On Tuesday, I changed my status on Facebook to say, "All of the troops would be home from Iraq today if Obama were President" to reflect the date (3/31/08) the Senator's Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 set as a goal to make a full withdrawl. Soon thereafter the debate was joined.
Gerry: Actually, all the troops would be exactly where they are since Obama said that if al Qeada increased violence after the withdrawal of American troops (which they would) he would send troops to stabilize the country. But who knows if he knew what he meant...he's pretty new at this. ;-)
Mike: It seems to me the violence is surging with our troops there now.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23467708-5005961,00.html
If we wait until Al-Qaeda isn't violent, we're going to be in Iraq for a long time and we're going to keep on losing. Time for the troops to come home and time to stop wasting resources on a failed military objective.
Gerry: So you disagree with Obama's position? Since he clearly said that if al Qaeda threatened to destabilize the country after we left that he would send troops.
Also the spikes in violence recently have more to do with Sadr and the Iraqi government than alQ. alQ is in a mess right now in Iraq. Mostly because of the surge and Petraus. Hopefully we will have a government that will continue to destroy our enemies long enough for Sadr and Maliki to get their shit together. Then we can have a nice orderly, responsible shift from American control to Iraqi control. Instead of some neophyte recklessly withdrawing troops only to send them back when all the shit breaks loose.
If you really think a President Obama would have had troops home by now, I only suggest you look at the posturing of the Democrat congress since '06. Any objective person would conclude that they didn't want troops pulled out of Iraq. But if you want to keep your Obama fantasies, hope away.
Mike: You contradict yourself in your own retort. Which is it? Obama would have sent troops back to Iraq because of al-Qaeda or is al-Qaeda in Iraq in disarray? I'm unclear which position you're taking.
The surge was a temporary fix to a longer lasting problem. Like the man himself said, "I'm not against all wars. I'm against this war." He's got the executive perspective to realize the war in Iraq is a fool's errand. Our objectives there are impossible and no amount of resources will win the battle.
Pulling out won't destabilize Iraq. Iraq is destabilized. We're just there trying to fix what's irreparably broken. Our position is like a hand in a bucket of water. There may be a few drops when we pull our hand out and they'll create ripples for a few minutes. After those ripples subside, you'd never know we were there. Iraq will go on being as destabilized as we've made it.
So I actually agree with Obama. Our fight is not with the Iraqi people. It's with al-Qaeda.
P.S. Why would Congressional Dems send a bill to withdraw troops to President Bush? He's not going to sign it and they don't have a 2/3rds majority. So it's penalty-kill time until a Dem is President and then things will change.
Gerry: I did not contradict myself. We messed alQ's shit up with the surge. Leaving would allow them to once again attack the country and the Iraqi government. We have our foot on the throat of the most destabilizing element in Iraq. Leaving would let them get back up kneecap the unprepared Iraqi government. Which is why Obama said that he would send troops in to stop that. Obama's position is amateurish. You're either in to win or out damned of the consequences. His position is hokey-pokey. We need to give the Iraqi people more time. They are not ready to protect themselves and their government.
p.s. Why wouldn't they send a bill to President Bush? That is what they were elected to do, wasn't it?
p.p.s. If you think a democrat president would change how those congressional votes went you are dreaming. "Withdrawing the troops" is a red herring democrats use to get people against the war to vote for them. They wouldn't actually do it because they know if they actually did that the consequences would turn large majorities against them. They would be rightly blamed for the massive widespread carnage and death that would result. We a force for stability in Iraq, like it or not. And we will be there until Iraq is ready for us to leave.
Mike: Less amateurish than "stay the course" though, right? In fact, I'd say that it verges on decision-making instead of simple "well, once this happens and it's politically convenient then we'll do this." You can't look at what's happened in Iraq over the last five years, 4,000 US soldiers dead and $500 billion sucked down the drain and declare that a success. The war in Iraq leaves us weak at home (Hello, Katrina!) and diminishes us abroad (proving our enemies right). To continue in the war at this point of dimishing returns and increasing violence is foolish. In fact, it might take some courage to stop it.
I like that you bring up that a Democratic presidential nominee is weak and waffles on his positions. I suppose if you say things enough times people will actually believe they're true. I'd also like to point out that Republicans are religious nut, crypto-fascists who are intent on stripping regular Americans of their civil liberties and creating a police state.
P.S. Congress's goal is to enact legislation. Why send something to the White House you know is going to be immediately shot down by a President who is more concerned with being right than doing what is right. His obstinance is not the same thing as determined leadership. It's more like childish petulance.
P.P.S. Having the same party in control of both the White House and Congress always leads to that party's agenda being advanced. Do you think Part D of Medicare would be run through private insurance companies if the Democrats had held the either branch in 2003? Do you really think a close margin holds up against a Presidential veto?
P.P.P.S. We destabilized Iraq and we're spreading carnage already. Even worse, we're taking blame just for even being there. So what's our gain for fighting Iraqis instead of al-Qaeda? The Bush-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz policy toward stability in the Middle East has failed categorically.
Gerry: A few things, decision-making can be bad or good. Leaving now and dropping the middle east into chaos I would deem a bad decision. To say, as Obama does, that at that point we would send troops back in to clean up an even bigger mess, doesn't make any sense. I've never claimed the war was a success or even well handled. But that has no bearing on how we move forward. If you think the war weakens us at home and abroad watch what would happen if we let the middle east devolve into chaos and hand alQ a victory. Violence is actually down (aside from the Basra dustup with Sadr that has more to do with Iraqi politics; and since then Sadr has called a cease-fire, since ultimately he wants a table in government.)
I've only talked about what Obama said he would do. If I've mischaracterized it, please point out how. I haven't. A reasonable person wouldn't say that I sink to empty partisan-baiting. Don't accuse me of such.
We destabilized Iraq (if it was justified or in our interest is a different argument). And we completely botched the establishment of a stable government. And we are only now getting over those mistakes. It took a change of strategy and a change of personalities to do it. But there is clearly a path to a stable government if we only have the patience and foresight to give the Iraqi government the time.
You tell me what will happen when we leave Iraq. Because everyone who wants to just bring troops home never talks about it. Do you think everything will just work itself out? Do you think it will be consequence-free? Can you still pretend that we live in a disconnected world; that turning our backs on the world will lead to anything but dissaster?
p.s. retort: I only point out that the dem congress, after 2006 midterms, spent more money and send more troops to Iraq. Troops will not come out of Iraq until the Iraq government is established and ready. Plain and simple. Repub or Dem.
Mike: So a decision based on recognizing the sweeping failures of a previous tactic cross-referenced against the will of the people is NOT something the President should do? I'll have to go back to Civics class on that one.
I'll make a historical connection here and then I can lay off. The domino theory actually happened. When we stopped fighting in 1973 against the North Vietnamese, they took over South Vietnam. Then Cambodia and Laos fell to Communist regimes. Then nothing happened. The Russians and the Chinese crumbled under their own ascetic values and ressentiment and are now playgrounds for the American free market machine. Al-Qaeda will similarly crumble under its own ascetic values and ressentiment if people are drinking Coca-Cola in Saudi Arabia and making fair wages in Indonesia.
My point in my status is this. A little over a year ago Obama introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 to Congress which set the goal of having all American combat troops home by March 31st, 2008. Since that was two days ago, I thought I would point that out. Since President Bush and now Nominee McCain are in favor of extending the war, I think it's pretty clear who supports the position held by the majority of the American people.
Gerry: Too bad Obama isn't as clearly on the side of leaving and letting the chips fall as you. ;-) That position I can respect and understand, even if I have major disagrements with it. (I also know that the nature of politics in America probably won't let that happen.)
Have you read the De-Escalation Act? It had a bunch of benchmarks for leaving (similar to the ones we are using now with the surge), which if not met would suspend the redeployment (with congressional approval of course.) War power issues aside...again, do you really think the democrat congress would bring troops home before we are ready? Or even a dem prez?
Or troops will leave Iraq when Iraq is stable enough for us to leave. Not a day sooner.
Mike: You're right that it's unfortunate Obama is an American politician. He does have to leave some room for compromise instead of simply bullying his opponents a la Putin or Sarkozy. Still I'll trade a little waffling for not having to deal with a right wing police state. (Ha ha!)
I know that the De-Escalation Act had benchmarks. Chances are we wouldn't have met them since they were based on the Iraq Study group's recommendations and we only met half(?) of those. Still Reagan and Weinberger vowed to stay in Lebanon after the 1983 barracks bombing and our boys were home less than six months later. Though that area of the world remains in trumoil (Did they ever get those two Israeli soldiers back?), there are hardly Hezbollah members blowing themselves up on my train in the morning. So, yes, I do think a popular and charasmatic President would've had troops home, even if it meant leaving the Iraqis to their own civil war, regardless of whether or not he's Democratic or Republican.
Gerry: My problem isn't with Obama *saying* he would leave and go back in. My problem is with how shortsighted that policy is. Admitting you'd go back in pretty much says you know you can't let the area degrade past a certain point. The quickest way to ensure it never gets to that point is to stay now, continue providing security until Iraq can handle it, and then leave. It is just common sense. I don't understand someone that would draw this out by advocating leaving too soon, with the full intent of returning as soon as, what pretty much every expert considers the logical result, happens.
Iraq is a much bigger strategic interest than Lebanon. Ask members of the Cedar revolution if they appreciated that we cut and run and left them to Syria's whims for 20 years. It is all interconnected, dispite how hard we try to shove our own heads up our own asses.
No comments:
Post a Comment