Obama, McCain, and the Wars

[halplm]

Iraq is not Vietnam.

Nor, is it WWII.

I don't understand what this argument is about any more. One side says we've done good, and things have turned out well. The other side says we've done wrong, and either things have turned out bad, or we got lucky.

I used to think the issue of the troops was a clear distinction between McCain and Obama. But now it's been muddled quite a bit. McCain is for finishing Iraq, and pursuing the War on Terror as long as it takes. Obama is for claiming Iraq is done, and moving more troops to Afghanistan, and pursuing the War on Terror as long as it takes.

With the current state of Iraq, to me, that sounds like Obama is moving for even more aggressive deployment of troops than McCain! I don't know what to think about that... but it's clear that the only real difference between the two, is what they said and voted and thought years ago... which ultimately isn't relevant in any way but character... given Obama has radically shifted.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Iraq is not Vietnam.

Nor, is it WWII.

I agree, hal, that neither comparison is of much worth beyond the most basic generalities.

[sauronsfinger]

Hal - you are right that this is not Viet Nam. However, having lived through that time period, I thought it interesting that much of what we hear now about Iraq

we are winning
we are succeeding
progress is being made
the native population is responding

is exactly the same stuff we heard in the 60's and 70's. Exactly.

And better and more famous minds than my own feel we can learn from the past errors

Carlos Santayana ..... "those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it."

And if that is too highbrow - something more from popular culture.
Hope I do not get in trouble for using a musical line from the WHO

"meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
Some things never change.

Cerin - I liked you post a great deal. I especially agree with

The suppressed forces are the people who have a stake in Iraq beyond enmity toward the US, i.e., Iraqis and those who wish to influence the future of the country politically and religiously. Unless you believe we should continue to conrol the destiny of Iraq, those are the people who will determine its future, and they will do so once we leave.

Very well stated.

[solicitr]

Cerin:

In haste, this is jst a typical example picked at semi-random from dozens and dozens

The success of “Lion’s Roar,” when troops shut down Mosul for 72 hours, had its start in January, with an increase in manpower through the arrival of the US 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment and the creation of the Ninewa Operations Command, allowing the coordination of Iraqi Army, Iraqi Police, Border Patrol and Iraqi Special Operations troops with Coalition forces.

The national government of Nouri al Maliki also appointed Lieutenant General Riyadh Jalal Tawfiq, a Sunni with roots in Mosul, to lead the Ninewa Operations Command, boosting the potential for cooperation between the predominately Kurdish-led Iraqi Army Divisions and the Sunni-dominated local police forces, the US Army said.

In the first two months of 2008, Iraqi and Coalition forces captured or killed 142 al Qaeda in Iraq insurgents. Hertling said US strategy in Mosul would be similar to the strategy in Baghdad, with the expansion of command outposts in neighborhoods in order to sustain 24-hour-a-day security. By March, the Coalition had built 20 command outposts in Mosul and, on May 10, the lockdown began.

US M-1 Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles circled the city, freezing insurgent reinforcements from reaching Mosul while Iraqi Army and police set up an inner circle of security checkpoints, trapping the enemy within neighborhoods for days.

The operation captured more than 1,000 insurgents, 12 tons of home explosives, 500 mortars and artillery rounds that could be used in Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), 84 rocket propelled grenades, and 221 IEDs.

(BTW, 'insurgent' is a convenient if not-too-accurate catchall vor the various armed groups which have ben rasing hell in Iraq- against US forces, Iraqi forces....and most of all, against Iraqi civilians. Al Qaeda had much more ambitious plans in Iraq. Google Bin laden's and Zawahiri's and Zaeqawi's statements. The "Islamic State of Mesopotamia" was supposed to take over the country, creating a new home base, and the ancient capital, Baghdad, for the Caliphate. Unfortunately it didn't work out.

We're floundering in a quagmire in Iraq. Our strategy is flawed, and it's too late to change it. Our resources have been squandered, our best people killed, we're hated by the natives and our reputation around the world is circling the drain. We must withdraw.

No, I'm not channeling Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. I'm channeling Osama bin Laden, for whom the war in Iraq has been a catastrophe.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07322/834685-373.stm

[Ellienor]

I find interesting the very next sentence in the quote, which you did not reproduce, Soli:

Al-Qaida had little presence in Iraq during the regime of Saddam Hussein. But once he was toppled, al-Qaida's chieftains decided to make Iraq the central front in the global jihad against the Great Satan.

I see the situation about the surge somewhere between your position and Cerin's, although I think Cerin more accurately sees the long term (which is that we don't know the long term, and it will be up to the Iraqis themselves). I'm glad and grateful that violence went down in Iraq and the "civil war" that appeared to be threatening seems to been avoided, for now.

But it's just hard to predict what will happen there in the future. We have a history of setting up "puppet" or at least friendly governments and having them toppled from within. Just ask the Shah.

[solicitr]

Ellie, I have no problem with the 'next line' Whether intentional or not, given the Bushites' history of blunders, Iraq as it turned out became an excellent exemplar of the 'honey-pot' or 'flypaper' strategy vs. Al Qaeda- as the article goes on to describe.

We have a history of setting up "puppet" or at least friendly governments and having them toppled from within

And others with happier outcomes: Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Backing up for a second, because I think this illustrates a point that I want to make.

The senator decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign.

Voronwë, do you really buy that?????? The stated reason at the time of the cancellation was "scheduling"- only after the criticisms ran for half a day was the story changed.

Of course I buy, because it is the simple truth. The facts are that Ret. Major Gen. Scott Gration, currently a policy adviser to the Obama campaign (yes, Obama actually has high level military advisers), received a call from Pentagon officials earlier in the week who expressed concern with the trip — specifically because Obama was heading there on his campaign plane and campaign staff would be accompanying him on the visit. It was after speaking with Gration, the campaign decided to cancel the trip. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman confirmed today that while the Pentagon did not explicitly say Obama should not visit the base, it was concerned with whether his capacity there would be one of a presidential candidate, not a senator.

Can you not see, soli, how your own view of this is filtered (and, frankly, distorted) through the lens of your own particular point of view? I am more than willing to concede that my own views are filtered (and, yes, sometimes distorted) through the lens of of my particular point of view. If you are prepared to make the same concession, I think we will have taken an important step.

[vison]

And others with happier outcomes: Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea.

All on your own, like? Unilaterally?

To compare the outcome and aftermath of WW II and the Korean War to the "regime change" in Iraq and the installation and/or support of dictators elsewhere in the world requires a very odd kind of spectacles, indeed.

[solicitr]

Well, Vor:

A U.S. military official tells NBC News they were making preparations for Sen. Barack Obama to visit wounded troops at the Landstuhl Medical Center at Ramstein, Germany on Friday, but "for some reason the visit was called off."

The official said "We didn't know why" the request to visit the wounded troops was withdrawn. "He (Obama) was more than welcome. We were all ready for him."

One military official who was working on the Obama visit said because political candidates are prohibited from using military installations as campaign backdrops, Obama's representatives were told, "he could only bring two or three of his Senate staff member, no campaign officials or workers." In addition, "Obama could not bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama's visit."

Does that affect your reading of "Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman confirmed today that while the Pentagon did not explicitly say Obama should not visit the base, it was concerned with whether his capacity there would be one of a presidential candidate, not a senator"?

So there it is, Vor: there was no problem with Obama visiting the troops. What was disallowed was the photo-op; and whenever Gration's conversation may have been held, the cancellation occurred the morning of the scheduled visit. My filters, at least, read that pretty negatively.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Well at least you admit that it is your filters that read it negatively. That's a start, I suppose. But honestly, Soli, you don't seem to be looking at the facts. Senior Pentagon officials (presumably) express concern to their former colleage, a retired Major General, about the visit because the visit to Germany was clearly a campaign trip (as opposed to the visits to Afghanistan and Iraq, which at least were at least technically billed as Congressional fact-finding trips). At most, Obama could be accused of excessive caution in cancelling the trip in response to the warning made to General Gration. To read into this some kind of antipathy towards the troops, or too suggest that he cancelled the trip simply because there was no opportunity for a "photo op" (which he undoubtably knew already; he didn't have a photo op when he visited the combat support hospital in the Green Zone in Baghdad) really is a stretch. You've got to be looking for that to find it here.

[Faramond]

The facts are that Obama could have visited those troops if he didn't take any of his campaign staff with him. That's what the Pentagon has said and I believe them. Obama was never told he couldn't go, only what the conditions here, and upon hearing those conditions he opted not to go.

And I don't care in the big picture. Obama's campaign screwed up because this thing became a negative story for them. But I don't think this shows Obama doesn't care about the troops or anything like that.

[sauronsfinger]

Why are so many going to great lengths to find fault with something that Obama DID NOT DO? There is much he did do on this trip which was extremely respectful of the troops. But that is ignored or dismissed with derision because it does not fit into someones preconceived and rather negative feelings about Obama.

That tells me a great deal about the motivations and mindset of these type of critics.

I will go off humming a Paul Simon song.

[Jnyusa]

[Note: This is one of several threads from which Jnyusa removed some or all of her posts. We regret that the integrity of these discussions has been disrupted in this way. While we support the right of our members to edit their posts if they have second thoughts about them, we believe this type of wholesale removal of posts goes beyond that, and is damaging to the community.

Voronwë_the_Faithful, Primula Baggins, Whistler, nerdanel]

[removed]

[sauronsfinger]

Apparently those who have served in the US military do indeed think differently than those who have not. Although it leaves open if these person were different in opinion before they went in to the military or if the military formed these different opinions.

This from todays Rasmussen Report.

Voters who have served in the U.S. military favor John McCain over Barack Obama by a 56% to 37% margin.

This data, from a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, is based upon interviews with 3,000 Likely Voters, including 588 voters who have served in the military. Voters with no military service favor Obama 50% to 43%.

The survey was conducted July 21-23 while Obama was on an overseas tour that included Afghanistan and Iraq. Overall, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll showed Obama leading 48% to 45% (with leaners) over those three days.

But a separate survey also found that 63% of Americans do not believe the stopovers in the two war-torn countries made the Democratic candidate any more qualified to be president.

The same survey also found that less than a third (32%) thought Obama learned from his trip to Iraq, while 40% said his mind was already made up about how to deal with the war there.

Obama on Tuesday at a press conference in Jordan defended his plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq over a 16-month period. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, with whom he met, opposes a timeline of any kind, but Obama wants to put more forces in Afghanistan.

In the new survey, 61% of military veterans have a favorable opinion of McCain while 46% say the same about Obama. Thirty-seven percent (37%) have an unfavorable opinion of McCain while 51% offer an unfavorable opinion of Obama.

Twenty-four percent (24%) of veterans have a Very Favorable opinion of the GOP candidate while 17% hold a Very Unfavorable view. The numbers for his Democratic opponet are 27% Very Favorable and 36% Very Unfavorable.

Veterans also prefer Republicans by 10 percentage points on the Generic Congressional Ballot. Those without military experience favor Democrats by a 48% to 32% margin. Overall, Democrats lead by nine percentage points on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of veterans say that economic issues are most important in Election 2008 while 29% cite national security issues. For those without military service, 47% see the economy as most important and 21% say national security.

While those with a military background favor McCain, that’s not the case for those with immediate family members in the military. There is no significant difference between the views of those with military family members and those without.

Among those with close friends or relatives serving in Iraq, 44% favor McCain and 44% prefer Obama. Obama leads by seven among those who don’t have a close friend or relative in Iraq.

Obama has not served in the military. McCain, a Navy combat pilot in the Vietnam War, was shot, imprisoned and tortured in the infamous “Hanoi Hilton” for six years.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Very interesting, and definitely relevant to this thread, sf. Thanks for sharing it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Here's a bit of a different picture regarding the candidate's support of veterans. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America rates the voting records of Representatives and Senators of their support. They gave Obama a B+. They gave McCain a D.

http://www.iava.org/full-ratings-list

The Disabled American Veterans gave Obama an 80% rating. McCain is at 20%.

http://capwiz.com/dav/scorecard.xc

As for the Vietnam Veterans of America (McCain's own group), Obama voted yes on 12 of 13 issues that they supported, whereas McCain voted no on 15 of 25 issues that they supported.

http://capwiz.com/vva/e4/clist/race/?ra ... district=&

[solicitr]

You know, Vor- if you look at the rankings, and at the methodology, it's remarkable that the highest ratings go to folks like Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi; and the lowest ones of course to Republicans. Why? Because, let's face it: veterans' groups are interest groups like any other, and they want the maximum possible amout of money sent their way. Democrats have never been bashful about veteran spending (as opposed to the active military)- and many of those amendments and bills, it turns out, are pretty dubious propositions , especially when they mandate that funding come from stripping some other area of the budget.

Again, the oldest political trick in the book is to take an opponent's vote against a bad bill and trumpet it as opposition to some worthy provision contained therein.

The most recent vet-benefits bill, which McCain opposed and Obama supported, is a good example of this dynamic at work- the bill proposed extending maximum benefits to those with a mere three years' service: which would have, I think you would agree, a devastating effect on retention.

Are you seriously trying to say that John McCain is callous towards America's vets? Please. If someone can point out where McCain opposed a necessary vet bill, that didn't contain a poison pill, I'd be interested to hear it.

[sauronsfinger]

Facts are facts. The historical record is the historical record. This is not a matter of perception... or beliefs ... or idealogy... or who wears a flap lapel on their three piece suit.

Its a matter of who supports American veterans and who does not.

The statistics given here by both Voronwë and myself, demonstrate clearly and without doubt that the Veterans groups themselves know who is in their corner and who is not.

from Solicitr

Are you seriously trying to say that John McCain is callous towards America's vets? Please. If someone can point out where McCain opposed a necessary vet bill, that didn't contain a poison pill, I'd be interested to hear it.

Necessary vet bill? I would imagine that the veterans groups who track such thing felt that every bill they lobbied for was necessary in the eyes of their members. That is enough for me.

Or are you saying that Veterans groups are made up of stupid people who do not know the difference between a true bill which helps vets and one that will hurt them?

[solicitr]

I would imagine that the veterans groups who track such thing felt that every bill they lobbied for was necessary in the eyes of their members. That is enough for me.

Just as well say that every elderly bill which the AARP backs must be necessary, because they say it is. Special interests are special interests- even the ones you happen to belong to.

Or are you saying that Veterans groups are made up of stupid people who do not know the difference between a true bill which helps vets and one that will hurt them?

Of course not. But their interest is in passing bills which benefit themselves without regard to whether someone else is hurt.

[sauronsfinger]

And I think you are partly right in this Solicitr. Veterans group do have their own self interest at heart when they lobby. The key point here is that they lobby for their members - veterans.

They are not lobbying for the armed services.
They are not lobbying for the defense department.
They are not lobbying for the military-industrial complex.
They are not lobbying for the defense establishment and their supporters in politics.

And that is a very good thing. The work for their members. And those members are veterans.

Why would anyone think that they would be somehow expected to do otherwise?

When a veterans group tells me as a citizen that a certain bill is in the interests of their members I accept that claim.
They know what is in their best interests and in the best interests of the members of their group.

When they say that Barack Obama has a much superior record of supporting disabled veterans than John McCain does, I accept that.

McCain may be a veteran himself and served his country. But that does not give him extra points or a pass on actual real life veterans issues. He has to stand with every other congressmen and let his record do the talking.