Obama’s Trip IV: Conclusion
July 23rd, 2008 by No Relation
I’m not going to critique the Israel, Jordan, and Europe legs of Obama’s trip, simply because I don’t have the intimate knowledge of those areas that I have of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, I’ll give the Senator credit for his conduct these past few days. He did his listening without trying to impose his plans on foreign governments or military leaders. In 2000, I was in a military audience for an Al Gore appearance. He spent most of his time telling us how he wanted to give us a pay raise, better housing, etc. A campaign speech, basically. Senator Obama didn’t do this either. I didn’t hear him speak, but according to the first-hand accounts I’ve heard, he kept his comments to thanking the military and giving us credit for all the progress that’s been made.
While I have no complaints about his trip, I do have some issues with his conduct leading up to and right after it.
First, why did it take him almost 3 years to visit again? Why only the second time? I would think such an outspoken critic of our involvement in Iraq would be doing this more often. Especially since he claims to support the troops so much. When was the last time he spoke with General Petraeus? When was the last time he discussed the progress over here with any military leader at all? His opposition to what’s left of this war has been strictly for political leverage. He can say he’s always opposed it, while Senator Clinton and Senator McCain can’t. Beyond that he doesn’t care. I doubt he would have made this trip had not Senator McCain called him on his perceived lack of interest.
Second, as I said before, his past comments criticizing the Afghan and Iraqi governments were not constructive. He is not the State Department. He is a legislator. His comments risk souring the relationship we have with these countries, who are already fragile allies in the War on Terror.
Third, I appreciate the Senator’s willingness to slightly back off his “16 months” timeline. A “residual force” is a step up from a complete withdrawal. However, I would have gained a lot more respect for the man if he had been big enough to admit he had been wrong about the surge. I caught the clip on the TV where he admitted to Katie Couric that the surge had worked, and then proceeded to say he still wouldn’t have supported it if he had known then what he knows now. What? What did he want? More of what we had here before the surge? More chaos? More sectarian violence? More terrorism? More dead Americans? More dead Iraqis? Straight up defeat?
I’m looking over his press release now and I have some thoughts I will share. My comments are in italics.
We found a strong, emerging consensus on a number of critical points:
First, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our armed forces, more effective Iraqi security forces, the decision by the Sunni Awakening to fight ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq’ and the cease-fire by Shiite militia, violence in Iraq is down significantly. You’re welcome. An overwhelming majority of Iraqis reject what remains of ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq’ and violent militias. Told you.
Second, political progress, reconciliation and economic development continue to lag. Did you think this part would occur overnight? There has been some forward movement, but not nearly enough to bring lasting stability to Iraq. So it’s not as bad as the US Congress, huh?
Third, Iraqis want an aspirational timeline, with a clear date, for the redeployment of American combat forces. Define “aspirational”. Prime Minister Maliki told us that while the Iraqi people deeply appreciate the sacrifices of American soldiers, they do not want an open-ended presence of U.S. combat forces. Easy to say now. The Prime Minister said that now is an appropriate time to start to plan for the reorganization of our troops in Iraq — including their numbers and missions. We already started. He stated his hope that U.S. combat forces could be out of Iraq in 2010. “Hope [they] could…” is not the same as “Get them out my country”.
Fourth, Iraqis seek a long term partnership with the United States to promote political and economic progress and lasting stability. And oil trade. In particular, they want our continued help in training Iraqi security forces, helping conduct counter-terrorism operations, developing Iraq’s economy and advancing political compromise. I’ll take that as a “keep it up”. Vice President Abdulmahdi noted that “the quality of American engagement matters more than the quantity.” Except for when a surge is the best cure.
We raised a number of other issues with the Iraqi leadership, including our deep concern about Iranian financial and material assistance to militia engaged in violent acts against American and Iraqi forces; the need to secure public support through our respective legislatures for any long term security agreements our countries negotiate; the importance of doing more to help the more than 4 million Iraqis who are refugees or internally displaced persons; and the need to give our troops immunity from Iraqi prosecution so long as they are in Iraq. Wow! sounds like Senator Obama is running for President Bush’s third term here.
America has a strategic opportunity to build a new kind of partnership with Iraq and to refocus our foreign policy on the many other pressing challenges around the world - starting with the resurgence of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Well, Senator Obama has pretty much admitted he was wrong without admitting he was wrong. No doubt the surge has worked and he’s had to admit that to himself. This is further evidenced by his new push for a similar surge in Afghanistan. Funny thing is, watching him interviewed, I got the impression he was actually disappointed things are going well here. He looked so sad.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 23rd, 2008 at 8:04 am and is filed under Politics, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Excellent analysis and critique, NR. Obama is fortunate we’re approaching the dog days of summer and most Americans are not paying attention to the news.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:47 pm
the surge, the surge!
I like this one:
“In the end, both Obama and McCain seemed to have a piece of the truth about Iraq, but Obama’s truth was larger and more strategic. Obama had been right about the war in the first place. It was a disastrous idea, a phenomenal waste of lives and American credibility that diverted focus from our real enemy, al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And Obama was right about the war now: the progress in Iraq was enabling a quicker withdrawal — a plan already hinted at by Bush. And Obama was right about the future: the Iraqis don’t want long-term U.S. bases on their territory, a McCain keystone and the source of his infamous comment about staying in Iraq for 100 years. McCain’s piece of the truth was tactical: he was right about the surge and right about the brilliance of David Petraeus’ battle plan, which had helped quiet down Iraq. McCain was justifiably infuriated that Obama wouldn’t acknowledge that success — indeed, Obama seemed to understand that he was pushing McCain’s buttons, hoping perhaps to elicit McCain’s Vesuvian temper, and in Rochester the eruption occurred. ”
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1826064,00.html
July 24th, 2008 at 12:27 am
This is one of my favorites :
A funny thing happened over on the Barack Obama campaign website in the last few days.
The parts that stressed his opposition to the 2007 troop surge and his statement that more troops would make no difference in a civil war have somehow disappeared.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/obama-surge.html
Yes, BHO is the candidate of change, he changes on a daily basis doesn’t he ?
BHO is much more even tempered than McCain :
http://fedpapers.blogspot.com/2008/05/temper-temper-barack.html
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjVmZmFkYzAxNzA5OTFjMDk4NDliNjZjNmFlYjdmMDE=
July 24th, 2008 at 8:47 am
I just want to say that I have enjoyed your reports on Obama’s trip, No Relation, even though I disagree with some of the things you said. Comparing what you have written, which is thoughtful, reasonable and open-minded, and Jacob’s unintentionally hilarious partisan fact-free screed, it’s like night and day.
And Puffy, I’m glad you’re back.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:37 am
To which “fact-free screed” are you referring? Jacob’s last few posts have been quite replete with quotes from the individuals in question and links to sources, in marked contrast to your usual “Google it yourself” answer when asked to provide sources for your lies.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Marshmallow,
Glad you are back.
As for the larger truth and all … well …
The surge, without the signal to be willing to stay for however long it takes, would not have been successful. Now Al Quaeda appears to be a spent force in Iraq. Now, the Iraqi military is beginning to look credible. Now discussion of troop level draw down and eventual exit from Iraq does not stink of ‘peace with honor’.
Fair enough?
July 24th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Al Qaeda was never in Iraq. A local group of terrorists decided to call themselves “Al Qaeda in Iraq.” Al Qaeda is in Pakistan and Afghanistan. If we had not diverted troops from there to fight an unnecessary war in Iraq, Al Qaeda would have been defated by now and Osama Bin Laden captured or killed. Those are the facts.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:34 am
zimzo,
“Al Qaeda was never in Iraq. A local group of terrorists decided to call themselves “Al Qaeda in Iraq.” Al Qaeda is in Pakistan and Afghanistan.”
A distinction without a difference. The Iraqi leadership was in cahoots with the boys in Pakistan.
“If we had not diverted troops from there to fight an unnecessary war in Iraq, Al Qaeda would have been defated by now and Osama Bin Laden captured or killed. Those are the facts.”
Nice crystal ball you got there. Had we not gone to Iraq we can only say with certainty is that Saddam Hussien or his sons would still be in power.
As for the progress in Afghanistan Al Qaeda was already out of power and on largely the Pakistani side of the border before we went into Iraq. Would we have gone into Pakistan? That is the only thing that would have ‘killed bin Laden’ and even that is not a certainty. As for Al Qaeda being defeated that is bunk, so long as there are Whahabist(sp?) madrases there will be al Qaeda.
Hypothesizing about glorious alternative universes had we done it some other way is just that, hypothesizing. Your certainty in this matter is intriguing care to share why?
July 24th, 2008 at 11:39 am
zimzo,
“Al Qaeda would have been defated by now and Osama Bin Laden captured or killed.”
Talk to Slick Willy about that one.
“Those are the facts.”
Are you a subscriber to the Al Qaeda webpage or part of the inner circle of advisors (which would make you a member of Al Qaeda also) to bin Laden? How would YOU know these are the facts? Just because you are liberal and say so? Please-e-e-e-e!
July 24th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Jacob writes: “The Iraqi leadership was in cahoots with the boys in Pakistan.”
There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda. That lie has been completely disproven. Hussein was a secularist and al Qaeda and Hussein were enemies.
The fact is Osama Bin Laden remains free and Afghanistan has descended once more into chaos. The fact is we pulled troops from Afghanistan and diverted them to Iraq. You’re simply denying the obvious. If a Democratic President had failed to get Osama Bin Laden or squandered our victory in Afghanistan you would be apoplectic. That goes for ACTivist, too.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
zimzo
I believe Jacob is referring to Zarqawi, the now dead leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.
Troops were never “pulled” from Afghanistan.
Bin Laden is not free. If he’s even still alive he’s holed up so deep he might as well be in a prison cell. He can’t hurt us from where he’s at.
As far as a local group adopting the name: That’s all al Qaeda is. It’s a very decentralized organization, and local leaders swearing their allegiance to Osama and taking up the cause is all it takes to become part of al Qaeda. Bin Laden accepted their membership, as is evidenced by his eulogy of Zarqawi after his death.
Glad you appreciated my postings. I have to admit, Senator Obama’s a likeable guy even though I agree with him on almost nothing.
Poof Guy:
Good to see you’re back. I don’t agree with the opinion expressed in your Time article. The strategy Obama wants to pursue is the same as Bill Clinton’s. It didn’t work then and it won’t work now.
I hate to sound cliche, but sheer force is the only diplomatic language these extremists understand. Come on over here and look one in the eye. You’ll understand then. Until then, I hope you’ll take my word for it.
Wanna talk strategy? How much weaker now are Iran and Syria now that we’ve succeeded in Iraq? Iran is so scared they’re faking images of missile launches to make it look like they can defend themselves.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
zimzo,
“There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda.”
I never said there was, I was referencing the Al Qaeda in Iraq leadership with the Pakistani bunch. Sloppy choice of words, and of course, you pick as always the worst possible interpretation. Thanks, that which does not kill me, only make me write clearer.
“The fact is Osama Bin Laden remains free and Afghanistan has descended once more into chaos.”
Afghanistan is not in chaos, the bunch in Pakistan has caught its wind and now is starting to raid across the border. I repeat, do you think we can go into the Pakistan w/o their government’s OK? As for their catching their wind while we cannot hinder them in Pakistan, do you expect them to make this easy?
“You’re simply denying the obvious. If a Democratic President had … squandered our victory in Afghanistan you would be apoplectic”
Back to your crystal ball I see. There is nothing obvious about Afghanistan. The Khan’s, the Brits, the Russians plus a dozen others have marched into that part of the world only to be stymied at best and or crushed.
With Pakistan as a safe haven we only can achieve so much. More troops will not bring the conflict to an end any quicker. We have more than enough to defeat the Taliban in any open fight, and their Al Qaeda allies. Until we can go into Pakistan and hunt them there the situation will not change overly much.
AS FOR
“If a Democratic President had failed to get Osama Bin Laden … you would be apoplectic”
If I recall a Democrat president did fail to get OBL back in the 90’s. I was apoplectic, you on the other hand seem okey dokey with it.
As for Bush failing to get OBL while he is squating some place in Pakistan, yeah I am ticked believe it or not, but I do not see the political will in this country to go into yet another Muslim country, do you?
July 24th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
NR,
great to have you back, and thanks for the assist!
July 24th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
No Relation, I appreciate your posts and and insight and agree with most of your points, but I have to admit I don’t find BHO likeable. He is too dangerous to be likeable. If he wasn’t running for President and was just BHO in Chicago being the community activist that he is and I met him, I might say he is likeable, but I can hardly look at the man without wincing. Cult of Personality comes to mind, and I don’t mean the very cool song.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
The significant news coverage Barack Obama is receiving on his foreign trip has not translated into a bounce in his numbers, a just-released FOX News poll shows.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,390301,00.html
July 24th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Senator Obama is turning out to be a real disappointment and a very dangerous man. Moving the war on terror to Pakistan could have disastrous consequences on both the political stability in the region, and in the broader balance of power. Scholars such as Richard Betts accurately point out that beyond Iran or North Korea, “Pakistan may harbor the greatest potential danger of all.” With the current instability in Pakistan, Betts points to the danger that a pro-Taliban government would pose in a nuclear Pakistan. This is no minor point to be made. While the Shi’a in Iran are highly unlikely to proliferate WMD to their Sunni enemies, the Pakistanis harbor no such enmity toward Sunni terrorist organizations. Should a pro-Taliban or other similar type of government come to power in Pakistan, Al-Qaeda’s chances of gaining access to nuclear weapons would dramatically increase overnight.
There are, of course, two sides to every argument; and this argument is no exception. On the one hand, some insist that American forces are needed in order to maintain political stability and to prevent such a government from rising to power. On the other hand, there are those who believe that a deliberate attack against Pakistan’s state sovereignty will only further enrage its radical population, and serve to radicalize its moderates. I offer the following in support of this latter argument:
Pakistan has approximately 160 million people; better than half of the population of the entire Arab world. Pakistan also has some of the deepest underlying ethnic fissures in the region, which could lead to long-term disintegration of the state if exacerbated. Even with an impressive growth in GDP (second only to China in all of Asia), it could be decades before wide-spread poverty is alleviated and a stable middle class is established in Pakistan.
Furthermore, the absence of a deeply embedded democratic system in Pakistan presents perhaps the greatest danger to stability. In this country, upon which the facade of democracy has been thrust by outside forces and the current regime came to power by coup, the army fulfills the role of “referee within the political boxing ring.” However, this referee demonstrates a “strong personal interest in the outcome of many of the fights and a strong tendency to make up the rules as he goes along.” The Pakistani army “also has a long record of either joining in the fight on one side or the other, or clubbing both boxers to the ground and taking the prize himself” (Lieven, 2006:43).
Pakistan’s army is also unusually large. Thathiah Ravi (2006:119, 121) observes that the army has “outgrown its watchdog role to become the master of this nation state.” Ravi attributes America’s less than dependable alliance with Pakistan to the nature of its army. “Occasionally, it perceives the Pakistan Army as an inescapable ally and at other times as a threat to regional peace and [a] non-proliferation regime.” According to Ravi, India and Afghanistan blame the conflict in Kashmir and the Durand line on the Pakistan Army, accusing it of “inciting, abetting and encouraging terrorism from its soil.” Ravi also blames the “flagrant violations in nuclear proliferation by Pakistan, both as an originator and as a conduit for China and North Korea” on the Pakistan Army, because of its support for terrorists.
The point to be made is that the stability of Pakistan depends upon maintaining the delicate balance of power both within the state of Pakistan, and in the broader region. Pakistan is not an island, it has alliances and enemies. Moving American troops into Pakistan will no doubt not only serve to radicalize its population and fuel the popular call for Jihad, it could also spark a proxy war with China that could have long-lasting economic repercussions. Focusing on the more immediate impact American troops would have on the Pakistani population; let’s consider a few past encounters:
On January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan. Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area. In a nuclear state like Pakistan, this was not only unfortunate, it was outright stupid.
On October 30, 2006, the Pakistani military, under pressure from the US, attacked a madrassah in the Northwest Frontier province in Pakistan. Immediately following the attack, local residents, convinced that the US military was behind the attack, burned American flags and effigies of President Bush, and shouted “Death to America!” Outraged over an attack on school children, the local residents viewed the attack as an assault against Islam.
On November 7, 2006, a suicide bomber retaliated. Further outrage ensued when President Bush extended his condolences to the families of the victims of the suicide attack, and President Musharraf did the same, adding that terrorism will be eliminated “with an iron hand.” The point to be driven home is that the attack on the madrassah was kept as quiet as possible, while the suicide bombing was publicized as a tragedy, and one more reason to maintain the war on terror.
Last year trouble escalated when the Pakistani government laid siege to the Red Mosque and more than 100 people were killed. “Even before his soldiers had overrun the Lal Masjid … the retaliations began.” Suicide attacks originating from both Afghan Taliban and Pakistani tribal militants targeted military convoys and a police recruiting center. Guerrilla attacks that demonstrated a shocking degree of organization and speed-not to mention strategic cunning revealed that they were orchestrated by none other than al-Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman Al-Zawahiri; a fact confirmed by Pakistani and Taliban officials. One such attack occurred on July 15, 2007, when a suicide bomber killed 24 Pakistani troops and injured some 30 others in the village of Daznaray (20 miles to the north of Miran Shah, in North Waziristan). Musharraf ordered thousands of troops into the region to attempt to restore order. But radical groups swore to retaliate against the government for its siege of the mosque and its cooperation with the United States.
A July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concludes that “al Qaeda is resurgent in Pakistan- and more centrally organized than it has been at any time since 9/11.” The NIE reports that al-Qaeda now enjoys sanctuary in Bajaur and North Waziristan, from which they operate “a complex command, control, training and recruitment base” with an “intact hierarchy of top leadership and operational lieutenants.”
In September 2006 Musharraf signed a peace deal with Pashtun tribal elders in North Waziristan. The deal gave pro-Taliban militants full control of security in the area. Al Qaeda provides funding, training and ideological inspiration, while Afghan Taliban and Pakistani Tribal leaders supply the manpower. These forces are so strong that last year Musharraf sent well over 100,000 trained Pakistani soldiers against them, but they were not able to prevail against them.
The question remains, what does America do when Pakistan no longer has a Musharraf to bridge the gap? While Musharraf claims that President Bush has assured him of Pakistan’s sovereignty, Senator Obama obviously has no intention of honoring such an assurance. As it is, the Pakistanis do just enough to avoid jeopardizing U.S. support. Musharraf, who is caught between Pakistan’s dependence on American aid and loyalty to the Pakistani people, denies being George Bush’s hand-puppet. Musharraf insists that he is “200 percent certain” that the United States will not unilaterally decide to attack terrorists on Pakistani soil. What happens when we begin to do just that?
July 24th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Jacob, I am even more ticked that Clinton failed to act when he had the enormous opportunities to get OBL.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:26 am
This is too funny not to share:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4392846.ece
July 25th, 2008 at 8:33 am
This is too funny not to share:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4392846.ece
Sorry if this double posts.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:17 am
I love how you guys blame everything that goes wrong on Clinton or the Democrats. That’s the definition of partisan hackery. Bush has had 7 years to get Osama Bin Laden and to crush al Qaeda and the Taliban and he failed miserably. If Obama is elected president and there is another huge terrorist attack I’m sure you guys will find some way to blame him and not Bush.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:51 am
whether Obama was convinced the surge world work or not is a detail. I like the broader point of that article, which goes on to say,
“[Mccain has] taken a rather exotic line on Russia, which he wants to drum out of the G-8 organization of major industrial powers (a foolish proposal, since none of the other G-8 members would abide by it). His notion of a “League of Democracies” seems a transparent attempt to draw a with-us-or-against-us line in the sand against Russia and China. But that’s the point: McCain would place a higher priority on finding new enemies than on cultivating new friends.”
in terms of foreign policy, i think that hits the nail on the head. Sure there are crazies out there. Don’t you think it makes them crazier when we’re rolling through their neighborhood in tanks? Who was right or wrong about the surge is a side point, and Obama has admitted that his initial idea was incorrect, so forget about it. What about the larger issue? Do we want to spend another 4 years (assuming mccain lives that long) digging ourselves deeper into our hole of paranoia? I’d rather say, yeah the world is a dangerous place, but we still have to function as a member of the community. Especially if we hope to keep our position of leadership.
Before you know it the US is going to be like some crazy old guy who sits alone in the back corner of a smoky, dimly lit bar, nursing a beer, muttering to himself about how he’s all along and the world is all against him, while thinking about the revolver he’s got tucked into his waistband. And everyone else in the place knows who he is, and remembers when he used to be the life of the party, but no one really talks to him anymore because every time anyone tries he yells something unintelligible at them and spills beer on his pants, and it just makes everyone feel uncomfortable.
that’s the kind of strength Mccain would be projecting to the world.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:39 am
“whether Obama was convinced the surge world work or not is a detail.”
Ummm. I think this is key to the judgement issue so many have with Obama, not just a detail.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:58 am
zimzo,
I don’t. Just mentioning his name always gets that response from you. Look, if I say ‘Clinton’ it does not equal ‘its all Clinton’s fault’. I know that he was the previous sacred cow, but keep some perspective here. Before Clinton there was Bush Sr, and Reagan and Carter and Ford.
None of them gave the terrorists the proper attention. Especially the Bushes and Clinton, by then the whole terrorist threat was beginning to look serious. With the Soviets gone there was no longer en excuse to not give these characters the proper treatment. Before there was plausible deniabillity(sp?).
Under Clinton the threat continued to grow, his administration tried to treat this as a simple law and order issue. It was not. He had opportunities and flubbed them. Can’t you see that? Those cruise missile strikes were more theater than anything else.
The law passed in 96 regarding the sharing of intelligence was not the best idea either. The congress critters who voted for that bit take the lions share of the blame for the intelligence failure leading up to 9/11, not Clinton, nor Bush that that is who you have tried to blame in the past.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:15 am
what judgment issue? How about invading Iraq if you want to talk about judgment issues? That’s what i’m talking about when i say “detail” You’re getting hung up on the fact that Obama doubted that the surge would work, while Bush/Mccain’s whole perception of reality is out of whack.
The bushies were stuck between iraq and a hard place. They had to do something, so their brilliant idea was to send more troops. It isn’t like it was some ingenuous new tactic. It was a transparent, and somewhat desperate attempt to reign in a runaway war, which has luckily led to a somewhat improved situation. If someone puts $20,000 on the roulette table and ends up winning, do you say the person who said it was a bad idea in the first place has bad judgment? What if it’s 20,000 Americans being sent to the desert?
July 25th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Stay puft, Regardless of your rant on Bush, we are already there. Are you suggesting we leave Iraq, or should we have just taken our ball and gone home prior to the surge? If so, I can’t discuss this with you any further.
The surge worked, it is what Democrats had been calling for for years, more troops, we are loosing, etc. Fast forward, the surge is implemented and works. McCain pushed for it with bipartisan support. Obama opposed it. Obama will not even give our troops the kudos they deserve for winning, according to him the progress we have made in Iraq somehow would have happened without the additional troops - winds would have blown and it would have changed. Don’t worry, he’ll change his mind in due time.
Your revisionist history is interesting though.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:46 am
I tried to post this earlier, but it is too funny not to pass along:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4392846.ece
July 25th, 2008 at 11:49 am
““[Mccain has] taken a rather exotic line on Russia, which he wants to drum out of the G-8 organization of major industrial powers (a foolish proposal, since none of the other G-8 members would abide by it).”
I agree. We should start with small steps like getting OUT of the UN and getting the UN out of the U.S. Then we can start regaining our sovereignty as a nation and watch other nations falter for awhile.
“But that’s the point: McCain would place a higher priority on finding new enemies than on cultivating new friends.””
No, you miss the point. We already know who our enemies are. We don’t want to coddle and appease them hoping to have them behave in a more peaceful and civil manner. That is ignorance and inexperience. When you fully expose your underbelly, your enemy will surely gut you. That’s reality.
“yeah the world is a dangerous place, but we still have to function as a member of the community. Especially if we hope to keep our position of leadership.”
Leadership in what? Socialism? Entitlements? Ineptness and inaction? That is just from the current congress and administration and you want to hasten us down this path with much more of the same?
Some crazy old guy blah, blah, blah. Sometimes Puft you just have to stand on something. If you ever got sent-up to prison and they offerd you 2 choices: a) be a man and get your ass kicked on a regular basis or b) be a bitch-you know, just give in-don’t make waves-make new friends, by your line of thinking I pretty much believe I know what option you would take.
This country is not for sale, not for the taking and not for the world’s entitlements. We need representatives with exactly that viewpoint. We don’t cave to terrorism and woe to those that inflict harm upon the U.S.
July 26th, 2008 at 12:01 am
cathy,
revisionist history? what? Writing me off as a “ranting revisionist” is a cop out at best. I’ll just take it as a sign that you’re out of ideas. I never said anything about “cut and run” I said that if you want to talk about poor judgment, let’s not forget about the initial invasion, which Mccain also endorsed. It seems that Mccain endorses every bellicose proposal he sees. If it works, you say, “he has such good judgment” if not, you just forget. Yes, we are in iraq, no thanks to Mccain. Just remember that.
leadership in the world. you talk as if standing on our own two feet and being a team player are diametrically opposed ideas. If we say screw the rest of the world, the rest of the world will turn it’s back on us. India will make lucrative trade deals with europe instead of us, China and Russia will become friendlier and friendly, and we’ll have to watch from the sidelines. …and America shouldn’t be relegated to watching from the sidelines.
You can go around telling everyone you cross paths with to go to hell just to make the point that you have freedom of speech if you want to, but after awhile you wont have any friends.
July 26th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Stay puft, I don’t have a problem with the initial invasion of Iraq, it could have gone smoother and there were some tactical decisions that will plague us, but so goes war.
BO was not alone in opposing the Surge, but cooler heads prevailed among some Democrats and there was bipartisan support. BO was on the wrong side of this decision as he has been on so many over his 18 months in the Senate, this is a fact.
The “dimly lit bar,” “roulette table,” claims of paranoia, and team players comments are all nice illustrations. You get an A+ for creative writing.
Are you inclining that we (the US) is telling other countries to go to Hell? Or me?
July 26th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Marshmallow,
“what judgment issue? How about invading Iraq if you want to talk about judgment issues?”
If I recall the congress voted FIVE times to give Bush the authority to invade. That includes Kerry, Clinton, Reid, etc. I think Pelosi voted against it. Recall ALL the other intelligence agencies, aside from our CIA (Cretins In America), thought Saddam had WMD. That includes Mossad, Mi5 and the KGB. No one expected Saddam to be wiggling like he had them when he did not. So is it poor judgment to have invaded? If, so it ain’t the ‘obvious-slam-dunk’ to use that now infamous phrase. Bush and Co. were not the only ones fooled.
As for the surge, the poor judgment lay not just in not foreseeing the outcome properly but in the fact that Obama did not have the audacity to hope for a positive outcome in Iraq, and was not even willing to try. That is not a detail sir, that is huge.
‘while Bush/Mccain’s whole perception of reality is out of whack’
Lovely Democrat talking point, considering what a pain in the ass McCain has been to the Bush administration, could you cease with linking the too names whenever possible. zimzo might buy it, but most of the folks here don’t.
“It was a transparent, and somewhat desperate attempt to reign in a runaway war, which has luckily led to a somewhat improved situation.”
That is a crap characterization on several fronts:
1. Patreaus actually had ideas on what to do with them that differed from the previous mode of operations.
2. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been smashed and the Iraqi Army just finished a successful operation agains Sadr. This is a ’somewhat improved situation’?
3. Just run away and give up prooving Al Qaeda’s description of the U.S. as a ‘paper Tiger’ is a good thing?
The only thing desperate here is your desire to see this venture portrayed as a failure.
July 26th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Marshmallow,
““[Mccain has] taken a rather exotic line on Russia, which he wants to drum out of the G-8 organization of major industrial powers (a foolish proposal, since none of the other G-8 members would abide by it).”
Agreed, coming up with ideas whose benefits are clearly not worth the political capital expended, should you succeed. The G8 is probably a better forum in which to engage Russia than the U.N.
” His notion of a “League of Democracies” seems a transparent attempt to draw a with-us-or-against-us line in the sand against Russia and China.”
I would disagree with this. This is something that has been tossed about before McCain, the driver is not China nor Russia, but seeing the likes of Sudan on the “U.N. Human rights Commission” and North Korea with a spot on the “U.N. Nuclear Regulatory”, both situations make the agency/committee into a dangerous farce.
The idea has merit. Set aside the “U.N. is Sacrosanct” thinking for a minute. To get on one needs to be a functioning democracy. Russia still would qualify, though if it gets much worse, I probably won’t. If you think we would get an easy go of it from India, and Europe think again. Most of South America would be a happy thorn in our side.
Giving thugs like Mugabe, Assad and Castro an air of being legit via an organization like the U.N. is what is wrong. They can attend but they should not be given a voice, let alone a vote.
China is the reality that makes this good idea unworkable. They are not a democracy by any stretch, the trouble is that they are an up an coming super power. Giving then a seat at the table de-legitimizes banning the other thugs. Might should not buy China the right to have a voice or a vote. The trouble is, it does.
“But that’s the point: McCain would place a higher priority on finding new enemies than on cultivating new friends.””
This is unalloyed nonsense. I hate it when some dope with an English degree thinks he or she can look into the heart of those they are against. This is just fathoming intentions, in a blatantly partisan manner. Surprised you quoted this bit of pablum.
July 27th, 2008 at 1:21 am
Europe and India are natural allies. On the other hand it’s true that Russia’s kind of up in the air, and China’s “We’re going to do things our way and you’ll just have to deal with it” attitude is downright American-esque. But the increasing lack of respect that other countries have for the US makes it all the more easy for political forces in those countries to gain support just by standing up and saying “America pushes other countries around, but we’re not going to let them push us around!” It’s practically a rally cry. If we could minimize that kind of sentiment, and go back to being the cool kid on the block, it would make our lives a lot easier when it comes to international trade deals and political partnerships, etc. Thats just a fact.
You listed some thugs. The world sees the US as a thug. But I think a little love would go a long way in terms of restoring our honor. I think Obama has what it takes to do that. For one thing, the world loves Obama. Sure Mccain was on the right side of the surge argument. Maybe he should be a general. He might be great at short term planning (maybe that’s a necessity of his age) But in the long run the stuff Mccain would do would alienate us even more in the world. He may have been a thorn in the side of Bush in the past, but all of his proposed policies on war, tax cuts (…did bush do anything else in the past 8 years?) are basically continuations of the Bush administration. (”Bush 2.0, now with 50% less torture!”) In the long run that’s a bigger problem for the US, politically, strategically, economically, business-wise, and culturally.
There’s this nuclear deal issue going on in India, but it isn’t getting any attention in the American press. Basically, India is running out of electricity, and the main parties in the ruling coalition want to make a deal with the US to import nuclear material, while some of the opposition parties support a deal to build a gas line from Tehran to Delhi. Some of the smaller parties in the ruling coalition support the deal with Iran, claiming that relying on nuclear material from the US would give the US the power to manipulate India the way it does so many other countries. This is threatening to cause the current Indian government to fall.
I’m not saying I agree with the position of the opposition parties, but it’s an interesting example of how the world’s perception of the US as the world’s biggest asshole isn’t good for our own strategic interests. No thanks to our invasion of Iraq, elements in India that favor closer relations with Iran can get on their soapbox and say, “do you want the US to be able to subjugate India the way it does other countries?” and people listen. An old favorite at novatownhall is the line, “actions have consequences” Well, there you have it.