McCain Challenges Obama’s Iraq Position
May 27th, 2008 at 09:01am Mark Noonan
Nothing like hitting hard all the time, huh?
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - Republican John McCain on Monday sharply criticized Democratic rival Barack Obama for not having been to Iraq since 2006, and said they should visit the war zone together.
“Look at what happened in the last two years since Senator Obama visited and declared the war lost,” the GOP presidential nominee-in-waiting told The Associated Press in an interview, noting that the Illinois senator’s last trip to Iraq came before the military buildup that is credited with curbing violence.
“He really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq and he has wanted to surrender for a long time,” the Arizona senator added. “If there was any other issue before the American people, and you hadn’t had anything to do with it in a couple of years, I think the American people would judge that very harshly.”
I doubt, of course, that Obama will accept such a challenge - he’d either have to abandon his defeatism, and thus lose support on the left, or argue that victory isn’t victory, and thus look like a fool. Meanwhile, not going will start to look like an act of political cowardice - this could be a very brilliant stroke on the part of McCain, as it boxes Obama into an impossible position…and, better yet, boxes Obama into a position of his own making. Think about it: If Obama hadn’t gone completely defeatist in 2006, none of this would matter…but as he became a Defeaticrat for a war we’re winning, he’s now caught trying to argue against success…and trying to spin this fool hardiness into a credible story about how he’s better than McCain for the job of Commander in Chief.
It might very soon start to suck to be a Democrat - and I mean more than usual.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Republicans, War on Terror
79 Comments
1. neocon | May 27th, 2008 at 9:35 am
If the current trend in Iraq holds, the Democrat narrative will seem less and less relevant.
And so will their candidate.
2. Penny wise | May 27th, 2008 at 9:48 am
If there is something to be gained, Obama should go to Iraq, but if it is one of those McCain/Liberman photo ops with half of the U.S military just out of camera view taking him from the Airport to the Green Zone; it would just be a neocon type sham.
To help us all out and keep us on the same page it would be helpful Mark if you labeled McCain’s comments as either PPA or APA. Pre Presidential Announcement or After Presidential Announcement. There appears to be two McCains out there and it is tough to keep track of them.
3. SEW | May 27th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Certainly Barry will correct McCain. When he stated the war was lost, that was just a “snippet.” Cut and Run strategy is off limits, Barry wants to talk about the real issues. Hope and Change.
4. neocon | May 27th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Of course Penny,
I would imagine keeping track of the TV schedule would be tough for you.
I also think that after more than twenty years in the Senate, the majority of Americans know very well who John McCain is. And I would think that someone with 2 years of experience in the Senate could learn a lot by going to Iraq.
5. bagni | May 27th, 2008 at 10:33 am
hardmark
the orbital observers would agree
it sucks to be a democrat
but to build on your planetary premise
it sucks just as much to be a republican
if only mccain could be consistent
on iraq
or stop flipflopping on his immigration policy
us whacky green ones might warm to him
6. miniman | May 27th, 2008 at 10:56 am
“…but as he became a Defeaticrat for a war we?re winning…”
In what way are we winning? Any one with a base knowlege in History knows that the occupiers rarely win, and if they do, they do it by winning the hearts and minds of the people. Considering that a vast majority of Iraqis think we should leave and a majority think that attacks on American soldiers are justified, I’d say we are losing.
7. Tractatus | May 27th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Yes, in order to shore up his credibility about Iraq, Obama needs to go over there and claim it’s so safe he can walk around unescorted (never mind those soldiers and the Black Hawk helicopters overhead), just like Dave Petraeus does (except that he doesn’t)!
8. OhioOrrin | May 27th, 2008 at 11:47 am
2 be precise, we got TWO WARS !
Iraq has clearly turned a corner.
Afghanistan, not so.
9. Pain | May 27th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
We still have not heard anyone here explain what “victiry” is. We feel that is because anything called victory means that after it is declared the bulk of the US troops will depart Iraq. If John McCain is elected and there are still 100 000 troops in Iraq on November 1, 2012 he can start cleaning out his desk. McCain should back away from his policy to have the majoity of troops home by 2013 because there is no way his handlers will allow for that. If he is a two term president then there will be a draft by 2013 that is for certain. Otherwise there would be no way to deploy troops into Venezuela, Panama and fight an incursion into Iran.
$12 gasoline brought to you by War Inc a subsidiary of the GOP.
10. Magnum Serpentine | May 27th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Some interesting numbers from Gallup:
“PRINCETON, NJ — [April 24, 2008] The most recent USA Today/Gallup poll finds 63% of Americans saying the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, a new high mark by one percentage point.”
“PRINCETON, NJ [March 20, 2008]– Five years after the United States launched major air strikes on Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power, 42% of Americans believe history will judge the conflict a success, while 54% predict it will be remembered as a failure.”
“[March 13, 2008] With the five-year mark of the start of the Iraq war approaching, Gallup finds that 60% of Americans would like to see a timetable set for the withdrawal of U.S. troops”
And finally this little item:
“PRINCETON, NJ [April 22, 2008]– President George W. Bush’s disapproval rating is at 69% — which is not only the highest of the Bush administration, but the highest disapproval rating in Gallup Poll history”
Just some numbers to think about.
11. OhioOrrin | May 27th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
2 me pain, victory in Iraq (not Afghanistan) could be defined as:
1) a functional federal govt which is reasonably stable to compromise & hold the country together politically.
2) an ineffective AQI presence.
3) al Sadr’s large armed milita is checked or destroyed.
4) withdrawal of US forces at a measured pace w no significant break-down in security.
5) reduced burden to the US taxpayer.
something like that might well look like “victory”.
12. Pain | May 27th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
11. OhioOrrin | May 27th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
We agree with this assessment totally.
The We must posit anoter query, “How long will it take to achieve this form of status quo with the current number of troops in Iraq?”
13. Penny wise | May 27th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Why is it only on wingnut blogs and radio you are constantly bombarded with terms like, surrender, defeatism, defeatist, war was lost? Cons call this supporting our troops!
he has wanted to surrender for a long time,” the Arizona senator added
he’d either have to abandon his defeatism
If Obama hadn’t gone completely defeatist in 2006
he became a Defeaticrat for a war
When he stated the war was lost
14. OhioOrrin | May 27th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
dunno pain but consider -
#2 is largely done thx to buying-off the sunni tribal chieftans (probably cheaper anyway vs continued fighting).
#3 is in process in Sadr city.
#4 is promised by Gen Petraus (sp?) beginning this fall - no surprise given the Nov election.
#5 will more gradually emerge thru #4 above.
#1 is difficult until the oil revenue sharing problem is solved & the citizens give loyality to the central govt v the tribe (thinking Kurds here cause they got oil).
15. Carl Gordon | May 27th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
With the current mean I.Q. levels present in the “average” GOP voter at an all time low, it’s not surprising that they’ll bang the bed pans and don the white sheets in order to frighten and otherwise pathetically manipulate their less than stellar intellectual base. And they always have some inbred ditto-head “preacher” of some bent stripe playing the Satan or hellfire card, although the deck is always loaded. This stimulated dread of a hellfire is so enormous and so unsettling of common sense and normal thinking, that any scheme to elude it becomes suitable. Blind horror perverts, bends and transforms time-honored balanced ethical deliberations. A self-centered mind-set is produced resulting from hysterical longing for private escape from perdition. Defective assessments by conservative or backward individuals can and often are prejudiced by a saving-from-hell doctrine as a replacement for levelheaded analysis. The penalty of politicians making edicts or granting funding whilst beneath the hex of GOP hell-phobic-delusion are obvious.
It is not recognized how many inhabitants are ensnared within any number of antiquated and quite frankly, retarded religions because of the apprehension of a hell, as dishonesty to oneself and to others on this topic is understandable, if not pathetic. To candidly or even subconsciously own up to a dread of a hell reveals to others and an alleged god, a intense failing of faith. Far healthier to frantically pretend that the god who is to blame for this imagined place of after-life dismay, is a deity who should be loved. Explicitly professing worship for the monster god harbors the expectation that others will not distinguish your private trepidation of hell.
The remedy to hell, so the faithful are told, is kowtowing to a exacting religious modus operandi. In essence, religions are self-renewing and self-serving because of a ubiquitous teaching scheme with dependence on a routine that is nothing short of mental child abuse.
Many people thus affected, when reading this, will believe that escaping these awful feelings of hell, is not feasible. Not factual, and many Atheists and normal people will vouch for that. The first step is recognizing the dread of hell is an arousing circumstance that has been entrenched and not chosen. The anxiety can be countered by replacing it with a incessant re-evaluation of human propensity to believe the unbelievable if the right buttons are pushed in the seminal years. Following generations and planetary continued existence depend on this crucial step being lucratively achieved.
16. phnx | May 27th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Ohio seems to have a good measure.
Measurement of victory in terms of specific troop levels is somewhat absurd. We still have 68,000 troops in Germany 60 years after we declared victory in WW2. We have 38,000 troops in Korea some 50 years after cessation of hostilities, and a large contingent still in Japan and Okinawa.
Each situation is different, but leftists wish to have a number they can use as a issue. Its not that they don’t want a positive outcome. (well most of them at any rate). Its just that a positive outcome is secondary to having a political issue they can use as a bludgeon.
17. kjstrouble | May 27th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
WOW - reading the libs on the blog you would think everything in Iraq is bad, and all Republicans are fools or worse. Um - maybe you could go back to the KOS where such foolishness is actually encouraged.
As for Obama - does anyone really believe that he would see what McCain, Patreus, or any other person who believes we can win this war? What Obama will see is that despite the fact that Iraqi forces are taking over more areas - Americans are still doing some fighting. That Americans are still needed in some areas, and for some jobs. That rebuilding is still going slowly - by his standards. Maybe someone should remind him how long it took Europe to recover from WWII?
18. liberalDream | May 27th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
What Obama is saying simply reflects the reality on the ground in Iraq. Now - you neocons certainly have an argument that the situation in Iraq is better than it was in 2006. But the idea that it is somehow some bed of roses is just hopelessly naive and foolish. Just look at the numbers. Tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands dead, millions displaced into refugee camps, thousands of americans dead, no end in site, the majority of Americans think the war is a failure, the majority of Iraqi’s wish the Americans never started the war,.. The list goes on and on.
The problem with you guys is quite simple actually. you are so worried about ‘wining’ and victory - that you fail to understand that it is simply impossible that Iraq will become some sort of utopia if we just close our eyes and click our heals long enough…
19. liberalDream | May 27th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
oops (no end in SIGHT)
20. William Teach | May 27th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Got proof, liberalDream, particularly that fantasy of hundreds of thousands?
No, everything is not rosy, but, if liberals would stop giving the enemy aid and comfort, and back the US in winning in Iraq, maybe we would be able to succeed and get the hell out sooner. Perhaps if liberals hadn’t immediately started giving said aid and comfort to the enemy even before Operation Iraqi Freedom started we would be out. As Obama himself has said “Don’t tell me words don’t matter.”
21. DBM | May 27th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Yes, I agree with Teach!! If those damned liberals would just stop telling the truth everything would be okay!!
Everyone now, repeat after me:
“We are winning. We are winning. We are winning….”
And click your heels together while you’re saying it. That’ll help. I saw it in a movie once.
22. liberalDream | May 27th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
William - nobody knows the exact number. But every estimate - including major US government agencies - is at least on the order of tens of thousands and there are probably more. How many Iraqi’s do you think have died since the start of the invasion?
The idea that Liberals are giving aid and comfort to the enemy or that somehow if everyone just really believed in the war more that things would be going better is about as intelligent as believing that if we believe in ferries tinkerbell will come back to life
23. LibsSmokeDope | May 27th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
The idea that Liberals are giving aid and comfort to the enemy or that somehow if everyone just really believed in the war more that things would be going better is about as intelligent as believing that if we believe in ferries tinkerbell will come back to life
Well, let’s see, LiberalDream, if we can come up with some better phrasing for that piece of rhetoric…
‘The idea that Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy should really make the American people stop and think about who they have entrusted to keep them and their families safe from mad men abroad who live day to day on a maniacal suicide mission, and if Liberals would stop spreading so much misinformation, just pure lies then things would go much better.
For to think that we do not have enemies is about as intelligent as the tits on a boar hog.
24. LibsSmokeDope | May 27th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
America must awake….for Al Qaeeeda is not our only enemy….We have an enemy at home, and his and their’s name is - Barack Hussein Obama and the Demoncrats.
25. William Teach | May 27th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Words have consequences. As all the liberals/Democrats bloviated against every minor thing, or made things up, or, well, you know the whole litany of complaints, do you think the people we were fighting in iraq weren’t listening? Hell, some of them used what were in essence Democrat talking points and press releases.
Discussion in fine. What democrats were doing was not discussion. Almost none were offering advice on how to win better and faster. No, they wanted retreat and defeat (and still do), yet, those in Congress were doing it simply for political cheap shots, shown by there inability to vote to pull out of Iraq. What was that vote tally, 406-3?
If you are actively rooting for your own country to lose, then you are a traitor. Period.
26. discolapin | May 27th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
In the immortal words of the great Pat Tillman
“This is an f’ing illegal war.”
This country does more good in the world than it does wrong, but if you turn a blind eye to those things which are wrong then you’re a traitor. And a dupe. Period.
27. bongoman | May 27th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Remember that the estimates are that AQI represent only about 2% of the Sunni insurgency.
It is miniscule compared to the nationalists fighting to get us out of their country.
All this crap about Iraq being the central front on the WoT. Gimme a break.
28. neocon | May 27th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
“It is miniscule compared to the nationalists fighting to get us out of their country.” - bongo
And I thought it was the ISF that were the nationalists, and fighting along side us for their country.
BAGHDAD – Iraqi Security Forces, Sons of Iraq members and Multi-National Division – Baghdad Soldiers discovered weapons caches in Baghdad May 26.
At approximately 9:15 a.m., Soldiers serving with Company E, 1st Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division seized a weapons cache in the West Rashid district of Baghdad.
29. thrower | May 27th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Sorry Teach but if victory means a peaceful, democratic Iraq, that’s in their hands, not ours. It’s not traitorous to let them know our patience in achieving that end is not unlimited. And when McCain says in effect that he won’t leave until that definition of victory is met no matter how much it costs us in people and money, he is making a commitment the American people won’t back.
And while we’re at it, let’s have an accounting of what the meteoric rise in the price of oil means to their ability to finance more of this liberation.
30. DBM | May 27th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Amen, discolapin.
I have had it with the unamerican bastards who insist rationale dissent is treason.
People who see reality as it is and speak the truth are not traitors. They are the path to righteousness.
Teach — you and your brethren need to learn a damned lesson from this because I did. I supported the war in 2002. And then I watched as the mistakes and lies were revealed, and the staggering mismanagement and incompetence continued. Thousands of lives were lost, our global stature shattered, and fortunes squandered.
But the lesson you take away from this? The cause of the problems is because people back here were saying the wrong things? If you really believe that, you’re delusional.
And, Teach, you’re right. Words matter. And here are some words from someone I should have listened to in 2002. Here are his words five months before the war.
I’ll leave it to you as a homework assignment to attribute the quote. You need a little schoolin’ brother.
31. neocon | May 27th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
DBM,
Mistakes are always made in battles and wars cost lives. If you have any maturity at all, you would know that.
So let me get this straight, you supported the war in 2002, but now don’t have the stomach to see it through? So in your opinion it’s best that we just abandon the decent Iraqi people to fend for themselves, abandon the Iraqi government, and abandon the 300,000+ ISF forces? What should we tell them?
Our global stature is shattered? (btw, this labels you as a leftist, meaning your support for the war in 2002 is in all likelihood BS), anyway if it is shattered can you explain the recent elections of conservatives in England, France, Germany, and Ireland? Can you explain the support for Iraq from the moderate Arab states? Can you explain our new ally in India. Can you explain Africas out pouring of gratitude?
Also, when my uncle returned home from liberating Auschwitz, he uh…….
Oh wait, my Mom was an only child….nevermind
32. thrower | May 27th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
The subject of this thread is Iraq, Neocon, not the global rise of conservatism. Until those “new” allies start sending money and troops to fight alongside ours, or contribute in some constructive way to the end of that morass, I don’t give a rat’s ass about their politics.
33. neocon | May 27th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
That was brought up as a rebuttal to DBM’s claim of our deteriorating “world stature”.
That’s alright Thrower, I will explain things to you as we go along.
34. thrower | May 27th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
I’ll anxiously wait for that education Neocon. Lesson one should be how their current lack of constructive support makes your point rather than his.
35. Rich | May 27th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Attacks in Iraq Reach 4-Year Low, Military Says
By Gina Chon
Word Count: 376
BAGHDAD — U.S. and Iraqi military officials said violence in Iraq has decreased significantly in recent weeks to levels not seen in four years.
That offers some hope to officials that Iraqi security services may be making gains, following recent Iraqi-led military campaigns in Basra in the south, Baghdad’s Sadr City, and Mosul in the north. But similar ebbs in violence have fizzled, the latest as recent as earlier this year, and it was far from …”
I would say violence at a four year low shows progress. What say you libs? Is this proff that the surge is working or proof that Iraqis are standing up?
36. neocon | May 27th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Well there again, that wasn’t his point. He inferred our world image had suffered and I rebutted with examples of 4 European countries that recently elected pro-American candidates and one continent that just gave thanks in a large way to America.
That is not supportive of his assertion.
37. bongoman | May 27th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
38. neocon | May 27th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
bongo,
It just might start being that simple. I think you grossly underestimate the ISF and the decent people of Iraq, who are the vast majority.
And I think that’s a crying shame considering liberals are suppose to be the ones to stand up for human rights. I guess it just depends on what cost, right? How much blood or treasure are you willing to sacrifice for some one elses human rights?
39. Pain | May 27th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
31. neocon | May 27th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Conservatives in Germany, France and the UK are not the same as the political ideology of the Right in the USA. Liberal parties in many nations are actually the center right party while the Greens are the Left along with the Communist Party.
40. DBM | May 27th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Neocon,
Maturity is measured by seeing things as they are, not as you want them to be.
Are you proposing that our stature has increased as a result of the Iraq debacle?
How do I refute thee, let me toss off a few things off the top of my head:
1) BBC World Opinion poll showing 49% of respondents in 17 countries have a “mainly negative” opinion of the US, compared to 32% having a “mainly positive” opinion. People have better opinions of China and Russia, for crissakes.
2) A current event: When the Saudis rebuffed Bush’s lame request to increase oil supply, Steven Hadley admits that the “Iraqi war has been a stress upon the relationship”. Didn’t the Saudis get the memo that we’re bigger and badder than ever?
3) When it comes to international negotiations, we’re becoming yesterday’s news. It took China to get us to the table with North Korea, and Israel went to Turkey to broker talks with Syria.
Now, because I see that you are “logic challenged”, I’ll slow down here a bit. Just because I observe that our stature is declining does not mean I wish it to decline (it’s a horrible state of affairs when China and Russia are viewed more favorably than us).
But, NeoCon, the favorite part of your post is when you accuse me of lying when I said I initially supported the war. That exposes - more than anything - the faulty chain of your logic. Under the weight of fact and rational observation, I changed my perspective. Others on the right have changed their opinions and positions too. But to you, they’re all traitors and liberals.
Just because they were rational enough to change their mind.
41. DBM | May 27th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
And Neocon, others have made the point, but I’ll counter myself.
Elections of conservatives in four countries is not proof of the increasing stature of America internationally. You’re not claiming that Sarkozy was elected because the US is popular in France all of a sudden, are you? Sarkozy was elected because of his proposed economic reforms and taxes. And like Pain inferred, if Sarkozy ran for office in the US, he’d be labeled a liberal.
And in the UK, conservatives probably benefited from Blair being too closely aligned with the US.
42. neocon | May 27th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Of all the talking points, this was my favorite:
“It took China to get us to the table with North Korea,….” - DBM
How soon you forget when liberals were excoriating Bush for not unilaterally engaging NK as Bush insisted that China and others in the region to be at the table.
Secondly, I am not inferring that those “conservative” governments are economically similar to ours. I am pointing out that all of the leaders of those countries are pro-American and have good relations with the current administration.
Oh and I didn’t accuse you, I suggested. There’s a big difference, remember, words matter. And lastly, I’ll bet 99% of liberals have unfavorable view of America. It’s all in the polling right?
Oh and which of the 57 states do you live in? And do you have any relatives that helped free Auschwitz?
Try and stay on track.
43. neocon | May 27th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
I am really curious to hear an answer on the following question from a liberal.
How much blood and treasure is worthy of sacrifice for some one elses human rights?
Considering the liberal narrative of withdrawal, that is obviously a quantifiable question. So how much is too much?
44. bongoman | May 27th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
What makes you think Iraq is about human rights?
45. Mark Noonan | May 28th, 2008 at 12:03 am
DBM,
But we’ve won in Iraq - so, how is it a dumb war?
46. Mark Noonan | May 28th, 2008 at 12:04 am
bongoman,
Yeah, we all know its just a PNAC/NeoCon war for Oil/Israel/Insert conspriacy theory here/Likud….
47. Tractatus | May 28th, 2008 at 12:05 am
What makes you think Iraq is about human rights?
At this point, it has to be because all the other justifications he and his ilk tried to push have been proven false. At least give neocon this much: He’s not pulling a Mark Noonan and pretending that all those other justifications never happened in the first place. Sure, that’s a backhanded compliment, but considering this is neocon we’re talking about, that’s the best he can hope for.
48. DBM | May 28th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Excellent question! And I’ll answer it this way:
Unfortunately, it’s a question of resources and priorities. The US has limited capacity to right all the world’s wrongs. It’s a horrible moral calculus to say when and where and how we should act. Why Iraq and not Sudan? Why Kosovo and not Bosnia?
And here’s a dirty little secret. Most Americans don’t give a rat’s ass about horrible atrocities half way across the planet happening to some brown person. Had you surveyed Americans during the Rwanda massacre whether we should invade, what do you think the results would be? And had you told them we’ll have to raise your taxes and draft your son Bobby to go do the fighting, the popularity would have been even less. (Ironically, it’s mainly the left that advocates invasions into these desperately poor non-strategic nations)
And despite your lofty rhetoric now, you’re faced with a problem of shifting narrative among those who still support this war. The “liberation meme” was far down the list of rationale for the war in 2002. It was fear that drummed up the support for the war, the “smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud”. What was more important to Dick Cheney? Fair elections for Iraqis or a US Hegemony on top of the world’s second largest oil reserves?
So, now I’ll challenge you to answer your own question: How much blood and treasure is it worth to you? After our gleaming success in Iraq, you willing to go into Sudan? Burma? North Korea? How many American bodies you willing to sacrifice for your ideals? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000?
49. neocon | May 28th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Still no answer.
50. DBM | May 28th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Noonan in #45
You can’t be serious.
But I’ll pretend.
The Bush Administration prescribed a military course of action as the only means to achieve their objectives in Iraq and the middle east.
Since those objectives have yet to be met, and since 100K+ troops are still fighting daily in Iraq, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say we have not yet won the war in Iraq.
My guess is that you’re confusing the defeat of the Iraq army with the realization of our objectives. You go to war to realize objectives, not defeat armies. Defeating armies is a means to an end; since we have not yet accomplished the end, we have not yet won the war.
Had we won the war, this entire thread would be moot. Iraq would be a peaceful stable democracy, our troops would be home, the Saudis and other despotic Middle Eastern regimes would be reforming themselves.
But that’s not where we are, are we?
51. DBM | May 28th, 2008 at 12:28 am
Neocon,
And your answer is?
52. neocon | May 28th, 2008 at 12:32 am
DBM doesn’t have an answer.
Anyone else?
53. DBM | May 28th, 2008 at 12:48 am
Okay, Neocon, my answer is 3,500 US lives and 1 trillion dollars. 50,000 Iraqi lives. And counting. 30,000 US casualties. And a 30 years of thousands of new PTSD to deal with, and a generation of this being subtext to every election, just like Vietnam. And a weakened dollar, and unprecedented government debt, and $120 oil.
It’s all been worth it. Every cent. You convinced me.
And now, your answer is?
54. Mark Noonan | May 28th, 2008 at 12:57 am
DBM,
World War Two was won in Europe the moment the Anglo-American armies were firmly established on French soil…and yet the fighting wasn’t nearly over.
World War Two was won in the Pacific at the battle of the Phillipine Sea…and yet the fighting wasn’t nearly over.
The Civil War was won by the North once Sherman captured Atlanta…and yet the fighting wasn’t nearly over.
World War One was won by the allies after the battle of Amiens…and yet the fighting wasn’t nearly over.
The War of the Spanish Succession was won by the English at Malplaquet in 1709…but the fighting went on for another five years after that.
On and on it goes - just because fighting is going on, it doesn’t mean there is no victory…some times, the defeated side fights on quite pointlessly (though it often doesn’t seem so to the defeated). The enemy in Iraq is beaten - he is fighting on quite pointlessly and to ever less effect. The turning - the moment we decisively defeated the enemy in Iraq - was at the “Anbar Awakening” followed hard by the “troop surge”…but there will be some fighting left to do even now, probably for another year or so (though with ever less American direct involvement) - only an American surrender (by precipitate withdrawal) or the direct intervention of a new, strong enemy (ie, Iran) could change things now…but that, also, would be a whole different war…this one is won, unless we voluntarily give it up.
So, what was so dumb about this war?
55. phnx | May 28th, 2008 at 1:13 am
“Since those objectives have yet to be met, and since 100K+ troops are still fighting daily in Iraq, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say we have not yet won the war in Iraq.” DBM
So I guess based on your criteria we have not won in Kosovo either, in as much as there are more soldiers per capita there than in Iraq, almost ten years after the first incursions.
56. DBM | May 28th, 2008 at 1:22 am
Noonan,
While I await Neocon’s answer, I’ll foray with you.
No, it’s not won. It’s won the day the objectives are realized. There’s a ton of work ahead, and nearly all of it rests on the will and determination of the Iraqi people. Even if there was total and everlasting military success over the insurgents tomorrow, there would then need to be a political solution that spurs all these disparate factions to a peaceful settlement.
Did the surge and the “Anbar Awakening” improve the probability of success? Maybe. Probably.
But the probability of success is still low. At least I see it that way. I know you don’t, but frankly, you guys simply aren’t a credible predictor of success anymore. McCain’s been saying “six more months” now for 3 years. So today I get my prognostication from more reliable sources. Like the guy who called this exactly right in 2002.
57. Mark Noonan | May 28th, 2008 at 1:30 am
DBM,
You’d have a point, if Obama had called it right back in 2002…he didn’t, though for a while you could pretend he had…but now you’re rather caught. Its clear that Obama got it very wrong, and as each day goes by, Obama gets more wrong about it…now you’ll either have to admit you were wrong, or just go further and furhter into denial.
I recommend just a quick admission of error on your part - it’ll be easier for you in the long run.
58. DBM | May 28th, 2008 at 2:03 am
Noonan,
You know that McCain’s speech the other day - the one where he was giving the 2012 state of the union address - wasn’t real, right? I mean, he was just pretending.
Look, it’s great that you have faith. If that’s what you need to get through the day, god bless.
But delusion just ain’t my bag. Your side left a huge mess, a mess that may never be fixed. And the way I see it, it threatens my child’s future, so forgive me for being a little more clear eyed than you apparently have the capacity for.
So let’s just agree to disagree. If it causes you less cognitive dissonance to go with the guy who has been constantly been wrong but keeps saying soothing things, you go right ahead. That’s your right.
But me, I’m going with the guy who has been constantly right.
59. DBM | May 28th, 2008 at 2:40 am
PHNX,
Sorry — wasn’t ignoring you — just saw your comment.
There’s a marked difference between Iraq and Kosovo, don’t you think?
In Kosovo, the State Department and Pentagon guidelines were followed about necessary troop levels. Furthermore, it was a true coalition effort, so Serbia had less opportunity to triangulate. As a result, the peace has been relatively secure and permanent. It’s been expensive, but no one country has singled out for the burden.
Time will tell if Kosovo was equally misconceived as Iraq, but I’d say the concept was well executed. Iraq was misconceived and poorly executed.
What do you think?
60. Dennis | May 28th, 2008 at 2:45 am
57. Mark Noonan | May 28th, 2008 at 1:30 am
“DBM, You’d have a point, if Obama had called it right back in 2002…”
Called it right back in 2002? If Mr. Bush had the good sense of his own daddy we wouldn’t be in a scenario where the nation is squabbling over the meaning of victory or surrender. In all the wars that really were necessary, that has never been a question.
The very fact that such arguments preoccupy us today is manifest evidence of the folly of this venture. Not to mention the tanking dollar, America’s unprecedented foreign debt and various economic disasters seen and as yet unseen in the wake of this war. The founding fathers saw the possibility of this day and warned us against it. Obama heeded them, Mr. Bush did not.
Obama called it right.
61. bongoman | May 28th, 2008 at 2:51 am
OK, so just one more year…how long have we been hearing that for? One more year, one more year…
Hopefully that will give us time to get our permanent bases built…
62. bongoman | May 28th, 2008 at 4:43 am
Here’s someone challenging Bush’s position on Iraq, and therefore McSame’s view - remember that leftie pinko anti-war activist Scott McClellan? he was White House Press Sec there for a while.
Here’s what Scott had to say about Iraq:
More here from the anti-American, treasonous McLellan.
63. phnx | May 28th, 2008 at 9:20 am
DBM,
Since you support the actions in Kosovo, we should raise our troop levels in Iraq by about 40% to reach the same troop to population ratio as in Kosovo. And we should keep them there for another five years. You must support McCain’s plan then.
BTW: I haven’t heard Obama call for a pull out in the Balkans, why not?
64. neocon | May 28th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Good to know DBM,
So now let’s publish that, and that will be the liberal template for the cost of liberty, freedom and human rights. Once we have met and/or exceeded those losses, we quit fighting and let tyranny.
I am sure those living under oppression and hoping for help will be glad to know that there is a limit of which we will help.
My answer, human rights and liberty is priceless.
Someone once said: Give me liberty or give me death.
You obviously don’t subscribe to that. Good thing others that can before you did. Otherwise, you might not be posting here.
65. neocon | May 28th, 2008 at 9:41 am
“Obama called it right.” - Dennis
Hey, anyone that comes from a family that helped liberate Auschwitz has to be a visionary.
Anyone that defer to the world community on how much we eat, where we set our thermostats and what we drive, has to be compassionate.
Anyone that has traveled these great 57 states, has to know something, right?
66. DBM | May 28th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Neocon,
Sometimes words are important, sometimes they are just blah, blah, blah.
Let’s see into what category your words fall. Below are two scenarios that will accurately test whether you believe what you say.
Scenario 1: The animist and Christian tribes in southern Sudan have been violently oppressed for 3 decades now by northern Arabs in their attempt to impose Sharia law. Whole villages have been slaughtered, women raped, children sold into slavery, and refugees are permanently living in Kenyan refugee camps. Their liberty has been systematically obliterated.
Do you advocate the invasion of Sudan for the purposes of “regime change” to bring liberty to the southern Sudanese?
Scenario 2: Bosnia. After the Dayton peace accords in 1995, Clinton sent troops to Bosnia to keep peace and defend the Bosnia’s “liberty” from Serbian oppressors. Republicans in Congress voted in a large majority to prohibit the intervention. John Bolton, damned liberal that he is, said the US had no business being “involved in a conflict where it has no tangible national interest, where it has no clear objectives in mind, and where the ultimate outcome could be very risky for what our real interests are…”
I presume that due to your dying devotion to fighting for the cause for liberty wherever despots prevail, you took vocally protested the timidity of your Republican brethren, and supported Clinton’s military action in the Balkans. Correct?
67. DBM | May 28th, 2008 at 10:41 am
And as long as we’re harping on our favorite candidates mistakes, I’ll take the inconsequential errors about the name of a concentration camp or the count of the states over the alternative.
Despite touting himself as the Foreign Policy and military expert, McCain still can’t be bothered to accurately parse even the simplest of facts about the Middle East. Shia? Sunni? Al Qaeda being trained by Iran?
McCain’s mistakes indicate a profound lack of understanding in critical areas. McCain’s mistakes are dangerous .
And I know that you know that too. Your only hope to obscure his ignorance from the voting public is to inflate Obama’s benign verbal gaffes.
68. neocon | May 28th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Yes DBM,
I support any effort to rid the world of tyranny and despotism, at any cost.
Why don’t you?
And to consider McCain ignorant on foreign affairs after serving our country in the military and over 20 years in the Senate just underscores your blind and ignorant partisanship.
But I can no longer disown you than I can disown my grandmother, who is a typical white person.
69. DBM | May 28th, 2008 at 10:58 am
PHNX,
The time to use the Balkan metrics was in 2003, not in 2008.
I sincerely think that the Iraqi Adventure had a chance of succeeding. There were smart people in the military and in the State Department who knew what it took to succeed. But they were ignored by NeoCon theorists in the administration that gambled on new doctrines. They bullied the military and shunned the State Department. They f’ed up.
And so consequently, the NeoCons, this administration, and their cohort should no longer be listened to. They have been wrong consistently.
And the smart people they ignored? They don’t advocate further escalation in troop levels. The problem is of a different nature than it was in 2002.
70. DBM | May 28th, 2008 at 11:07 am
NeoCon — did I read that right? You supported Clinton in 1995? And you disagreed with the Republicans?
I guess it’s my turn to call BS.
71. neocon | May 28th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Whatever floats your boat DBM. I support ANY effort to eliminate oppression, despotism and tyranny.
That’s why I think the UN is a joke. They’re more concerned with their power, presitige and perks than they are about curing the worlds ills.
In fact, that can be said for many Democrats and Republicans as well.
Why don’t you support fighting oppression whereever it may be and irregardless of the cost?
72. neocon | May 28th, 2008 at 11:17 am
“I sincerely think that the Iraqi Adventure had a chance of succeeding.” - DBM
It’s getting deep in here.
73. DBM | May 28th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Because those are meaningless words. That’s my objective in this whole discussion — to point out that you’re just spouting platitudes without any substance.
First, we don’t have the resources to literally fight “oppression whereever and irregardless of cost”.
Second, we don’t have the political will to do that. You wouldn’t have had anywhere near the support for the Iraqi war had the real costs been known.
Third, it’s a recipe for overall failure. Fighting permanent war is an expensive proposition. Our military might is already collapsing under the weight of two wars, and you’re advocating more.
And don’t flatter yourself into thinking you’re an idealist. You are just speaking nonsense.
74. neocon | May 28th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
You’re ignoring the rest of thw world DBM. In my “idealistic” viewpoint, the vast majority of decent, peaceful people on this planet should collectively battle to rid this world of oppression and tyranny.
It may be a lofty goal, but why not hope for it? Why not try and achieve the impossible?
Someone once said: “I have a dream”
Question is, why wouldn’t liberals aspire to this goal?
75. neocon | May 28th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Having a dream is speaking “nonsense”
Good thing no one told that to MLK, right?
76. DBM | May 28th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Neocon,
GREAT POINT - Really!! It has to be a multilateral effort. And, as you also correctly identified, the UN isn’t filling that role.
A point I made earlier is that liberals do aspire to the goal. It was liberals who were calling for intervention in Haiti, Rwanda, and Bosnia, and it is liberals who are demanding that we call into question our cynical alliances with despotic allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Through the nineties, the conservative response was like what I quoted from Bolton above: “no nation building” and “no national strategic interest”. And the conservative response now in response to the Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt issues is that they can’t be challenged on human rights because “they are an important ally in the war on terror”.
So, despite what you personally feel, the attitudes of most in this administration are far more calculated and cynical — they don’t care if muslim women don’t get to vote or are subjected to honor killings, just as long as Saudis keep the oil flowing and the Pakistanis keep Al Qaeda hemmed in.
So again no matter what you believe (and I have no reason to doubt your sincerity), it is perfectly rational response by those on the left to question the *real* motives of the administration. “Wait,” they’re saying, “You’re saying we’re fighting for democracy and freedom in Fallujah, but we’re doing nothing about the injustices in Jiddah?” It’s the inconsistency that creates a burden for your position.
77. DBM | May 28th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
And, sorry for the label, but it remains nonsense. As a practical matter, you cannot engage in military action everywhere and anywhere.
It’s really no better than saying, “To fight evil in this world, all we need is to hone our telepathic skills.” When you reply, “Um, that’s kinda stupid”, I say, “You’re against liberty!” or “What if they told MLK that his dream was stupid?”
Plus, ya gotta admit it’s amusing for you to be touting MLK on a thread challenging Obama. If MLK was alive, what do you think his position would be on Iraq, and which candidate would be getting his support?
78. neocon | May 28th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Honestly,
I think MLK would subscribe more to the personal accountability platform of the GOP rather than the entitlement mentality of the Democrats.
79. Pain | May 28th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
43. neocon | May 27th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
We do not think there is any limit that should placed on the value of human rights, but blood and treasure are not ethereal things that can be placed in a lofty pantheon of patriotism and yet trotted out only to serve those in executive power from within the White House.
The answer to that question is difficult because the query is tenuous at best because while Darfur to Us was a matter worth sacrificing American lives for and it was ignored by the US as Rwanda’s genocide was by Bill Clinton, President Bush wastes the lives of troops and burns currency in great pyres in Iraq when their efforts could have served America better in North Waziristan or in Afghanistan’s Helmand province.
We, Ourselves must answer then that no blood or treasure should ever be wasted on war for political reasons, profiteering or to “build a legacy” for the President and the truth or falsehood of the nature of the war can only be measured by how the war is seen by history in the long term and by public opinion in medias res.