Fearing Obama

#32
#32
TennNC said:
if you come to conclusions based on an interview by Bill O' Reilly, then we don't have as much in common as I thought.

foreign policy is a wash at best for McCain.

McCain reacts quickly. Obama thinks about things first.

One might be good in battle, the other is better in diplomacy.

I sure as hell know this too - I'd rather Joe Biden talking with foreign leaders than Sarah Palin.
Click to expand...

I didn't reach my conclusions based on O'Reilly - I simply used his comments in that interview as illustrative of his position on the surge. He's repeatedly refused to acknowledge he was wrong about it. This was merely the latest example.

I don't consider it to be a wash between the two on FP.
 
#33
#33
volinbham said:
I didn't reach my conclusions based on O'Reilly - I simply used his comments in that interview as illustrative of his position on the surge. He's repeatedly refused to acknowledge he was wrong about it. This was merely the latest example.

I don't consider it to be a wash between the two on FP.
Click to expand...

How was Obama wrong about The Surge (tm)? Do you even know what The Surge is?
 
#34
#34
Obama's about bigger government and has just about as bad of foreign policy as Ron Paul. Two signs that I DO NOT want Obama in the White House.
 
#35
#35
notverycrucial said:
How was Obama wrong about The Surge (tm)? Do you even know what The Surge is?
Click to expand...

In reverse order

1. The surge was a strategic change in military and social engagement in Iraq. It included both additional troops and a refocusing of the mission to a more grass-roots approach of 1) providing security, 2) gaining local buy-in and ceding local control then advancing to the next area.

2. Why he was wrong: 1) he admits that the Surge was more of a success than "anyone" could imagine (odd that Patreus imagined it but Obama never discussed it with him). By virtually all accounts, the Surge has been a success and turned a bleak situation into a hopeful. If you look at his statements at the time, he predicted it would be a massive failure - clearly he was wrong.

2) he claims that it hasn't "finished" by creating the political solution necessary. Once again, if we had followed his approach, the situation would have been terribly worse.
 
#36
#36
volinbham said:
In reverse order

1. The surge was a strategic change in military and social engagement in Iraq. It included both additional troops and a refocusing of the mission to a more grass-roots approach of 1) providing security, 2) gaining local buy-in and ceding local control then advancing to the next area.

2. Why he was wrong: 1) he admits that the Surge was more of a success than "anyone" could imagine (odd that Patreus imagined it but Obama never discussed it with him). By virtually all accounts, the Surge has been a success and turned a bleak situation into a hopeful. If you look at his statements at the time, he predicted it would be a massive failure - clearly he was wrong.

2) he claims that it hasn't "finished" by creating the political solution necessary. Once again, if we had followed his approach, the situation would have been terribly worse.
Click to expand...

If we had followed his approach we wouldn't have been there in the first place.
 
#37
#37
volinbham said:
In reverse order

1. The surge was a strategic change in military and social engagement in Iraq. It included both additional troops and a refocusing of the mission to a more grass-roots approach of 1) providing security, 2) gaining local buy-in and ceding local control then advancing to the next area.

2. Why he was wrong: 1) he admits that the Surge was more of a success than "anyone" could imagine (odd that Patreus imagined it but Obama never discussed it with him). By virtually all accounts, the Surge has been a success and turned a bleak situation into a hopeful. If you look at his statements at the time, he predicted it would be a massive failure - clearly he was wrong.

2) he claims that it hasn't "finished" by creating the political solution necessary. Once again, if we had followed his approach, the situation would have been terribly worse.
Click to expand...

To what end has the surge worked? The surge worked to keep us in Iraq longer. The longer we're there, the longer we're going to have to stay there. And these people, who have been fighting each other for thousands of years, aren't going to put down their weapons because the shiny new Americans came in and gave them Democracy in a box.

If we'd done what Obama suggested at the beginning, perhaps we'd have about 4,000 more US troops to help us advance in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden would be on trial, and we'd have about $1 trillion less to our national debt.

Finally, McCain said in 2002 that he expected this would be an easy, swift military mission in Iraq. 6 years, nearly a trillion dollars and more than 4,000 soldiers later, we're stuck there. So how was he wiser about this whole situation?
 
#38
#38
onevolfan said:
If we had followed his approach we wouldn't have been there in the first place.
Click to expand...

True. Giving McCain credit for the surge would be like someone shooting my dog but since they were nice enough to driver her to the vet they should be praised rather than the person yelling don't shoot in the first place.
 
#39
#39
onevolfan said:
If we had followed his approach we wouldn't have been there in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yeah and Iran and Iraq would probably be working together on WMD's and planning Israel's demise. Sometimes you have to do preventive maintenance to assure that things stay safe.
 
#40
#40
TennNC said:
To what end has the surge worked? The surge worked to keep us in Iraq longer. The longer we're there, the longer we're going to have to stay there. And these people, who have been fighting each other for thousands of years, aren't going to put down their weapons because the shiny new Americans came in and gave them Democracy in a box.

The situation we created was bad. Leaving it would have been worse. It's nice to imagine simply pulling out would not have had real, negative consequences but it's a fairy tale. If Obama believes that, we are really screwed if he's elected. As it stands, the Surge shows the best way out of a bad situation.

If we'd done what Obama suggested at the beginning, perhaps we'd have about 4,000 more US troops to help us advance in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden would be on trial, and we'd have about $1 trillion less to our national debt.

But we didn't do as he suggested. A leader has to lead within the current situation not some world he would prefer or advocated. For him to fall back on this is a sign he can't adapt in a job that demands adaptation. This staunch sticking to a position regardless of the facts on the ground is exactly what Bush has been rightly criticized for.

Finally, McCain said in 2002 that he expected this would be an easy, swift military mission in Iraq. 6 years, nearly a trillion dollars and more than 4,000 soldiers later, we're stuck there. So how was he wiser about this whole situation?
Click to expand...

McCain was wrong about that but right about how to fix the situation as it was at the time. I believe he would admit it didn't go as easily or swiftly as he originally envisioned in 2002 - Obama won't admit his mis-judgement.
 
Last edited:
#41
#41
volinbham said:
McCain was wrong about that but right about how to fix the situation as it was at the time. I believe he would admit it didn't go as easily or swiftly as he originally envisioned in 2002 - Obama won't admit his mis-judgement.
Click to expand...

Obama doesn't need to admit to a misjudgment b/c he was right about Iraq and The Surge. McCain has been wrong about practically everything in this regard. Can't you admit that McCain played the fool on Iraq?
 
#42
#42
notverycrucial said:
Obama doesn't need to admit to a misjudgment b/c he was right about Iraq and The Surge. McCain has been wrong about practically everything in this regard. Can't you admit that McCain played the fool on Iraq?
Click to expand...

How do you see Obama being correct on the Surge?

And no, I don't believe McCain played the fool in anyway on Iraq.
 
#44
#44
volinbham said:
How do you see Obama being correct on the Surge?

And no, I don't believe McCain played the fool in anyway on Iraq.
Click to expand...

No evidence suggests that The Surge has worked. McCain was wrong about Iraq as were all Republicans -- and even some Democrats. His support of The Surge doesn't mean it was a success.
 
#47
#47
notverycrucial said:
No evidence suggests that The Surge has worked. McCain was wrong about Iraq as were all Republicans -- and even some Democrats. His support of The Surge doesn't mean it was a success.
Click to expand...

No evidence? Wow. I guess Obama's own statements about the success of the surge are wrong.
 
#48
#48
volinbham said:
And no, I don't believe McCain played the fool in anyway on Iraq.
Click to expand...

This sounds like the beginning of a good fairy tale.

You're insinuating that given McCain's support of the war, and his support of doubling down, that his reasons for us going into Iraq had very little to do with WMDs or removing Saddam from power. Because we already proved that one didn't exist, and the other one was hanged and is with his 9 virgins now.

You're insinuating Iraq can still be a success, worth at least the monetary and blood investment we've made, and the diversion from other, more important matters, and our rather large loss of credibility with our supposed "allies," you know, the ones we count on to police the world with us.

So, what is the brightest possible outcome for us with regards to Iraq? What success should we expect a McCain administration to bring to us over there?
 
#50
#50
TennNC said:
This sounds like the beginning of a good fairy tale.

You're insinuating that given McCain's support of the war, and his support of doubling down, that his reasons for us going into Iraq had very little to do with WMDs or removing Saddam from power. Because we already proved that one didn't exist, and the other one was hanged and is with his 9 virgins now.

You're insinuating Iraq can still be a success, worth at least the monetary and blood investment we've made, and the diversion from other, more important matters, and our rather large loss of credibility with our supposed "allies," you know, the ones we count on to police the world with us.

So, what is the brightest possible outcome for us with regards to Iraq? What success should we expect a McCain administration to bring to us over there?
Click to expand...

Your assessments of my insinuations is wrong.

But let's review a few:

The doubling down analogy is fun but fails to recognize the real stakes at the time. When the surge was proposed other options included Biden's partition and Obama's withdrawal. The outcomes are crucially important. The surge was the best of these alternatives.

Iraq will not be an overall success in terms of it's initial start. However, we are making the best of a bad situation NOW. Pulling out when Obama wanted to would have been a mistake we'd be paying for years, decades.

As for foreign relations - they have been strained but pulling out and the resulting mess would have done MORE damage to those relations.

I don't think Iraq overall will have been worth the blood and money. However, I do think the surge has definitely been worth whatever marginal blood and money it has incurred. Pulling out would have not been without serious costs.

Finally, I think under either administration we are close to the end of major involvement in Iraq. The situation is stabilizing to the point where we can withdraw for the most part. We would not be at this point without the Surge.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top