The “polls” have spoken. Iraq and the global war against the jihad movements is but a blip on the electorate radar screen. From WaPo:
In the end, Iraq all but disappeared as an issue in the presidential election –
– to the benefit of Barack Obama.AS THE COUNTRY votes in an election dominated by economic issues, it is worth pointing out the problem that did not, after all, overshadow the presidential race: the war in Iraq. According to the most recent Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll, just 9 percent of likely voters said Iraq was the most important issue in their choice for president, compared with 51 percent who cited the economy. That’s a dramatic change from the 2006 mid-term election, in which Iraq ranked first among voters’ concerns, with 27 percent in a Pew poll citing it as the biggest issue. Even in 2004, more than 20 percent picked it.
The reason for that shift was encapsulated in a story The Post and other news organizations reported without fanfare over the weekend. In October, 13 American soldiers died in Iraq, a total that tied with August for the lowest monthly toll of the war. The number of Iraqis killed was almost certainly also the lowest in more than five years — 288, by the count of the Web site iCasualties.org. In October 2006, 106 American troops and at least 1,539 Iraqis died. Simply put, the situation in Iraq has been transformed in the past two years, and voters recognize it. While 63 percent said in a November 2006 poll reported in Newsweek that the United States was “losing ground” in Iraq, 53 percent said in a New York Times-CBS poll last week that the war was going “somewhat well” or “very well.”
It’s interesting that in a world that has blamed Dubya for everything from hurricanes and the ineptness of Mayors and Governors to their next door neighbor’s flatulance, they can’t find it in their mentalities to “blame Bush” for the disappearance of Iraq and the conflicts in the Middle East as an election issue as well.
Obama’s entire campaign has banked on linking McCain to Bush failures. Iraq and the standing of the US in the int’l community’s eyes? All the fault of Bush. Yet this –“failed policies of the last 8 years” has not produced another int’l crisis under Dubya’s watch. The US has not been hit with another terrorist assault on our soil under Dubya’s watch… but not for lack of desire or attempts.
The economic crisis? Again Obama and supporters proclaim it’s “a direct result of the Bush administration’s trickle-down, Wall Street first, Main Street last policies that John McCain has embraced for the last eight years and plans to continue for the next four”. This, despite the realities of the perfect storm of housing and lending events that lead to our vunerability today.
A series of events that the DNC has worked overtime to distance themselves from their own involvement.
*And* a POTUS wannabe who, himself, has played an (un?) intentional villainous part by acting as an attorney for perceived “redlining”, and involving himself in ACORN – a quintessential lobbying organization that best represents the “gimme for free, please” mentality that sweeps America today.
So America, buoyed by Obama’s promises of financial relief in the “middle class” America’s household, is voting for “wallet security”. “National security” is but a vague memory, manifested in our worst nightmares seven years ago. A nightmare that, whenever pictured as a reminder, is labeled a “foul” in strategy.
This brings us to Obama’s visions for America. And oddly enough, his domestic visions are intrinsically linked to his foreign policy visions.
By now we’re all familiar with Obama’s plans for Pakistan with his infamous – and heretofore never reversed policy towards Pakistan – that consists mostly of a not-so-slightly veiled threat to go after Bin Laden with, or without Pakistan’s approval if the US had “actionable intelligence”.
This, of course, has been twisted many ways in the wake of Obama’s tongue trip. Some say this is Bush’s current policy. And yes… it is, to a form. Even as the far left The Nation basically says, showing your military hand at “tacit approval” by the Pakistan leadership is really dumb…
The Times reports today that President Bush gave an order in July allowing US Special Forces “to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government, according to senior American officials.” They’ll notify the Pakistani government, but won’t ask permission.
Somewhat buried in the story is the report that “the Pakistani government had privately assented to the general concept of limited ground assaults by Special Operations forces against significant militant targets, but that it did not approve each mission.” In other words, according to the Times, the Pakistani goverment is winking at the idea.
There could hardly be a worse strategy. It risks inflaming Pakistani public opinion against the United States and boost the religious parties. It will make the new Pakistani government look like pawns or puppets of the United States, which won’t exactly make them popular among Pakistanis. And, of course, it won’t be successful in eliminating Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Historians of the Vietnam war might compare the strategy to President Nixon’s ill-fated decision to expand the war across the border into Cambodia in search of alleged Viet Cong “santuaries.” That didn’t work out well.
Some say he has pledged to attack Pakistan…. which, in effect, he actually has. For if we don’t have the “tacit approval” of the Pakistan leadership – which has changed from the more friendly Musharraf in most cases to the more politically correct “democratic supporter” Zardari in the past year – any action inside Pakistan is essentially an act of war.
An example of an Obama foreign policy failing can be had when Zardari visited the US for a UN meeting, and Obama merely made a phone call, while McCain and Palin were there to personally meet and greet with a US ally in the global war on the jihad movement.
There is something distinctively disconcerting about a potential POTUS who is willing to meet with Iran and Venezula leadership, but avoids shaking the hand of our allies.
And today, a new POTUS faces new challenges with Pakistan… integral to the Afghanistan fight that Obama likes to highlight as his “superior” foreign policy and understated war escalation.
Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari told the head of the U.S. Central Command, General David Petraeus, and Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher that attacks on his country by American drone aircraft are “counterproductive” and must stop.
“The focus should be more on enhanced coordination and intelligence-sharing,” Zardari told the U.S. officials today when they met at his residence during a visit to Pakistan, according to a Pakistani government statement. The cross-border raids from Afghanistan have killed Pakistanis and destroyed property, “creating a credibility gap” as members of the public pressure their leaders to explain the U.S. actions, Zardari said.
U.S. forces based in Afghanistan have stepped up attacks on militants, and have been given permission by President George W. Bush to pursue Taliban and al-Qaeda targets in neighboring Pakistan. A missile from a remotely piloted U.S. aircraft killed 27 people in Kari Kot in Pakistan’s South Waziristan district on Oct. 31, the state-run Associated Press of Pakistan said.
What would a President Obama do? Clearly the Pakistanis do not support US drone action. Also just as clear is their latest round of “cuppa tea” diplomacy with the Taliban will fail… just as it’s done for years before.
What is most fearful is that US voters don’t care what a President Obama would do. This is only 9% or so of their “issues” in pulling the lever tomorrow. They don’t care that Obama and the DNC want to cut the military defense budget by 25%. They just plain don’t care that Obama’s tax, welfare, energy and spending plan will more than overwhelm that “95% cut to all Americans” promise.
Worse yet, they either don’t understand… or worse, just plain don’t care… that Obama’s vision of a a welfare “social and economic justice” America will affect our nation’s safety via national defense.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
obama’s only hope was to link mccain and bush. he has sorta done that, but mccain has provent o be his own person. obama could not win if this was an even match dollar wise, he would not have the funds for his grand performances. what an ass. just like the rappers and all he thinks bling means you are good. he could never hold his own without money and media protection, he would have to rely his stances and all and that won’t happen.
Share this radio show with all the independent and undecided voters as it is aimed towards them. This radio show is about what is truly at stake in this election, and what we are TRULY voting for. It’s very surprising.
http://tinyurl.com/5znubc
b4uno,
I listened to 12 minutes of this audio. It’s great. I hope the undecided will listen to it.
Mata,
Good post! Economy and security are tightly linked together. But what I see as a major disaster in this election is your screwed-up voting system. This is the greatest threat and it must be change.
Early voting and different voting machines in different States is absolutely unthinkable. What the hell is this country thinking? It should be a unified system all over the country. No machines, plain voting on a ballot paper that ends-up in a box. Counting the votes manually and return the sealed boxes to Washington. Make sure that you have enough voting polls places so people never wait more than half an hour. Do not start to announce the results in the East States, before the polls are closed in the Eastern States. This is only fair and nobody gets influence by the early voting.
Gee! I can’t believe your stupid way of voting. Some people wait in line several hours; you would think you are in indigent country. You should be ashamed of your voting system and I hope that Sarah and McCain will change it.
Follow Craig’s discussion of the American voting system on another thread.
With regard to the war on terrorism.
Within the last week, there was a report by the national intelligence director of the looming dangers facing the United States.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/30/AR2008103004172.html
The greatest threat is deemed to be from biological weapons, followed by “dirty” radioactive weapons, followed, down the road, by explosive nuclear weapons.
It is difficult to understand how the ultimate three trillion dollar cost of the Iraq War will in any way protect us from any of these threats. This is not to argue that some “good” might not ultimately come out of the Iraq War — it is simply a matter of allocation of resources, coupled with the theory that waging military land wars in Asia serves to motivate Islamic high rollers to contribute money to the cause of acquiring Jihadist WMD.
To put things in perspective, we are currently spending more in in Iraq in 4 months than we are spending in one year on the collective activity of all US intelligence agencies who might plausibly be involved in the interdiction of biological, radioactive, and/or nuclear weapons.
This remains the basis for dissatisfaction with the way the War on Terror has been thus far waged.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I don’t know which is more destructive to a society — materialism, or the herd instinct.
Larry… welcome back, BTW… INRE your comment:
You may have to explain your math for me, guy. Highest estimates of Iraq cost is $10 bil a month. However more accurate military figures put it at $5-6 bil. But let’s go with the high estimate.
$3 tril at $10 bil monthly is 25 years in Iraq… at the current levels of troops and activity. Since that is not going to happen under either a McCain or Obama, where ya figure?
Here’s where I must dissent, Larry. The only way to ultimately control (we will never eliminate) the global jihad movements is for the Muslims themselves to denounce jihad.
After we removed the Taliban from their leadership in Afghanistan, the world Muslim community still viewed jihad with a degree of respect, and offered some support for their cause. This all changed after their brutal tactics in Iraq, when they attacked fellow “apostate” Muslims in order to stimulate a civil war… that did not happen.
Instead, the pulse of the world Muslims shows a decided decline in support for jihad. This could have never happened without these blood thirsty animals showing their true colors. And it was a very expensive price in lives… both in US coalition, but most especially Iraqi civilians.
From the bloodshed came the good… jihad support falling. This simple fact also belies the military land wars in the Middle East or potentially in SE Asia. The US is not present in a SE Asia land war. If you want to consider Afghanistan SE Asia, you are talking NATO with the US as one of the components. And, as usual with the int’l community, the US picks up the tab for the bulk of the cash, and manpower. (and always with no thanks).
Iraq and Afghanistan require foreign military support until they can provide their own state protection. None of these theatres is meant to last forever.
Harry….
I wouldn’t know. I am not a creature of “materialism”, but I am a firm believer in individual ambition and the desire to excel… along with all the rewards it deserves.
And I’m not the one that belongs to the party with the “herd” instinct.
The Bush administration has been hellbent on accepting any fixed timetable –as it was an aid to terrorists, and, hence all dates had to be “conditions based”… yet now they’ve agreed to a fixed timetable: They’ve been pushed so hard by the Iraqi’s to get out that they now have no other choice but to leave.
“They’ve been pushed so hard by the Iraqi’s to get out that they now have no other choice but to leave.” (Jan)
Lol… Hey girl, you have it all wrong. The Iraqi government have been pleading for the U.S. not to leave them before they can make it on their own. Where do you get your information from? A popcorn box?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/middleeast/07iraq.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=print
Seems they play nicer with Obama than Bush.
Comes as no surprise that you, Jan, along with the NYTs would try to spin this. Fly in the ointment for both your analyses?
1: The largest sticking point in the SOFA agreement was not the timeline, but the issue of Iraq sovereignty, and who’s rule of law governed the military and civilian workers. The Sadrists objection is the redeployment of the US troops out of the city centers ASAP. None of these were unsurmountable obstacles.
The timeline? Not so much. The dissention with the SOFA’s Dec 31, 2011 end date for all troops withdrawal – with any extensions agreed to by both sides – was the not so powerful posturing of some of the Shi’ites on the meaning of ‘stable’. (shades of Teflon Bill and “depends on what the meaning of “is”… is). However even the Iraqis admit that too rapid a withdrawal leaves them vunerable. And “conditions based” flexibility is something they all know is a reality…. tho it hurts their national pride. But it is, and always was a time table that could be worked out, as it was not the central bone of contention
As for them being happier with an Obama presidency… how did you put it… “nicer”?? You deliberately chose to overlook their stated gratitude towards the Bush admin in the very article you purport says they prefer Obama to Bush.
Even Hadi al-Ameri’s comments, which you selectively seized on above to put the messiah glow and spin on your boy, said:
A *minimum* sign of appreciation for the POTUS you and your party love to hate. The same POTUS who you give no credit for Iraq falling off the campaign issue list because it’s going well.
It’s truly sad that it is the foreigners that see what this POTUS has done for them, and all you and your party have had to offer is years of personal abuse and the highest insult for a sitting President. I shall try not to do the same to your personal “in”, but I shall always view you and ilk as a “fair weather” American.
2: Which brings us to your completely asinine conclusion that the Iraqis play “nicer” with Obama than Bush. Just how dense can you be?
Not only are they appreciative of Bush, but if they thought Obama would be “nicer”, they would just wait and negotiate with his administration… extending the UN mandate to cover the gap.
In fact, to show you just how self absorbed your candidate and our President elect is, he suggested that the Iraqis NOT sign a SOFA until he gets into office. This all came out when Amir Tahiri reported that Obama was trying to delay any troop withdrawals when he did his photo op tour of Baghdad this summer.
This immediately brought out Obamatron, Juan Cole, to “that one’s” defense… who straightened those facts out by using quotes from the Obama campaign spokesperson herself:
“The Obama campaign said:”
In typical Obama forked tongue style, Ms. Morigi confirmed that Obama suggested that the SOFA shouldn’t be rushed, and perhaps done after the Bush term, plus suggested that SOFA agreement be submitted to Congress for approval.
Then, in the next sentence, said he didn’t do that….
huh? “Dense” is evidently not an unusual trait in Obama supporters. But thanks for clearing up that Obama suggested the SOFA wait for the new POTUS, Wendy.
3: Another “sign” of an Obama presidency appears to be that Iran already recognizes Obama’s weakness towards them. ala from your linked NYTs:
Interesting that this same guy – “reflecting Iran’s concerns” – is also the very same who said signing the SOFA with the Bush was a minimum sign of appreciaton for his admin’s support of a liberated and free Iraq. Something no DNC Congress member can claim with a straight face.
Altho there is not one substantial fact provided that distinguishes the Time’s statement about Obama and “regime change” from mere speculation, you, and the Times reporter, have just confirmed our worst fears: that Iran sees Obama as a paper tiger as a world leader.
Wow… I feel safer already.
In case the obvious still eludes you, I’ll recap:
**The SOFA was going to be agreed to before the end of the year, while still negotiating with the Bush admin, not the Obama admin…. much to Obama, Congressional, and Juan Cole’s chagrin.
**Obama’s election just proved they feel they will get the best deal with Bush… not Obama. Otherwise, they’d wait a couple of months.
**What your post does prove – assuming your “speculation” is correct – is that Ahmadinejad is grinning ear from ear because he feels confident that Obama would never instigate regime change, and is thereby a paper tiger. You might say the military options just left the table…
uh huh… gets better and better, Jan.
Now you post a Telegraph article (another of those really “bipartisan” publications, right…) that has an anonymouse “western diplomat” speaking for Maliki who says they “took Iraq off the table” for Obama by “endorsing” his withdrawal plan which, BTW, was the same as Bush’s because the time was ripe for withdrawal
DOH… or in your case, would that be DUH! Obama, like a broken clock, is apt to be right once or twice a day with his old, parroted, end the war campaign rhetoric. Considering that Bush has always said when the Iraqis can govern and defend themselves, we’re outta there, what’s diffferent?
Right… Obama was doing timelines when the violence was at it’s height, and the Iraqis could not govern nor defend themselves.
Then “the surge” and all related elements. Now the way is clear for Iraqis to govern and defend themselves… no thanks to the President elect and his traitorous Congressional buds.
Now you tout some no-name, speaking for Maliki as “proof” it’s all about Obama?
Pathetic. The facts still remain the same. Need ’em again, Jan?
**The SOFA was going to be agreed to before the end of the year, while still negotiating with the Bush admin, not the Obama admin…. much to Obama, Congressional, and Juan Cole’s chagrin.
**Obama’s election just proved they feel they will get the best deal with Bush… not Obama. Otherwise, they’d wait a couple of months. Afterall, while deal with hard core Bush when they can wait for the “more generous” Obama?
**What your post does prove – assuming your “speculation” is correct – is that Ahmadinejad is grinning ear from ear because he feels confident that Obama would never instigate regime change, and is thereby a paper tiger. You might say the military options just left the table… plus now it’s compounded by a “more generous” anonymous remark.
Ya know, Jan… you really ought to be more patient. I’m sure it will take Obama more than 72 hours to “part the waters” and “heal the earth”. You may be asking just too much of your messiah
So, because you don’t like it, you delete it, again.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/07/afghanistan.review/
Cute Jan… you’re so adept at playing “the victim”. Good little Obamabot you are. Funny how you keep showing up there, while simultaneously crying censorship. My my.. how is it you still manage to be visible here??
But what a lesson you are for us… a great example of the American that needs to be on Democrat government welfare. You know, the type Obama reminds us of daily? That long suffering lower and middle class citizen that – despite opportunities – just can’t seem to make it? Then again, finding jobs that require the single skill of Ctrl C/Ctrl V is rare indeed. Times are tough for that educational level. May I suggest trade school? I hear Obama’s got many taxpayer funded work programs he wants to create.
When you learn how to think intstead of cut and paste, you might be paid attention to. However I’m not interested in debating either the NYTs, Telegraph or CNN journalists quotes, channeled thru that shadow of a brain trust known as you.
The spin on the Iraq war, WMD, the Surge and SOFA’s have been ongoing… as via our discussions here via many past threads. You are so far behind on their history, there is no where to start but in homeschooling tutorials. However catching you up to current events is not my job in in life.
Should you not start contributing instead of cut/pasting, you are living on borrowed time here. But I’m sure there are many other lesser blogs that may appreciate what little you offer to contribute.
Jan,
Get some education and then come back to this site. We will be able to exchange with you. Till then, forget it. It is hopeless.
I doubt Jan even knows what a Status Of Forces Agreement is.
Jan;
Those of us who have been military overseas do know. It’s required reading. Even if the SOFA expires, everything does not suddenly come to a screeching halt. In almost all cases, both parties continue to work under the previous agreement until a new one is established. It’s no big deal. The host government does have the option of refusing to negotiate at all and ordering our troops out. That is their prerogative. In which case, we are obligated to remove our forces within a certain amount of time as established in the former SOFA.
The Iraqi government has already come out stating they do not wish to exercise that right, as they do not feel they are comfortable enough with their democratic stability for us to pull our forces entirely. They told Obama this during his most recent visit. The same one where he tried to talk them into stalling the draw-downs until after the election to make bush appear more incompetent while making it look like he was doing something to get our troops out.
Most SOFA agreements are rather simplistic. It’s a general contract on how each party will govern themselves while co-operating. In fact, the president is rarely if ever involved. I suspect the reason Iraqis are balking is because they are concerned that Obama might pull our troops out before they are ready for it. That in no way favor Obama as a diplomat in this argument Jan.