US Troops Mostly Done by 2009 - Who does this help?

[volinbham]

CORRECTED -US ground troops mostly done in Iraq in '09 -general | Markets | Reuters

If this is an accurate prediction, which candidate does this help the most?

Also, if this is true it suggests the surge was the correct strategic decision. Does that benefit McCain who supported the surge? Does it hurt Obama who opposed the surge?

Things going on in your head with regard to this? (Thoughts?)

 

[allvol123]

Yea I wondered about the surge topic. Obama loves to brag about his no vote for going into Iraq in the first place but is rather silent on his anti-surge opinion at the moment.

 

[volinbham]

Yea I wondered about the surge topic. Obama loves to brag about his no vote for going into Iraq in the first place but is rather silent on his anti-surge opinion at the moment.

Is is a "judgement" stand-off? Is being wrong about the war but right about the surge better/worse/the same as being right about the war but wrong about the surge?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Obama said he had to prove himself to the military folks so I would imagine at some point he will say that initially he was against the surge but thanks to the good folks of the military they over came the great difficulties and emerged the victor.

 

[Volnissniss]

Of course we (Republicans) made the right strategic decision. The Dems know nothing about strategy b/c that would mean they knew something about National Security and we all know that is not the case. I'm laughing! This will most help McCain. I'm still confused as to why Dems are clinging to Obama when he's a socialist runner, he's not even a Democrat.

 

[SWIL]

:no:

I don't even know where to begin with that ^

 

[SWIL]

Have they started making political coloring books now??

 

[T-TownVol]

Who Does This Help?....the troops!

 

[KB5252]

Is is a "judgement" stand-off? Is being wrong about the war but right about the surge better/worse/the same as being right about the war but wrong about the surge?

We won't truly know if the was was the right or wrong decision for some time. A lot of that will depend on the coarse the knew Iraqi government takes over the next 5 to 10 years. Any one who states otherwise is being intellectually dishonest. Public perception is a whole other ballgame though, and Obama has used that to his advantage. McCain, if he uses it wisely (which I have no reason to believe he will) could use the surge to his benefit. All he needs to do is point out the success it has had and explain this as another case of Obama not being experienced enough in the situations regarding to diplomacy and strategy.

 

[TennNC]

Is is a "judgement" stand-off? Is being wrong about the war but right about the surge better/worse/the same as being right about the war but wrong about the surge?

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

The war has been sticky from the beginning. And it continues to be sticky. And who knows what's going to happen over the coming months and especially when we start pulling troops out? KB's right - it's dishonest of any of us to say what's going to happen for sure.

I respect McCain's consistency on the war and the surge. I disagree with him that we should've started the war in the first place, but he's been firm on military strategy from the beginning: if we're going to do it right, we need to send a larger force, has been his basic message. Military strategy is an asset for the POTUS, but IMO it's not a necessity. More important, a president should assess what's in the country's absolute highest interests and only commit to war when our most important interests are threatened -- namely, national security. It's now clear to me that Saddam Hussein did not threaten our national security.

I see eye to eye with Obama in this regard and believe a president who doesn't have military experience is still capable of entrusting military strategy to those who are indeed experts.

But back to Iraq: Iraq once was Obama's most powerful weapon. His supporters (me included) were probably naive to give him too much credit for that, but I still respect his wisdom to see it as the wrong move for his country, despite the most recent developments there. Of course, if you still think we should've gone into Iraq in the first place, you likely will be buttressed by the latest news and use it to reaffirm your vote for McCain.

I guess the bottom line is that we believe what we want to believe, and these developments might not have as big an impact on the race as we think. Both candidates undoubtedly will use it to show that they had better judgment, and we have to decide how much that matters to us as voters.

 

[volinbham]

But back to Iraq: Iraq once was Obama's most powerful weapon. His supporters (me included) were probably naive to give him too much credit for that, but I still respect his wisdom to see it as the wrong move for his country, despite the most recent developments there.

But how do you square the fact that his view of how to handle the situation once we were in it was wrong (as it now appears)?

In reality, there were consequences to going to war and consequences of not going to war. His view was that going was the wrong thing. Likewise, there were consequences of the surge and consequences of some other non-surge option (same strategy, withdrawal, etc.) His view was strongly against the surge even though the military said it was the right thing to do. Was that good judgement - a good move for the country? Was it stubborn - borne out of his anti-war stance or did he think it wouldn't work? Given the situation now and at the time, it looks like his judgement was off.

In short, I don't see a real advantage in position here to Obama or McCain other than the recency effect of McCain's choice looking like the more recent correct one.