Obama, McCain, and the Wars

Discussions of and about the historic 2008 U.S. Presidential Election
User avatar
Cerin
Posts: 6384
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:10 am

Post by Cerin »

solicitr wrote:Speaking as an ex-sailor, I have a hard time finding that respect in Obama's attitude, since he doesn't (for all his rhetoric) seem to place any value on what the troops actually do. (Imagine a high school pep rally, and the reaction of the team as the cheerleaders lead the student body in a chant of "For-FEIT! For-FEIT!)
There are some unfounded implications in this statement. Favoring withdrawal from Iraq is not akin to favoring forfeiture of a ballgame. This is just another twist on the 'surrender' talking point. Some people believe that our presence in Iraq perpetuates the problems there, and that things will only be able to move forward significantly once we are gone. This may symbolize 'forfeiture' in the minds of those who see withdrawal as surrender, but it is clearly not 'forfeiture' in the minds of those who see withdrawal as the way to give the country back to the Iraqis so they can begin the long, painful sorting out process that is inevitable. I would suggest that to imply otherwise is either remarkably ego-centric (assuming the only way to see something is one's own way) or deliberate propagandizing.

Concluding that Obama (or anyone else who favors withdrawal from Iraq) doesn't place value on what the troops do because he doesn't support the mission presents another false notion. One can have great respect for those who serve in the armed forces and value what they do, while at the same time believing that the invasion of Iraq, or any particular military mission, is ill-conceived. Valuing what our troops do does not equate to blind support for all of the orders they are given. One can oppose a military operation while valuing what our troops do -- that is, serve their country.

I would ask that you back up your statement, that Obama views our troops as victims and that he doesn't respect them, with some evidence. Or perhaps you meant to offer that as simply your opinion (a clearly biased one), and not fact? In cases like that, it is useful to add some kind of qualifier, like, 'it seems to me', to make it clear that you are sharing an impression of your own as opposed to offering a statement of fact.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
User avatar
solicitr
Posts: 3728
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat

Post by solicitr »

Some people believe that our presence in Iraq perpetuates the problems there, and that things will only be able to move forward significantly once we are gone. ....I would suggest that to imply otherwise is either remarkably ego-centric (assuming the only way to see something is one's own way) or deliberate propagandizing.
Except, Cerin, that events have overtaken those who so believe. Things are moving forward in Iraq now, and are doing so precisely because we did not follow Obama's prescription.

Obama's fixed position on Iraq has been "pull out now and damn the consequences." The *only* reason he can talk about pulling out, now, without disastrous consequences is because the policy he resolutely opposed in fact proved to be the correct one.

Had Obam's bill to force a complete withdrawal by March 2008 actually passed, it would indeed have been a forfeit- Iraq ceded to the forces of chaos and anarchy which were running amok two years ago.
it is clearly not 'forfeiture' in the minds of those who see withdrawal as the way to give the country back to the Iraqis so they can begin the long, painful sorting out process that is inevitable.
The long, painful sorting out process would not have taken place had we followed Obama's prescription. 'Sorting out' can only take place in conditions of security. The Iraqis had no prayer of establishing security on their own. The militias and terrorist groups had to be defeated before 'sorting out' could begin, and only the US military could do that.

The facts on the ground speak for themselves: our troops have been the solution, not the problem.


I would ask you, Cerin: are there not some hidden assumptions in the idea that the US troop presence was, supposedly, only making matters worse? Does that not effectively imply a vote of no confidence in the GI's abilities? I would offer up the possibility that the constant refrain from Obama's party that the war was 'unwinnable' was not read by the troops as 'respect.'
User avatar
yovargas
I miss Prim ...
Posts: 15011
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:13 am
Location: Florida

Post by yovargas »

I am in a bind. One of the things that I was excited to hear from Obama earlier this year was that though he had his 16-month (or whatever) timetable plan, those plans were flexible based on the changes in the situation. IE. he spoke as if his stance wasn't just a blind ideological one but a pragmatic one based on reality. Well, the reality changed, and he didn't. That's pretty disappointing to me. The hard-time table mentally makes sense when things aren't working and there's no foreseeable good that can come of things. It does not make sense to me when things are getting significantly better and very positive, desirable goals are within reach. But Obama said 16 months and apparently 16 months is what it'll be. Disappointing.

However, McCain worries me, primarily because of his repeated characterization of the position of Obama and the general Democrat as "surrender". Calling it surrender is in my view either a blatant distortion or terrible lack of understanding. Or both. Even if you don't agree with the line of reasoning "our army being in Iraq is a bad thing" please please please be reasonable enough to accept the real difference between that reasoning and "surrender". There's an enormous difference between "we shouldn't do this" and "we give up" and apparently McCain is unwilling or unable to tell that difference. Disappointing.

So I'm left in the crappy position of having to decide which disappointing behavior is the least potentially harmful behavior for a Commander-in-Chief. Damnit.

And V-man, this:
Even a "just war" such as World War II I consider to be impossible to "win". I understand the truth of the statement of Éowyn to the Warden of the House of Healing that you quoted for a while in your sig, soli, and that sometimes it is necessary to take up arms. But in my world view, no one "wins" when hundreds, thousands, or millions of people get killed. At best, one "survives" a war, and the sooner it is ended, the better.
was very eloquent. If only more of us could really understand that.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 45995
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

solicitr wrote: I would offer up the possibility that the constant refrain from Obama's party that the war was 'unwinnable' was not read by the troops as 'respect.'
soli, this sentence tells me that you simply disregarded my posts in this thread, and that there is no real hope that you will make any attempt to understand (even if you disagree with it) a different point of view on this subject. So I'm not going to try any further.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
User avatar
solicitr
Posts: 3728
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat

Post by solicitr »

Voronwë wrote:At best, one "survives" a war, and the sooner it is ended, the better.
The sooner it is ended- at what cost? I don't think, Vor, that you quite mean that literally, since any war can be 'ended' immediately by surrender. While I see the force of your assertion that nobody truly 'wins' a war, its is very, very possible to lose a war, and the price can be extraordinarily high. WWII I know is overused as an example because it was the 'good' war, but it's precisely that that makes it useful. Surely you aren't suggesting that it was desirable to let Hitler have his way? Or, perhaps a better analogy, to get as far as Paris and then pull the troops out of Europe because 'ending the war' trumped all other considerations?

I must be misreading you here. Could you clarify?
Last edited by solicitr on Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
vison
Best friends forever
Posts: 11961
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:33 pm
Location: Over there.

Post by vison »

Why obsess about "Commander in Chief"? It is a very, very small part of a president's duty and is largely misunderstood, as well.

And do not forget that the constant barrage of "good news" from Iraq is suspect at best. The situation is not quite as simple as "we beat the bad guys and now everything is peachy keen". Reality bites. The USA has made "accomodations" with a surprising number and kind of men in Iraq - in order to achieve this "victory".

The US broke most of the china in this china shop, bursting in uninivited and unwanted in order to change the management. Having haphazardly glued some of the broken china together, it now announces that "you guys can deal with this cuz we fixed it up for you", and beyond a shadow of a doubt once the US has left Iraq (if that ever happens, that is), things will get "fixed" a little more and someone will be in charge there. Will that someone be a nice man? What do you think the chances are of that? He will most likely be a bit friendlier to the USA than Saddam Hussein came to be - but don't forget he was once your chum.

There is no use crying over spilt milk, but this is an ocean of spilt milk. It's really hard to overlook it.
Dig deeper.
User avatar
vison
Best friends forever
Posts: 11961
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:33 pm
Location: Over there.

Post by vison »

Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:
solicitr wrote: I would offer up the possibility that the constant refrain from Obama's party that the war was 'unwinnable' was not read by the troops as 'respect.'
soli, this sentence tells me that you simply disregarded my posts in this thread, and that there is no real hope that you will make any attempt to understand (even if you disagree with it) a different point of view on this subject. So I'm not going to try any further.
Spot on, Voronwë.
Dig deeper.
User avatar
solicitr
Posts: 3728
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat

Post by solicitr »

soli, this sentence tells me that you simply disregarded my posts in this thread, and that there is no real hope that you will make any attempt to understand (even if you disagree with it) a different point of view on this subject. So I'm not going to try any further.
Sorry, Vor, but I really don't understand where you're getting that.

The subjective opinion of the troops , who are professionals and proud of their abilities, would not be (and was not) favorable to those who were telling them they couldn't accomplish their mision. They would (and did) read it as an indictment of their competence. Isn't this simple human nature? And the irritation simply increased as, while they piled up victory after victory, the anti-war side chose to ignore the successes, pretend they didn't exist, deny that the troops were accopmlishing anything.....and refuse to alter policy prescriptions based on facts on the ground which the troops themselves had completely changed.
User avatar
yovargas
I miss Prim ...
Posts: 15011
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:13 am
Location: Florida

Post by yovargas »

The troops might take it personally or disrespectfully, and perhaps with reason, but there isn't and shouldn't be any real connection between commentary on the war and commentary on the troops. The awesomest troops in the universe can still enter into an unwinnable war. Pointing that out the latter is NOT a commentary on the former.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image
User avatar
Cerin
Posts: 6384
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:10 am

Post by Cerin »

solicitr wrote:Except, Cerin, that events have overtaken those who so believe. Things are moving forward in Iraq now, and are doing so precisely because we did not follow Obama's prescription.
That things are moving forward in Iraq is certainly one valid point of view, but it is not the only one. I don't believe things are moving forward significantly in Iraq, and will not until we get out. What we have now, in my opinion, is a stasis based on our presence there, which I do not believe is in anyone's best interest to maintain indefinitely and which only puts off the inevitable -- which is the sorting out of the country by its own citizens.

As for the last part of your statement, none of us knows what would have happened if we had taken a different course; speculating on that is useless, in my opinion, so I won't engage in it.

Obama's fixed position on Iraq has been "pull out now and damn the consequences."

No, that does not accurately reflect anyone's stated position. That is your perspective on the withdrawal position, because you don't agree with it. It is another example of the tactic of saying that those who support withdrawal want to surrender. It seems to you that withdrawal is surrender, but it doesn't seem that way to those who hold the other point of view.

There are many people who believe that the only way for Iraq to move forward toward whatever configuration they eventually achieve (which will most likely be far worse from our strategic point of view than things were before we invaded) is for us to leave. Trying to prevent that eventuality, trying to forestall the inevitable consequences of our disastrous invasion isn't a viable strategy, in my opinion. That doesn't translate as 'pull out and damn the consequences.' It translates to, 'pulling out is the best thing to do; and we will bear perpetual responsibility for the mess we needlessly created there, whose ramifications none can foresee.'

The *only* reason he can talk about pulling out, now, without disastrous consequences is because the policy he resolutely opposed in fact proved to be the correct one.
It did not prove to be 'the correct one'. You view it as such, but no one knows how withdrawal now will differ from a hypothetical earlier withdrawal that never happened. We don't know what the consequences will be of pulling out now, either.

The surge was undertaken to make space, by a reduction in violence, for political reconciliation, and the latter aspect has not happened to any significant degree. The country is simply in a holding pattern, in my view, until we get out.

Had Obam's bill to force a complete withdrawal by March 2008 actually passed, it would indeed have been a forfeit- Iraq ceded to the forces of chaos and anarchy which were running amok two years ago.
In your view, it would have been a forfeit. But you do not know what would have transpired had we begun a withdrawal earlier, any more than you know what will happen if we begin a withdrawal now. All we have done is put off the inevitable. All of the forces are still there, that are being suppressed by our presence, and which will move into action when we are gone.

The long, painful sorting out process would not have taken place had we followed Obama's prescription.
You do not know that. Nobody knows what would have happened had we begun a withdrawl that we never began.

'Sorting out' can only take place in conditions of security.

That isn't true. Sorting out will take place in whatever conditions exist. Conditions will change when we leave, and the sorting out will take place in those conditions, whatever they are.

The Iraqis had no prayer of establishing security on their own. The militias and terrorist groups had to be defeated before 'sorting out' could begin, and only the US military could do that.
A security established by our presence, which cannot and should not, in my opinion, be permanent, is no real security. The militias are not defeated, they are simply suppressed. The terrorist groups are there because we are there. I believe nothing of permanence can happen until we leave, unless you hold the view that our presence should be permanent in order to permanently maintain the conditions it has created.

The facts on the ground speak for themselves: our troops have been the solution, not the problem.

The facts speak for and according to the viewpoints and opinions of those who assess them. Your opinion is that our troops have been the solution; my opinion is that our presence in the country has created many more problems than it has solved.

I would ask you, Cerin: are there not some hidden assumptions in the idea that the US troop presence was, supposedly, only making matters worse? Does that not effectively imply a vote of no confidence in the GI's abilities?
I can say absolutely and unequivocally, no. It implies a vote of no confidence in the people who made the decisions that caused the troops to be there, and who will never themselves see those battlefields or feel the personal consequences of those decisions.

I would offer up the possibility that the constant refrain from Obama's party that the war was 'unwinnable' was not read by the troops as 'respect.'
I'm sure that is the case for some troops, and not the case for others. There are plenty of troops, there are organizations of troops, who advocate for an end to the policy and who understand that a lack of respect for the decisions of the administration does not equate to a lack of respect for the troops or their abilities, just as there are many troops who take any criticism of the policy as a personal affront.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
User avatar
sauronsfinger
Posts: 3508
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:25 am

Post by sauronsfinger »

The war in Iraq was started on a false premise on either faulty or outright manufactured false claims. Iraq never attacked the USA or did anything to warrant the most powerful nation on earth making war on it.

Thousands of American soldiers have died there.

More than that have suffered serious physical injuries - some of which will plague them for the rest of their lives.

And then there are the psychological injuries that will be around for many years and are not yet fully counted.

My question is a simple one: how is support for a war that never should have been fought and put American men and women in harms way translated into being pro-military?

Causing the deaths of American soldiers and the injury of American soldiers for no good reason would seem to be the highest form of disrespect and misuse that anyone could extend upon our soldiers.

Being pro-military and supporting our troops would mean only using them when absolutely necessary and watching out for their health and safety with all due caution.

That was not done here as the current administration engages in a war which never should have been fought in the first place.

To argue about the limited improvement of some aspects of the war due to escalation of troop numbers is merely a marginal issue at the edges of the true issue.

Support our troops.
Do not risk their lives on political vendettas or fanciful schemes to realign the realities of the Middle East.
Bring them home so no more die in an unnecessary war which never should have been fought in the first place.

If we fight today to not disgrace the memory of those who died yesterday, does that not justify the continued fighting of every war fought by every nation or group for all time? There are always those to remember. But that is not reason for more to die. Throwing more innocent bodies on that ever growing heap does nothing to honor anyone.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
User avatar
yovargas
I miss Prim ...
Posts: 15011
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:13 am
Location: Florida

Post by yovargas »

Good post, Cerin. (Though I don't agree on every point.)
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image
User avatar
solicitr
Posts: 3728
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat

Post by solicitr »

All of the forces are still there, that are being suppressed by our presence, and which will move into action when we are gone.
In haste I'll focus on one point rather than the entire, interesting post, Cerin.

Solid information on the course of military operations in Iraq is easily available to anybody with internet access, and I have been following events closely, getting behind the lamentable media coverage. Your assertion in this case is simply counterfactual. The insurgent forces are not 'still there:' they have (almost) all been killed, captured or fled the country.

Please note that all the additional 'surge' forces have left the country- but the violence continues to decrease, not increase. In order for a wound to heal, it takes bandages and antibiotics- which by their very success eventually render themselves unnecessary. Iraq is healing, because the near-fatal infection of terrorism and sectarian violence has been beaten.

In the meantime, eighteen months of hard fighting as understudies to US forces have created Iraqi Army units which are now capable of taking the lead in destroying militias and re-asserting government control- something far beyond the IA's abilities two years ago. The Iraqis are getting close to the point where they an handle things on their own, without a resumption of chaos and civil war.

You assert that 'no political progress has been made'- again, this simply isn't true. Even beyond the central Gov't having achieved 15 of Crocker's 18 benchmarks, the re-establishment of government on the municipal and regional level, a ground-up process facilitated by lots of US military diplomacy, has worked wonders in 'sorting out' and revivifying communities which two years ago were ghost towns.


I would suggest that the likely results of a pullout two years ago could heve been and can be projected , quite reasonably, from the conditions that obtained at that time. While nobody has a crystal ball or a peek into the other leg of the trousers of time, it's ordinary analysis to make projections from the available evidence, in many cases with a very high probability. Two years ago Iraq was in chaos, just about in all-out civil war. You say 'we don't know what might have happened'- no, we don't know, but we can certainly form a pretty good guess. What unspecified force would have halted the slide in the absence of US troops?
User avatar
sauronsfinger
Posts: 3508
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:25 am

Post by sauronsfinger »

double post
please ignore

... thats funny, no?
Last edited by sauronsfinger on Fri Jul 25, 2008 8:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
User avatar
sauronsfinger
Posts: 3508
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:25 am

Post by sauronsfinger »

from Solicitr
You assert that 'no political progress has been made'- again, this simply isn't true. Even beyond the central Gov't having achieved 15 of Crocker's 18 benchmarks, the re-establishment of government on the municipal and regional level, a ground-up process facilitated by lots of US military diplomacy, has worked wonders in 'sorting out' and revivifying communities which two years ago were ghost towns.
This is from the official site of the United States White House. It is the official transcript of the January 10, 2007 speech made by President to the Bush regarding the escalation of US troop involvement - the Surge. Among the things promised by the President were the following --- his words --- not mine.

from President George W. Bush to the American people 1/10/07
To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.
Take those promises and look at them individually so that you can gauge the success or failure of the surge according to the criteria established by President Bush when he announced the Surge.

1. To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November.

2. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.

3. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs.

4. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year.

5. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.

Now look at the historical record and judge each of these.

As recently as earlier this month, the US military wanted to show the US press just how safe Iraq was. So they placed some reporters including Andrea Mitchell of NBC in several types of protective gear including bullet proof vests and marched them around an outdoor market. Mitchell and her small group of companions were surrounded on all sides by much larger, heavily armed soldiers.

I guess Iraq is fairly safe given those conditions.

To discuss the Surge and to discuss its success is to ignore the actual promises of President Bush to the American people.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
User avatar
yovargas
I miss Prim ...
Posts: 15011
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:13 am
Location: Florida

Post by yovargas »

soli wrote:...the central Gov't having achieved 15 of Crocker's 18 benchmarks...
Could you please clarify what this means and where you're getting this kind of info?
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image
User avatar
solicitr
Posts: 3728
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat

Post by solicitr »

Voronwë, you aked me to back up my assertion that Obama and other leading Democrats had called the Iraq war 'unwinnable' or words to that effect.

So, although I realize that 'shotgun posts' aren't best form, here goes:

Obama: "While some have proposed escalating this war by adding thousands of more troops, there is little reason to believe that this will achieve victory" (12/2006)
Obama: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." (MSNBC's "Response To The President's Speech On Iraq,"1/10/07)
Obama: "We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality -- we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 1/14/07)
Obama: My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now." (NBC's"The Today Show," 7/18/07)
KANSAS CITY, Mo., Aug. 21 (2007)— Senator Barack Obama said Tuesday that even if the military escalation in Iraq was showing limited signs of progress, efforts to stabilize the country had been a “complete failure” and American troops should not be entangled in the sectarian strife.
Obama: "Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn't withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there." (NBC's"Meet The Press," 11/11/07)
And some other leading Democrats:
Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin said top administration officials must accept the judgment of history over the war and would soon leave and "hand over the quagmire of Iraq to the next president."
"Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U.S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;..." (John Murtha's HR 73, calling for immediate pullout)
"Well it's delusional to say the least," Murtha told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "As I said earlier, and you heard me say it, it's a failed policy wrapped in illusion. Nothing's gotten better. Incidents have increased. We have had more Americans killed in the last four months than any other period during the war."

Murtha added: "I don't acknowledge there has been any progress made. (September 2007)
"The surge hasn't accomplished its goals," Reid said. "... We're involved, still, in an intractable civil war."
"I believe myself that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense -- and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows -- that this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," Reid said.
"We are stuck in a twilight zone in Iraq," said Democratic Senate Majority leader Harry Reid.
Back in December, the Iraq Study Group said that "the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating." Unfortunately, since then nothing has changed.

And yet the president on Friday used the word "progress" no fewer than ten times when he gave his Iraq update.

He said that while there were still horrific attacks in Baghdad, and I quote, "The direction of the fight is beginning to shift." In describing his escalation of American troops -- what he calls a surge -- he said, "so far the operation is meeting expectations."

The White House transcript says the president made those remarks in the State of Michigan. I believe he made them in the state of denial.(Harry Reid, 4/19/07)
"The idea that we are going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong," (DNC Chairman Howard Dean).
There are of course many more, from Pelosi, Boxer, Kerry and so on, but the talking points are the same.
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 45995
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

yov, the Bush administration announced earlier this month that Iraq had made "satisfactory progress" on 15 of the 18 benchmarks. The term "satisfactory progress" obviously is quite different than soli's "achieved" and itself is widely disputed, and most observers agree that Iraq has not made much actual progress in political reconciliation. They still have not resolved any of the major issues that divide them, such as how to divide oil revenues. And now that President Talibani has announced that he will veto the law government provincial elections, virtually guaranteeing that they will not happen this year (link) what little progress towards political reconciliation has essentially been undone.

Edit: cross-posted with soli. Soli, I don't see any of those quotes of Obama's as saying that the war is "unwinnable" (I haven't looked at the other quotes from the other people, so I won't comment on them). I think you actually bear out my mine point, which is that Obama, like me (and, for that matter Cerin, who's earlier post I largely agree with), simply look at this matter through different lens than you or McCain do.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
User avatar
sauronsfinger
Posts: 3508
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:25 am

Post by sauronsfinger »

I sadly remember all those "we are winning this war" or "we are succeeding" or the infamous "I can see the light at the end of the tunnel" when we were fighting in Viet Nam. I think they kept saying that sort of thing right up unitl we hightailed it outta there and they ran up the North Viet Nam flag over the city hall of Saigon.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
User avatar
Cerin
Posts: 6384
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:10 am

Post by Cerin »

solicitr wrote:Your assertion in this case is simply counterfactual. The insurgent forces are not 'still there:' they have (almost) all been killed, captured or fled the country.
My assertion was that whatever forces are being suppressed by our presence will move into action once we have gone. That is not counterfactual, it is simple logic. I did not mention 'the insurgent forces', nor did you. You referred specifically to militias and terrorists. You said they had been defeated. I believe the militias are still there, waiting for us to leave; the country is still very much divided into factions. I believe the 'terrorists' (what I think of as Al Quaeda in Iraq) are there because we are there, and once we leave they will have no one left to fight and no reason to stay.

I'm not sure which groups you are referring to when you say 'insurgent forces'. I thought of the insurgency as Iraqis fighting the occupation, as opposed to Al Quaeda in Iraq, which I understand to have been composed more of outside forces coming in. I'm not sure who it is you mean, then, who have almost all been killed, captured or fled the country. If you mean, those whose raison d'etre was to kill American soldiers, that has little bearing on what I was referring to as suppressed forces moving into action when we depart. 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.

Iraq is healing, because the near-fatal infection of terrorism and sectarian violence has been beaten.
Is Iraq healing? Is the sectarianism not still there beneath the surface, behind the walls that our army has built? I believe it is. The sectarian violence is not the infection, but the symptom. Yes, we went in and suppressed the symptom, but the infection is still there waiting to break out again once the artificial suppression is removed. You don't heal a disease by suppressing its symptoms; you heal it by addressing its causes. And that is not for us, but for the Iraqis to do.

You assert that 'no political progress has been made'- again, this simply isn't true.
I did not assert that no political progress had been made.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
Locked