with the Obama-Biden ticket.
So yup… you’re right, Doug. A world of difference between the two on Iraq. One will listen and heed the commanders to insure not only a safe withdrawal, but stability on the ground.
The other will listen, and do what the hell he wants anyway. In this case, Petraeus and other military leaders will merely be talking to “the hand”.
Doug, I think you’re still stuck in the past while the future is being formed in the present, and whether it’s the present or the future….
Obama’s Iraq policy is the same as President Bush’s (though grossly ignorant)
Obama’s Pakistan policy is the same as President Bush’s (he admits it in 3 interviews I’ve seen-want links?)
Obama’s Iran policy is the exact same as President Bush’s-try talking to Iran, get the UN, UNSC, EU and even NATO to try and convince Iran to stop building nuclear bomb factories (all have been tried by Bush admin, all have failed)
What difference is there-or….are you just saying, “nu-uh! Is not! Infinity!”
C’mon man, step up. Just just drop by with some troll hit and run that leaves nothing but a childish “nu-uh”. Tell us how the current and future Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and foreign policy in general differs.
Or are you afraid to look it up. I’ve presented facts. You’ve demonstrated ignorance.
Post your facts. Prove me wrong. Let’s discuss it.
Pakistan:
The only change I see is in the size of the federal government and your taxes … Otherwise, nothing will change. Iraq, Afghanistan, nope no change, Russia, won’t do anything until the Russians get to the English channel.
Obama is a naive waif … The only hopey changey left is hoping that O Biden can take some of the heat without sticking both feet in his mouth — A highly unlikely hope.
For the first debate, lets have Obama debate O Biden on Iraq …
The question is, “What WON’T he change?”
And, most important, how badly will he weaken America and how swiftly will he bring turmoil to the World?
CASE IN POINT…
O’Bongo’s man, Daniel Kurtzer (former US embarrassor to the M.E.) went to Syria to sell Israel and the US out to the Leftist forces of evil. (NOTE Bashar Assad is in Moscow to more closely ally himself with Russia.)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=72910
As bad as Bush’s folly has become under pressure from the Demoncrat Left and by the treachery of the State Department, O’Bumbler’s deliberate malice will be so much worse and will plunge the world into a tailspin like nothing we can imagine.
Let’s hope the comic farce of Denver doesn’t turn into a tragic farce for America and the World, through the “change” he is all too eager to effect.
Obama doesn’t care about foreign policy; his foreign policy pronouncements have been nothing more than an election strategy.
I suspect that Obama’s plan for “change” is to (1) unionize almost the entire workforce, by means of the legislation he is sponsoring in the Senate (the Employee Free Choice Act) and then eliminating “right to work” laws; (2) allow unions to more-or-less take control of the democratic party (their people becoming the enforcers); (3) give low-level union enforcers at the local level political roles such vote counting during elections, taking photographs of the children of journalists who disagree with him, etc. Unlike Watergate, or even Spitzergate, there will be no way to link such activities to the man at the top if union enforcers are in charge of it. Did I mention that Obama also plans to eliminate federal oversight of the AFL-CIO? I wonder which of “his people” will get to lead the FBI.
Remember that Obama already did much of (2) by placing “his people” in charge of manipulating democratic caucuses, which they proved quite adroit at, and disqualifying opponents (including the incumbent) for his first political race. Could Bill Clinton be pissed off not because he’s a sore loser (as the media portray him) but because Obama actually stole the democratic nomination from Hilary via dirty tricks in caucuses? Remember the Texas primary vs. the Texas caucus. Come to think of it, Hilary won almost every significant democratic primary.
Many conservatives plan to sit this election out, because they want to watch Obama and the dems screw up in order for the republicans to be able to come back re-energized in four years’ time. But I’m afraid that Obama’s plan for as-yet unspecified “change” is to end democracy as we in the USA know it and to become president-for-life. Though he isn’t a butcher, he wouldn’t be the first ruthlessly clever guy to subvert a democratic system from within.
OK, let’s take one at a time on their differences. First Iraq:
First, John McCain opposed a timetable for months, and he was more than willing to attack Obama, for months, over his support for them:
“This progress is encouraging but reversible if we heed those who have always counseled defeat when they now argue to risk our fragile gains and withdraw from Iraq according to a politically expedient timetable rather than the advice from the commanders who so brilliantly led this stunning turnaround in our situation in Iraq.”
Wise words, in part. Iraq is still ‘fragile and reversible.’
Scott, You might state, “Things have now changed now; there is now a trend in security stability.” But are you so sure? What are Iraqi analysts saying? …or still saying? I believe it’s your kind of thoughtless foolishness that got us sucked into invading and occupying Iraq. The reality is: it is too early to state “It’s ending,” as you say, and we are not even at mid-game, by most all honest accounts.
You, therefore, are not paying enough attention to the chemistry of the the 100,000 Sons of Iraq and Maliki. You also are not touching base constantly with Najaf, the shadow city of Baghdad. Sadly, there are some very disturbing stories that are circulating and that the ‘pandora’s box’ in Iraq not closed yet, and may not be for quite some time.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/49789.html
You mention June 2009 date as the pullout date, mark that as a possible D-day date, too. That’s now the same rumored new date that Maliki has “pledged” to have installed the SoI in their new jobs! The old date was the end of this year. Now add that to the delay in elections, constitutional reforms, and what do you have?: empty kisses from Maliki and armed SoI without any more patience; all on the doormat to a national election. And here’s the rub: Maliki with his newly added authority, on 2009 June, will NOT be bound by American strings any longer, and that is when things may come to a boil. He can _show_ his hate of the Sunni’s. Personally, since that’s a ways off, and speculative, it could change, but it’s ripe for investigating and is a pinch of old spice for those that say: “it’s ending”.
As I see it the Maliki government is clearly signalling that it is getting ready to declare armed Awakening groups illegal and the received wisdom is that the latter will express their displeasure by returning to violent insurgency. It’s that simple, McCain’s magic Surge won’t have accomplished the political mending and lasting reduction in violence.
That’s one of the differences between you guys and us guys on foreign policy. We look deeper into the treads in what’s holding things together, and what can rip them apart. As I see it, many of you guys simply put a lot of faith in change and hope and sort wish/force things to work out with a little post 911 intervention. While this, of course, is a crude, blunt populist criticism, it’s on point as being a real difference when it comes to Iraq.
So, here’s a real difference, we are quite certain Iraq’s security is ‘fragile and reversible’, and want out of a infinitely no win occupational situation– yet you want to speak of having won the war, in a election season.
Therefore, in essence, we are the true realists/pragmatists in foreign matters, not you or your mindset.
Doug, you just spent 3/4 of your post talking about how “it’s too early to tell” and how a date on a timetable doesn’t necessarily mean it’s over, but you precluded that by saying that somehow John McCain opposed timetables (apparently in agreement with the subsequent 3/4 of your post) as if a date on a timetable was a bad thing for Sen McCain to oppose. What brougt about security-as you so rightly demonstrate in great detail-is not a date on a timetable, but more troops and a shift in tactics…THAT is what Sen McCain called for…for a long long time, and when it came, when McCain’s call for more troops and a shift to counter-terrorism/focus on AQ finally came about…security broke out in Iraq.
I’m not sure about your point re Najaf, or 100,000 killed etc when you precursored that with statements of how the invasion and occupation weren’t the right thing to do. I mean, if ya cared at all about the Iraqi people (beyond just using their deaths as a political talking point to rant against GWB), then how can removing a dictatorial regime have been bad, and if the occupation was a bad idea…then absent that allegedly bad idea…how many hundreds of thousands MORE would have been killed (let’s ignore for the moment that barely 1/4 of those killed you mentioned were killed by US forces, and most were killed in Al Queda suicide bombings or sectarian violence that erupted whenever US troop levels were lowered; fewer US troops was always followed by MORE dead Iraqis than less.
So which is it:
you like timetables or not? If you do, then Bush just won your war. If you don’t, then its as I said earlier: Bush, Obama, and McCain are all in agreement that withdrawal will/is taking place, but it depends on conditions on the ground
You support the UN mandated occupation (since whenever US force levels were reduced, Iraqi casualties rose), OR you oppose the occupation and since no US forces and no Iraqi security forces would have been present….you’d have preferred MORE chaos than we had from 04-06?
CHANGE seems to mean change one’s mind.
“Many conservatives plan to sit this election out, because they want to watch Obama and the dems screw up in order for the republicans to be able to come back re-energized in four years’ time.” — John
Whoever did that in the last election shares responsibility for the damage the Dems have already done, and for Obama getting as close as he his. It’s a DUMB strategy, especially because after 4 years of the vermine that want power now, there may not be another chance.
No Scott, you don’t understand my point.
The Bush administration and McCain has stood steadfastly against setting a timetable for exiting Iraq. Now it is exploring a “time horizon” for troop reductions. You, and them, argue this is due to a significant and durable change in conditions in the ground. Yet it’s simply not that simple. There is evidence out there in Iraq that the coming days are going to be very hard going for Maliki to keep this tenuous “stability”. Yet Bush, after years of a foreign policy dominated by hard-line pronouncements, is bending to ‘time-horizons’ a buzz word vaguely defined to mean near anything, as long as it means the US will be leaving sometime soon.
Signing on to a staged withdrawal with gunpowder dry, guns laying around in plentiful supply and numerous questionable, and angry characters is hardly a prudent thing to do when you have been planning to “win” a war, be “victorious”, or leave “honorably”.
The reality is this is an election year and the progress in Iraq is being measured by the WH present deaths being in Iraq being in double digits, instead of triple digits. That metric, one among many, is ‘fragile and reversible’ and is approaching a Sunni impatience as 100,000 Sons of Iraq are being ignored in this “progress”. — You gentlemen certainly never talk about it.
It is this ‘head in sands’ foreign policy that Bush, McCain and many republicans have that separates them from real foreign policy pragmatists.
If you really wanted to win in Iraq (which I have never seen as a possibility) you would not be signing on to the political claptrap about having ‘won’ in Iraq. Yet political heft is there, it beckons your party’s needs.
So what is a difference between Obama and Bush on Iraq: Obama finds the place incapable of being ‘won’, he doesn’t speak of ‘victory’. Bush, however, does; he sells the “progress” like the beansmen where Jack bought his beans, so one day, when he’s not around, someone else will have to inherit his ‘giant’ mistakes, as he has left town and had been ignoring foreign policy reality for years. Again, the difference is realism, pragmatism contrasted with denial. A most basic difference.
(AQ was not the central problem in Iraq, Scott; it was a civil conflict that was supreme. AQ was responsible for only 8% or less of the violence in 06 and 07.)
(If you are not “sure about [my] point re Najaf, or 100,000 killed etc” then you should reread the post; it is a central premise to my thesis that the WH and others foreign policy wonks have their heads in the sand and are ignoring a possible coming confliction, as they make up withdrawal dates, rotation schedules, troop deployments to Afghan., all gloating over the surge while painting a pollyanna Iraq.)
“…Bush just won your war”. True, clear foolishness made manifest for all of us.
Doug, you’re right. I don’t understand your point. It still seems like you’re just ranting about the past (based on false premises btw), and not the present and future.
First, to suggest that time horizons, timelines, etc is a new idea for the Bush Admin is completely wrong. It was in their 2004 CPA plan for Iraq where they called the timeline for withdrawal “benchmarks”. The 2005 Bush Admin PLAN FOR IRAQ which was up at the WH website called them goalposts (note, this plan had Aug/Sept 06 as a time for when US forces should have been able to largely withdraw, but the AQ bombing of the Golden Mosque set off sectarian violence and changed all that). The 2007 New Direction in Iraq Strategy (again, osted at WH site) calls them goals and goalposts (among many other things). Yesterday, I posted a link to an article that said the US aims to get US forces out of Iraqi cities by 1July 09. As you said, it’s just a date-what’s important is the objective, and the conditions that make it happen, and those conditions have been present for 6months now. AQ is fleeing Iraq BIGTIME (I myself listened to Brig Gen Trombitas-head of counter-terrorism operations in Iraq) just a few weeks ago describe how the operations are going, how remarkably well the coalition forces are doing, and how well the ISF CT infrastructure and operators are doing. ‘Standing side by side, you cannot tell who is an American and who is an Iraqi’-Brig Gen Trombitas just a few weeks ago.
As it is, it seems that we agree leaving Iraq is not something that should be done based on a calender date (a TIMELINE), but rather on conditions on the ground. That is what every single Bush Admin plan has been based upon (curious, did ya ever read one of those?), and it’s not only what GWB has been pushing for, but-as you pointed out Doug-what Sen McCain has been pushing for, and what Sen Obama and the DNC are finally coming to recognize.
So the conundrum is this: if the idea of a timeline is bad, then where’s the criticism of Obama and the DNC’s plan to have US combat forces out of Iraq by May 2010? It’s ok for Obama and Dems to have a timeline, but not GWB? It’s ok for Obama and Dems to have a time frame/benchmark/time horizon/goal of 16 months, but it’s not ok for GWB to do the exact same thing in his 2004, 2005, and 2007 plans?
Oh, and I truly must contest your comment that Al Queda was only 8% of the violence idea. Sectarian violence was bad, but didn’t spike and reach its peak until Al Queda blew up the Golden Mosque. Additionally, I believe your 8% figure is based on stats claiming that AQ was only 8% or less of the insurgents. Most of the people killed in Iraq have been killed by suicide bombs, and almost all of the suicide bomb attacks have been by Al Queda groups. Tens of thousands more have been killed by sectarian violence which-as I said, was bad, but unmanageable before Al Queda’s Golden Mosque success (ya think AQ just blew it up for fun, or maybe the Islamic extemists blew up the Mosque for some other reason-like getting Iraqi sects to go beserk?).
As to re-reading the Najaf thing so that wonks like me aren’t ignorant of the “possible coming confliction”…there’s no need. Whether it’s me, or any other Flopping Aces writer, or McCain, or Bush….we’ve all gone on record multiple times now saying that you cannot just (your words) “make up withdrawal dates, rotation schedules.” If you withdraw based on a calender date, then we’ve all (even Sen Obama and the DNC) said that three things are likely to happen, and one thing is extremely unlikely.
1) Iraq will collapse
2) there will be a regional war
3) the US and more nations will have to invade Iraq a 3rd time under infinitely worse conditions
(note: some would say that this is Bush Admin fear-mongering, but others would rephrase it and say, we have to be as careful getting out as we allegedly were getting in-emphasis on being careful in getting out since the part about getting in is largely irrelevant and wrong)
the one thing that President Bush and others have said as they opposed timelines (the idea of having all US forces just drive out of Iraq on a certain calender date) for years is that Iraq is not likely to just suddenly have peace break out. The only people who buy that idea are the wonks who think that the presence of US forces is the problem. It’s not. It’s when US forces withdraw before there’s enough ISF forces to replace em. That’s when there’s trouble. They stand up, we stand down.
(to be clear, I’m deliberately ignoring all your comments about North Korea, Iran, and the decision to invade Iraq as they’re moot and irrelevant to the subject at hand which is TODAY and TOMORROW’s positions on foreign policy).
Doug, INRE your comment:
Of course they stood steadfast against setting a timeline when the chaos was a’rage. Only the DNC wanted to beat the feet out of there in that era.
And there is more than “exploring”. You are behind the times, or perhaps distracted and a’twitter with flushed cheeks at the DNC convention hoopla… LOL. Dat’s a joke, son. But it certainly didn’t make huge news late last week when it happened.
Now you suggest the timeline is disingenuous because it is a “tenuous” stability. No one suggests waiting until the danger goes away… just until they can deal with their own problems effectively. Iraq will always be tenuous and difficult – it’s an Arab democracy, the heart of the Caliphate, and Islamic jihad movements will always want that territory as an Islamic state. They will be assailed until the cows come home.
However Iraq is more equipped as of this time to handle their internal problems without US help. Not totally capable as of today, but when the deadlines outlined in the new draft agreement being submitted first to Iraq security chiefs, they have the time to increase their proficiency. After security signs it off, then the Iraq Assembly must do the same.
Rather a wind out of the sails of Obama if this goes thru. Since withdrawal at the right time, and under the right conditions, was the plan from day one… despite what you want to believe… BHO will have little left to talk about. However none of this is thanks to him, or his DNC cohorts in Congress.
And BTW, Congress is in a snip that *they* don’t get to approve this withdrawal plan… LOL!
imo, best part about Doug’s posts are that he goes on and on about how Bush, McCain, Flopping Aces writers, and other “wonks” opposed timelines (withdrawl of forces based on a date instead of conditions on the ground), and then he turns right around and opposes timelines himself while denying that Sen Obama and the DNC 08 platform specifically give a timeline for withdrawal of combat forces by May 2010 except for combat forces needed to fight AQ, and protect US forces who are training ISF, supporting them, etc.
The guy just can’t decide if a timeline is a good or a bad thing, and absolutely refuses to acknowledge that Obama should dare be examined or critiqued re his plan (a plan which is almost identical to the past SIX years of Bush plans (I found a new one from 2002 that doesn’t give a timeline, but puts withdrawal based on conditions on the ground).
Curt,
I’ve always been for timetables, unconditional ones.
When I’m discussing it above, I’m discussing it as a republican hypocrisy due to the election season backdrop and heft. It’s my view that Malilki pushed the issue of US withdrawals quite forcefully when Obama visited Iraq, resulting in Bush, McCain to bend with Maliki.
Of course this story is not even over yet, we know next to nothing on what the MoU (it’s no longer a Sofa) will contain and it may never even be glossed in its final form by Bush. … most probably the next president will approve it. Furthermore, Najaf appears to want concrete timetables in the MoU.
Personally, I’m wondering how Maliki will damage what Bush and McCain have to say about “timehorizons” or timetables: Maliki:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/25/AR2008082500863.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/08/25/iraq.main/
Just how long will McCain, Bush continue to deny that the time horizons/time tables Maliki wants that the administration has agreed to are not really “timehorizons”, “aspirational” and “conditions based?
Maliki will most probably continue to kick up dust like this as he’s under pressure to do so. One day, or perhaps more than once, before our election, the clouds will part and I see him standing before parliament, making a noteworthy statement to such an affect; thus, making it clear as glass to us, Bush, McCain, the parliament, congress, Sistani, Sadr and the Baghdad bombers: A US troop withdrawal will not be condition based, we want US troops out according to dates in time and place. There will not be walk-back on this statement either.
But returning to my earlier comment; it’s here that I find a republican hypocrisy in an election year context: no generals are saying we have won, no military brass are using such inflated dross. They are measured in statement, held by the prudent counter weight that things can go wrong, again (and now they really can and may). Yet, given that prudence, Bush, McCain and other political salesmen are still selling their goods, the war is near won, it’s a victory and the surge is the elixir ( Yet Petreaus himself has stated otherwise: “Petraeus is careful not to credit all the progress to the surge of U.S. troops in 2007. The sea change came last year from a series of movements now known as the Awakening. […] So would the Sunni Awakening have succeeded without the surge? “Possibly,” he concedes.”) http://www.newsweek.com/id/154587/output/print.
‘Caution’ is these sages universal watchword for Iraq. …But McCain, you, Gateway Pundit and others are in a hurry, in less than one year you have gone from decades to several years, and even declaring “military success” in Iraq, that “victory is in sight”— while even overshadowing Maliki’s attempts to posit a dated timetable for US withdrawals.
It is your colored glasses, color by this election season, that do not enable you to see the facts for what they are in Iraq. Me, personally, and my associates, we want out, we respect their self determination and will leave, when asked; you, you want to bend the truth of Iraq into a republican Bush/McCain celebration, where winning and victory have more holding power than the truth itself regarding Iraq. You want to gloss over the ruins of Iraq and its present and future instability. You want to make the surge a magic wand that stills all discord and stabilizes all tremors. You want to sell a bill of goods that does not reflect the reality of Iraq.
You scam on a war that has no clear indications of victory, and on a people that want us to leave.
Fly in your soup. Maliki announced to the world week’s before Obama’s visit that they were now ready to talk withdrawals.
Your problem is you think this is all about Obama’s stance. It’s not. Maliki could give a flying whit about Obama. And probably even less now that he’s selected Joe “let’s split up Iraq” Biden as his #2.
This is about Maliki’s election, their improvement in security, and feeling bolstered by their recent successes against Sadr and the Mahdi.
We all want out. You and your associates will always deem Iraq a failure… even if the nation stands as a solid and secure Arab Republic after we leave. You have to for a couple of reasons… you’re vested in calling it a failure and can’t afford the credibility hit as a party platform. And second, because you genuinely think the US coalition is a failure. I truly find your attitude offensive on this one, Doug.
In truth, our guys will have *always won*, as we have helped prevent Iraq being taken over by those attempting to overthrow the elected government while it was still weak. Iraq’s personal success story will only be told over decades. Can they hold on to their new country, or not?
Doug, Maliki spews that stuff every few months.
I’m sorry, but I missed the part where you showed that YOUR glasses are not colored by the election (to use your phrasing); where you complain that Sen Obama’s timeline of 1-2 brigades a month (logistically almost impossible btw according to the generals) for 16 months, or where you complain that he’s leaving combat forces in Iraq indefinitely even after May 2010.
Oh, and btw, when I speak w commanders in Iraq (people who are actually there, actually fighting the war, and actually DOING the transition to the ISF)….they repeatedly talk about the end of 2010/early 2011 (warning: indefinite timetable coming up) “Depending On Conditions On the Ground.”
Also, if you’re against indefinite timetables, then how can you complain about a definite date for withdrawal as you did earlier? I just don’t see the consistency here (and instead see hypocrisy)
First you make it sound like basing the conditions for withdrawal on a calender date is bad:
“Signing on to a staged withdrawal with gunpowder dry, guns laying around in plentiful supply and numerous questionable, and angry characters is hardly a prudent thing to do when you have been planning to “win” a war, be “victorious”, or leave “honorably”. “-Doug post 12
NOW, you’re saying that a withdrawal of US forces should be unconditional; set a date/timeline and leave.
“I’ve always been for timetables, unconditional ones.”-Doug post #16
Pick one, and please tell us how Sen Obama and the DNC’s vague pledge to pull out most combat units by May 2010 is good or bad, and what your thoughts are on Senator Obama’s and the DNC’s pledge to keep tens of thousands of combat troops in Iraq indefinitely
Rather than make a decision, you continue to runaway-err, redeploy your rhetoric to complaints about the six year old decision that Sen Biden and others made to re-authorize the use of force Iraq.
Obama-most US combat troops out by May 2010
Bush-most US combat troops out of cities by July 2009, most combat brigades out by 2011, and most forces out by 2012.
McCain-withdraw as many as we can as fast as we can without letting violence get out of control again as has happened after every other withdrawal or reduction in US troop levels.
Seems like Obama supporters simply put a lot of faith in change and hope and sort wish/force things to work out with a little post 911 intervention.
Oh yeah….one more cute distortion of truth (presumably via ignorance and not arrogance or deceit), “no generals are saying we have won, no military brass are using such inflated dross. “-Doug, post #16
You are correct that whether it’s Petraeus, Holmes, Trombitas, West, or any general who’s been in Iraq…they (like McCain, Bush, and Obama) all use the same caveat: DEPENDING ON CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND
Yep, my mistake. Bing West is one general who thinks the war is essentially won. I guess i have a tin ear for another ‘mission accomplished’ book or banner.
Every General says they’re seeing success.
and yes…Obama does not have the unconditional timeline that is wanted by Doug; a withdrawal based on a calender date rather than (to quote Senator Obama) Conditions on the ground.
http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSN26392694
Bush-withdrawal after success on benchmarks & pace dependent upon conditions on the ground
McCain-withdrawal after success on benchmarks & pace dependent upon conditions on the ground
Obama-withdrawal after success on benchmarks & pace dependent upon conditions on the ground
“Obama says conditions to dictate final Iraq force”
Or do one of those people have a plan for Iraq that fits Doug’s worn in talking point of timetables (yeah, so many wars are fought and won on a schedule & the enemy’s actions have little to do w i)
C’mon Doug, pick one: withdrawal should be based on calender date as faux-anti-war types have advocated since 2002, OR it should be based on meeting benchmarks, goals, objectives, and conditions on the ground as the Bush Admin proposed in
2002 w Jay Garner’s draft plan for post war Iraq
2003 CPA plan for reconstruction
2004 National Strategy for Iraq at WH site
2006 New Direction in Iraq strategy for Iraq at WH site
2008 DNC platform
2009-2010 Obama, McCain, Bush plan for Iraq
Obama won’t change a thing, he has no idea what to change. He ran, he got elected, but this
empty suit won’t do any better as president than he did as senator. He talked a blue streak and
never gave me a clue about how he would make changes. If your not a truck mechanic how can
you work on trucks.
If you can’t drive a truck, why apply for the job. This man can’t do anything, what’s he qualfied
to do except possibly be a lawyer. He has limited experence at that. John McCain at least had
some idea how the government is run, up and above that thin ice he too would not be effective.
Bad choice on Sarah Palin. That killed McCains bid to get elected along with other blunders proved McCain had no business as our President.
Neither of these candiates should have been seriously considered as presidential material. A lot
of our citizens are lead to believe ” Obama ” is a cure all for what’s making them sick and just
because he’s black and they are black things will get better for those folk. Not true, Obama has
favors to return to many, Many, rich influential’s all over the country especially in Chicago and
in the senate. Ted Kennedy for one and there are many more.
The pay back’s to his party for their support will lean heavy on much of his time. He will do what
The Speaker of The House request of him. We will all reap the whirlwind that will follow Obama.
Better have a ” BIG AIR BAG ” and a “Strong Seat Belt” the impact could be severe.
Widmarc Clark
@widmarc clark:
MINOR CORRECTION:
“…impact
couldwill be severe.”Also, I disagree on Palin, but since the VP is a figurehead, unless something happens to the P, that’s a mute point. I may be wrong, but since she and the other guy weren’t elected that too is a mute point.
Obama harped on irritatingly about change and a lot of it is empty political rhetoric.
However he epitomises a change of attitude from the Bush presidency. In regards to Afganistan and Iraq – he inherited these wars and their aftermath so his hands are tied somewhat in the cards he has been dealt – despite his earlier campaign promises – to pull out too early would be stupid – whether you agree or not with the wars. Certainly in Iraq – Obama – wouldn’t of invaded in the first place. But we are here now.
Naturally Bush had to go after his 2 term limit but I wondered if he would of invaded more countries had he stayed. Like Iran. Bush instincts seemed to be more unilateral and pre-emptive – but not in all cases (e.g. N.Korea). Obama would rather get more international agreement and consensus (pretty impossible but certainly room for improvement as to what when on before).
So with change under Obama – I don’t expect much. But I don’t believe the US will get involved in any new wars which will be a relief. Hopefully Afganistan and Pakistan can get more of a focus than it seemed to have before under Bush – at least after the invasion of Iraq.
However it’s funny (as in bizarre not ha ha) when on this board – it seems people are saying Obama is some evil communist who is going to bring about WWIII and the same time saying his policies are the same as Bush. So which is it?