OT: 2008 Elections

[XXXIV]

I agree with that sentiment. I think it would be a mistake to just pick up and leave - that would do a lot more harm than good. At this point it no longer matters how or why we went into Iraq. What matters now is that we leave the place in better shape than when we went over there. I feel like that is an obligation and something we owe to the Iraqi people.

I agree and I too am pretty sure that no matter who wins that is exactly what will happen.

[TheHiddenTrack]

In the pragmatic sense, in Iraq, it doesn't matter why or how this happened, but it's imperative that the countless lies leading up to the war are exposed for future generations so they can see how easily the government manipulate the media, gov "intelligence", and the American people. So hopefully, in 5 years or in 30 years, the people and media will be able to hold war-mongers to a higher standard when they happen to become elected officials in the highest places in government.

On the issue of leaving or staying, it's nearly infinitely complicated. And it does no good to start framing one side of the debate as "surrender" or "retreat." That is purely childish and stupid, and unfortunately the children running our country and Mr. McCain are too often willing to use these terms.

I'm not privy to enough details to have a firm position on what to do in every aspect. But I do know enough to identify closer with the democrats on this issue than with McCain. This is a very sensitive issue that the far-right or far-left don't handle rationally.

[FatPitcher]

In the pragmatic sense, in Iraq, it doesn't matter why or how this happened, but it's imperative that the countless lies leading up to the war are exposed for future generations so they can see how easily the government manipulate the media, gov "intelligence", and the American people. So hopefully, in 5 years or in 30 years, the people and media will be able to hold war-mongers to a higher standard when they happen to become elected officials in the highest places in government.

I don't disagree, but as the oil-for-food scandal showed, deceit and manipulation aren't the exclusive province of people who call for war. It seems that the public never has the full story, but they are always damn sure of the right course of action. Until they change their minds and are 100% sure of something else, that is.

[Brando70]

I really don't want to throw Iraq to the wolves. I agree with Kevin's sentiments: despite being against this idiocy from the beginning, I feel like we have a responsibility to clean up the mess we helped make, especially considering that we made that mess removing another mess we installed.

But we're still operating under this fallacy of doing the same thing and expecting different results. The surge was a band aid. Violence did fall, but it's still high. More importantly, five years after the invasion, Iraq's infrastructure is still a royal mess and worse than under Saddam. The most powerful country in the world can't figure out how to keep the lights on more effectively than the third-rate dictator they ousted. That's the real problem in Iraq. McCain needs to stop talking like he's reading dialog from Independence Day and say what we'll do to keep the power on and the water running. Because if we can't figure that out, Iraq will never become a stable country.

[JRod]

I really don't want to throw Iraq to the wolves. I agree with Kevin's sentiments: despite being against this idiocy from the beginning, I feel like we have a responsibility to clean up the mess we helped make, especially considering that we made that mess removing another mess we installed.

But we're still operating under this fallacy of doing the same thing and expecting different results. The surge was a band aid. Violence did fall, but it's still high. More importantly, five years after the invasion, Iraq's infrastructure is still a royal mess and worse than under Saddam. The most powerful country in the world can't figure out how to keep the lights on more effectively than the third-rate dictator they ousted. That's the real problem in Iraq. McCain needs to stop talking like he's reading dialog from Independence Day and say what we'll do to keep the power on and the water running. Because if we can't figure that out, Iraq will never become a stable country.

I agree. But on the other side, I want to hear more on how they are going to fix the problem not just withdraw troops. That's not in the debate these days. It's about withdrawing troops because that's what get the cheers at the podium.

Sadly, I think Iraq will turn into a Taliban Afghanistan if we pull out quickly. In the power vaccum, it's hard to imagine that a weak central government will be able to hold on.

I wish we could have an open honest debate about Iraq in the Presidential debates. I'm tired of hearing the Dems say, I have a withdrawal plan. And I'm tired of the R's saying the surge is working. It just seems the same type of hollow arguments that got us into the war, are being made not to justify staying in or getting out.

[RobVarak]

On the issue of leaving or staying, it's nearly infinitely complicated. And it does no good to start framing one side of the debate as "surrender" or "retreat." That is purely childish and stupid, and unfortunately the children running our country and Mr. McCain are too often willing to use these terms.

It's not childish and it's far from stupid to consider it retreat. If the people perpetrating violence in Iraq are our enemies, and our enemies are engaged on the field of battle, removing our troops from the battle is a retreat. Calling it anything else is a semantic rim job.

Retreat is not an inherently poor idea in all cases, so there's nothing intellectually improper about advocating for a retreat. But one should at least be honest about the policy.

[XXXIV]

But one should at least be honest about the policy.

Something that is hard to come by in a political debate. As most participants treat their side as a God damn football team ...RAH RAH RAH!!! ....and hardly ever use their common sense.

[dougb]

I really don't want to throw Iraq to the wolves. I agree with Kevin's sentiments: despite being against this idiocy from the beginning, I feel like we have a responsibility to clean up the mess we helped make, especially considering that we made that mess removing another mess we installed.

But we're still operating under this fallacy of doing the same thing and expecting different results. The surge was a band aid. Violence did fall, but it's still high. More importantly, five years after the invasion, Iraq's infrastructure is still a royal mess and worse than under Saddam. The most powerful country in the world can't figure out how to keep the lights on more effectively than the third-rate dictator they ousted. That's the real problem in Iraq. McCain needs to stop talking like he's reading dialog from Independence Day and say what we'll do to keep the power on and the water running. Because if we can't figure that out, Iraq will never become a stable country.

I agree. But on the other side, I want to hear more on how they are going to fix the problem not just withdraw troops. That's not in the debate these days. It's about withdrawing troops because that's what get the cheers at the podium.

Sadly, I think Iraq will turn into a Taliban Afghanistan if we pull out quickly. In the power vaccum, it's hard to imagine that a weak central government will be able to hold on.

I wish we could have an open honest debate about Iraq in the Presidential debates. I'm tired of hearing the Dems say, I have a withdrawal plan. And I'm tired of the R's saying the surge is working. It just seems the same type of hollow arguments that got us into the war, are being made not to justify staying in or getting out.

JRod,

Why do you think Iraq would turn out like Taliban Afghanistan once the U.S. leaves? Your talking about two very different societies, albeit two societies that have been through civil wars. I think it's true that ignoring Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal was a terrible mistake.

However, it was the U.S. invasion itself that set off the catastrophe in Iraq and that remains an irritant for Iraqis. It's unlikely that things are going to improve while the country remains occupied, regardless of how long troops remain there. In fact, the construction of permanent bases that is ongoing is likely to exaccerabate the problem, as it conjurs up images for the locals of past colonial experiences.

Whether you call it a retreat or not the only reasonable course of action is to get out. I don't think anyone has called for a precipitous withdrawal - which would be difficult if not impossible anyway given the amount of equipment that would need to be withdrawn. The results after a withdrawal are not likely to be good. But no one has been able to provide any evidence that the results of a withdrawal after a lengthy period of delay would be good either - and you'd have the intervening blood shed of your soldiers and Iraqi civilians added to the butchers bill.

There will be a day of reckoning in Iraq when things will need to be sorted out by the locals.

Best wishes,

Doug

[wco81]

I agree with that sentiment. I think it would be a mistake to just pick up and leave - that would do a lot more harm than good. At this point it no longer matters how or why we went into Iraq. What matters now is that we leave the place in better shape than when we went over there. I feel like that is an obligation and something we owe to the Iraqi people.

If the criterium for determining whether to stay or leave is what would happen after US forces leave, we will NEVER be able to leave, at least not for a generation or two.

The moral obligation point sounds good but in reality, American policy is going to be based on our interests, not preserving the peace between people who are bent on killing each other.

[wco81]

If the people perpetrating violence in Iraq are our enemies

That's the question about which there is fundamental disagreement.

The administration line is that most of the insurgency consists of foreign Islamists.

But that point is contested by many.

A reporter who was there recently said the police chief of Fallujah months ago was a part of the insurgency. The former insurgent doesn't hide that fact, because after all, Americans made a deal with some Sunnis.

There's no guarantee that at some point, he tires of the occupation and decides to switch teams again.

We may in essence be doing what Saddam did for decades, keep the groups apart and force them together within the same country, even if many neighborhoods have been cleansed.

[TheHiddenTrack]

If the people perpetrating violence in Iraq are our enemies

The administration line is that most of the insurgency consists of foreign Islamists.

But that point is contested by many.

A reporter who was there recently said the police chief of Fallujah months ago was a part of the insurgency. The former insurgent doesn't hide that fact, because after all, Americans made a deal with some Sunnis.

There's no guarantee that at some point, he tires of the occupation and decides to switch teams again.

We may in essence be doing what Saddam did for decades, keep the groups apart and force them together within the same country, even if many neighborhoods have been cleansed.

I think this quote compliments/expands on that point.

"I think one of the things that we really don't realize is how sophisticated and secular the Iraqis really are. What we see every on our tv screens every night are Sunni car bombs killing Shiites, Shiites militias-death squads killing Sunnis. We have this impression of this radical Muslim hot bed. The vast majority of the Iraqis that I've gotten to know over the past four years are not like that at all. In fact when we first went to Iraq in 03' most Sunnis and Shiites didn't even know that their neighbor was Sunni or Shiite, they never even asked. Now as secretarian politics have inflamed the situation, as these radical leaders have risen up, in this mess that has been created there, the first thing that you want to know, is who is a Sunni or a Shiite. Because your life might depend on it...You've gone from a city where people very freely mixed, even intermarried, to where Sunni and Shiites are scared of each other on a daily basis. That's a terrible thing thats happened, just in four years, destroyed the fabric of the society."

Terry McCarthy - Abc news baghdad correspondent

And I think it should be obvious that alot of the people of Iraq who are involved in the violence and have essentially "turned" into insurgents. Country A takes over country B, uproots your society, isn't able to function as police, disbands the army, and doesn't have a plan in place to fix these problems.

Country A has essentially destroyed country B. Country B's people are understandably angry about their situation and takes it out on country A. Country B fractions off into seperate groups due to various conflicts and country A is left in the middle of it.

[JRod]

JRod,

Why do you think Iraq would turn out like Taliban Afghanistan once the U.S. leaves? Your talking about two very different societies, albeit two societies that have been through civil wars. I think it's true that ignoring Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal was a terrible mistake.

However, it was the U.S. invasion itself that set off the catastrophe in Iraq and that remains an irritant for Iraqis. It's unlikely that things are going to improve while the country remains occupied, regardless of how long troops remain there. In fact, the construction of permanent bases that is ongoing is likely to exaccerabate the problem, as it conjurs up images for the locals of past colonial experiences.

Whether you call it a retreat or not the only reasonable course of action is to get out. I don't think anyone has called for a precipitous withdrawal - which would be difficult if not impossible anyway given the amount of equipment that would need to be withdrawn. The results after a withdrawal are not likely to be good. But no one has been able to provide any evidence that the results of a withdrawal after a lengthy period of delay would be good either - and you'd have the intervening blood shed of your soldiers and Iraqi civilians added to the butchers bill.

There will be a day of reckoning in Iraq when things will need to be sorted out by the locals.

Best wishes,

Doug

Here's the problem, this war in Iraq has merged the war on terrorism and the war into Iraq. Blame this on Bush.

But the problem is you say, that our presence in Iraq are instigating more violence. That might be the case but withdrawal doesn't guarantee the violence will stop.

It will minimize the loss of life of the American soldiers.

You can say the Afghanistan and Iraq are different because of the societies and cultures. You would be right. But the atmosphere for insurgents and/or terrorists to take control of government and propagate fundamental ideology seems to be the same.


Does anyone really thing the terrorists will say, oh well the Americans left, I guess we should move to another country.

I don't beleive that answer that if America lessens it's footprint in the country and they will like us more.

Here's what no one has the answer to, Can the government withstand an onslaught of sectarian violence? Will there be no attempt Al Queda, other terrorists groups to weaken the government and take over? We are assuming a lot that be leaving Iraq, it will make it better. We still have the Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan, Afghanistan and so many other places that are rebuilding.

I hate to say it but I think we are stuck in Iraq for a very long time. I don't believe Iraq is strong enough, nor will it be strong enough for us to leave. A weak Iraq could create a country that can do nothing while it's infiltrated by terrorists.

That's the reality. And you're right Doug they need to stand up. But here's the problem, do they even want to? This is our war, not their revolution.

[Naples39]

I think this quote compliments/expands on that point.

"I think one of the things that we really don't realize is how sophisticated and secular the Iraqis really are. What we see every on our tv screens every night are Sunni car bombs killing Shiites, Shiites militias-death squads killing Sunnis. We have this impression of this radical Muslim hot bed. The vast majority of the Iraqis that I've gotten to know over the past four years are not like that at all. In fact when we first went to Iraq in 03' most Sunnis and Shiites didn't even know that their neighbor was Sunni or Shiite, they never even asked. Now as secretarian politics have inflamed the situation, as these radical leaders have risen up, in this mess that has been created there, the first thing that you want to know, is who is a Sunni or a Shiite. Because your life might depend on it...You've gone from a city where people very freely mixed, even intermarried, to where Sunni and Shiites are scared of each other on a daily basis. That's a terrible thing thats happened, just in four years, destroyed the fabric of the society."

Terry McCarthy - Abc news baghdad correspondent

And I think it should be obvious that alot of the people of Iraq who are involved in the violence and have essentially "turned" into insurgents. Country A takes over country B, uproots your society, isn't able to function as police, disbands the army, and doesn't have a plan in place to fix these problems.

Country A has essentially destroyed country B. Country B's people are understandably angry about their situation and takes it out on country A. Country B fractions off into seperate groups due to various conflicts and country A is left in the middle of it.

You raise a lot of valid points, particularly concerning the US invasion destroying stability and the Iraqi police power over its own citizens, but I think your final analysis essentially implies that the US invasion practically invented the ethnic and religious tensions we're seeing now.

Blame the United States for breaking down a temporary calm in the ethnic warfare, but these disputes are decades, if not centuries old. I'm far from an expert on Iraqi history, but I do know Iraq has only even been a nation since the 1920s, formed after WWI, and has never reached a meaningful nationwide peace, let alone a common purpose as a nation.

The bigger point is that simply looking back a few years is a woefully short analysis of the Iraqi internal tensions, and in bigger terms these are old disputes which are again being inflamed, and probably burning at a higher temperature now because of today's culture of extremism in the muslim world in general. These facts change your final analysis I think, and it's not so much the United States destroying the cultural 'fabric' of Iraq, but moreso allowing oxygen to reach old, previously suffocated embers (to continue the analogy). After all, if the cultural fabric of Iraq was truly religious tolerance, then a breakdown in police power shouldn't instantly lead to open ethnic warfare.

[Slumberland]

Nice post from Juan Cole:

http://www.juancole.com/2008/02/barack- ... adley.html

[JackB1]

I am really not looking forward to this upcoming argument that McCain will be saying over and over how the Dems want to retreat and surrender to terrorism (aka Iraq) and how he wants to stay and Win. McCain will continue the B.S. that Bush started when he created this link between 9/11 and Iraq.
McCain wants the uninformed public to believe that our enemy in Iraq now is Al Queda (even though Al Queda accounts for only 5-10% of the violence in Iraq) and that we cannot surrender to terrorists. Obama quickly pointed out yesterday in his retort to McCain that Al Queda was not in Iraq until we decided to invade. I agree with that, but whoever is the next President, they will have to deal with this mess that the previous President was so kind to leave them. I think everyone agrees that the US cannot afford to keep pouring billions per week into Iraq, while many in our own country cannot afford food, housing or health care. New Orleans is still nowhere near back to where it was. We will need the rest of the world's help to keep Iraq from falling apart once we leave and that will be a tough sell, but I can't see any other solution.

[wco81]

If the fear is that Iraq abandoned will turn into another Afghanistan under the Taliban and AQ, then that fear would apply to any number of countries in the Muslim world, starting with, well Afghanistan.

Situation in Pakistan is also shaky and our "allies" in Egypt and Saudi Arabia keep the Islamists from gaining power only through brutal repression.

Of course Sudan has been hospitable to Bin Laden and there are other central Asian republics which are difficult for the US to reach.

Then of course, you have large Islamic populations in Europe which are increasingly being radicalized by, among other things, what they perceive as US occupation of an Islamic land.

It's not a coincidence that the London and Madrid bombings occurred in nations which participated in the war. Fortunately, American Muslims haven't been radicalized like Muslims in Europe.

We can pour so much of our resources (at a time of dwindling resources) but it's illusory to conclude a "stable Iraq" will keep the Islamic militants at bay forever.

Or to think that fighting them over there (in Iraq) won't radicalize them elsewhere.

[XXXIV]

Situation in Pakistan is also shaky and our "allies" in Egypt and Saudi Arabia keep the Islamists from gaining power only through brutal repression.

.

ya ya ya...blow me with that bullshit...wtf would those same dbags do if they gained power?

Save that garbage for saturday morning cartoons.

Must be nice to live in a fantasy world....

[wco81]

Well if there's no reason to fear Islamic militants gaining control of Pakistan, Egypt or Saudi Arabia, then what's the concern about preventing Iraq from becoming another Afghanistan?


The argument of those who favored the war now advocate staying as long as necessary is that we can't let Iraq fall to unfriendly people.

[FatPitcher]

Nice post from Juan Cole:

http://www.juancole.com/2008/02/barack- ... adley.html

I don't get why the fringe righties think "Hussein" is going to get them anywhere. Also, I don't get why anyone reads Juan Cole other than to point and laugh.

[FatPitcher]

I am really not looking forward to this upcoming argument that McCain will be saying over and over how the Dems want to retreat and surrender to terrorism (aka Iraq) and how he wants to stay and Win. McCain will continue the B.S. that Bush started when he created this link between 9/11 and Iraq.
McCain wants the uninformed public to believe that our enemy in Iraq now is Al Queda (even though Al Queda accounts for only 5-10% of the violence in Iraq) and that we cannot surrender to terrorists. Obama quickly pointed out yesterday in his retort to McCain that Al Queda was not in Iraq until we decided to invade. I agree with that, but whoever is the next President, they will have to deal with this mess that the previous President was so kind to leave them. I think everyone agrees that the US cannot afford to keep pouring billions per week into Iraq, while many in our own country cannot afford food, housing or health care. New Orleans is still nowhere near back to where it was. We will need the rest of the world's help to keep Iraq from falling apart once we leave and that will be a tough sell, but I can't see any other solution.

It is good that New Orleans is not back to where it was. People with common sense have moved to places with higher elevation and fewer hurricanes. Who cares is N.O. is smaller? Just means fewer people in the path of the next big hurricane there, and fewer people living under corrupt, incompetent governance.

Also, it's not the government's job to provide all of its citizens with food, housing, and medical treatment. It's not the government's job to go around establishing democracies around the world, either.

I'm not as worried about the American public being ignorant and guillible. Self-centered and hypocritical to the point of being completely illogical, sure. But it's more that they don't care about the side-effects and indirect consequences of their vote than a lack of knowledge about the issues. I mean, who seriously thinks that NAFTA is bad for the country as a whole? Not even Obama thinks so, but the people who want to protect their jobs and their hourly wage don't really care what negative effects would result from repealing it. Same with taxes - tax the people who make more money than me so that I can have health insurance!

[JackB1]

Does anyone think the Dem. primary will be decided after Texas and Ohio?
It looks like Obama wins Texas and Hillary Ohio. Would that increase Obama's lead enough to make Hillary pull out?

[XXXIV]

Also, it's not the government's job to provide all of its citizens with food, housing, and medical treatment. It's not the government's job to go around establishing democracies around the world, either.

We need to bring in Ty Webb for this one.


"This isnt Russia. Is this Russia?This isnt Russia."

[pk500]

To anyone, especially in Texas or Ohio, who believes Hillary Clinton's campaign promise to deliver more jobs to middle-class Americans, just look at her sterling track record here in New York state.

Clinton promised 200,000 new jobs for Upstate New York -- an economically depressed region -- while running for Senator in 2000. She won the election and re-election in 2006, and during her seven years as junior senator from the Empire State, Upstate N.Y. has LOST 23,300 jobs.

http://www.syracuse.com/poststandard/st ... thispage=1

Of course, Hillary blames the lack of upholding her promise on Al Gore's loss in the presidential election. Classic buck-passing.

Hillary is a fraud, an absolute joke, when it comes to any promises of economic improvement. I hope Texas and Ohio voters take heed.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

I think McCain said at the MI primary that a lot of factory jobs weren't coming back while Romney seemed to have made some promises to help workers who've lost jobs.

Hilary is now saying NAFTA is bad but both she and Obama are soft-peddling that message in TX, where things are better (not necessarily because of NAFTA).

If the economy continues to slow down and other states are hit by job losses, all politicians will be promising jobs.

Best thing McCain did was to admit he didn't know much about the economy but he'll at least have to say he plans to get economic advisors who would generate trust.

Hilary made much of how the Clinton administration fixed the mess left behind by Bush 41. But it may be that the problems left behind for the next president will not be easily fixed by anyone.

[XXXIV]

Didnt Clinton sign NAFTA into law?

Im so confused....but everyday I wake up and thank God for the Clintons.