PDA

View Full Version : Elections Obama is STILL against the Surge!!! Wow!


recxjake
07-21-2008, 10:51 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qBO5s8NUOxw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qBO5s8NUOxw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

jAZ
07-21-2008, 11:47 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2007/12/iraq-surge-great-awakening-anbar.html

Will Iraq's Great Awakening Lead to a Nightmare?

Washington Dispatch: U.S. casualties are down in Iraq. But a retired Army Colonel argues that the surge and American payoffs to Sunni tribal leaders may eventually backfire—producing more instability and possibly a regional war.

By Douglas Macgregor

December 11, 2007

American casualties in Iraq have declined dramatically over the last 90 days to levels not seen since 2006, and the White House has attributed the decline to the surge of 35-40,000 U.S. combat troops. But a closer look suggests a different explanation. More than two years of sectarian violence have replaced one country called Iraq with three emerging states: one Kurdish, one Sunni, and one Shiite. This created what a million additional U.S. troops could not: a strategic opportunity to capitalize on the Sunni-Shiite split. So after Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr decided to restrain his Mahdi army from attacking U.S. forces, General David Petraeus and his commanders began cutting deals with Sunni Arab insurgents, agreeing to allow these Sunnis to run their own affairs and arm their own security forces in return for cooperation with U.S. forces against Al Qaeda fighters. As part of the bargain, the Sunni leaders obtained both independence from the hated Shiite-dominated government, which pays far more attention to Tehran's interests than to Washington's, and money—lots of money.

Striking such a "sheikhs for sale" deal (whether they be Sunni or Shiite) is nothing new in the Arab world. The men who ran the British Empire routinely paid subsidies in gold to unruly tribal leaders from the Khyber Pass to the headwaters of the Nile. (Of course, British subsidies were a pittance compared with the billions Britain extracted from its colonies in Africa and Asia.) While the arrangement reached by U.S. military commanders and dubbed the "Great Awakening" has allowed the administration and its allies to declare the surge a success, it carries long-term consequences that are worrisome, if not perilous. The reduction in U.S. casualties is good news. But transforming thousands of anti-American Sunni insurgents into U.S.-funded Sunni militias is not without cost. In fact, the much-touted progress in Iraq could lead to a situation in which American foreign-policy interests are profoundly harmed and the Middle East is plunged into even a larger crisis than currently exists.

First, a warning. We don't know much about developments within Iraq. Military officers who have recently served in Iraq tell me they don't truly understand Iraq's complexity or the duplicitous nature of the Iraqis they work with. In my conservations with them, they raise troubling questions that don't lend themselves to sound-bite answers on talk radio or the evening news. Is the Great Awakening inside the Sunni Arab community the road to Iraq's stability, or is it just a pause for Sunni rearmament and reorganization? Is it a means to secure American military bases inside an emerging Sunni client state generously supplied with cash from Saudi Arabia, a kind of cordon sanitaire along the fault line that separates the Sunni Arab world from Shiite Iran and its beachhead in southern Iraq? Does this development mean America wins when our former Sunni Arab enemies regain power in central Iraq? Or—here's the most disturbing question—will the presumed successes of today be catalysts for yet bloodier civil war inside Iraq or, worse, larger regional war?

With eyes firmly fixed on Jan. 20, 2009—the departure date for this administration—the White House and its generals aren't publicly addressing such policy implications. They're not interested in explaining why the world's most powerful military establishment has resorted to buying off its enemies, effectively supplanting counterinsurgency with cash-based cooptation.

Officers who've served in Iraq warn that the Great Awakening could be transitory. "The Sunni insurgents are following a 'fight, bargain, subvert, fight' approach to get what they want," said one colonel. So Americans need to explore whether U.S. forces are courting long-term strategic success, or if the expedient cash surge is leading U.S. forces into a new phase of conflict that could engulf the region and create a perfect storm.

In four years of occupation and civil war, hundreds of thousands of Arabs, including many Sunnis, have been killed, wounded, or incarcerated. About two million more Arabs, most of them Sunni, have fled the country. How many more Sunni and Shiite Arabs have died over the last two years as a result of the civil war is unknown, but the numbers are likely greater than anyone in the Pentagon or State Department is prepared to admit.

That the Sunni Arab population is tired of fighting is beyond dispute, but winning Sunni Arab hearts and minds in the aftermath of the last four years' violence seems a remote possibility. So, in the absence of the common interest in disposing of Al Qaeda's unwanted foreign fighters and war fatigue, what besides cash motivates the Great Awakening? [...]

A former U.S. Army battalion commander with extensive service in Iraq reports, "It is my sense the Sunni Arab leaders are using the pause in the fight with U.S. forces to take a breather, harden and regroup themselves much like a conventional army would rest and refit after a major battle. Besides, who do the generals in Baghdad think are targeting and killing Iraqi Security Forces? It's the Sunni insurgents. They're just not shooting at us right now."

One of the unspoken assumptions that underpins the "awakening" is that U.S. occupation forces can place untold thousands of Sunni insurgents on the U.S. government's payroll, allowing them to rearm and recuperate inside Sunni-pure enclaves while U.S. forces open a new front in the war against the Shiite militias. Thus far, Tehran has advised its Shiite friends in Iraq to restrain their fighters in the hope the U.S. occupation will end and allow the Shiites to consolidate their victory. The question now is whether the Shiite militias will continue to lie low or risk the kind of campaign against U.S. forces that the Sunnis waged for nearly four years.

No one knows the answer. But it is doubtful Muqtada al-Sadr will do nothing as U.S. forces halt operations against the Shiites' old enemies and allow these enemies to rebuild. He may well step up attacks on Americans, assisted by the Shiite-dominated Iraqi Security Forces. And if that happens, retaliatory attacks by U.S. forces on the Mahdi Army could mobilize the Shiite population behind Muqtada al-Sadr in the fight against their old Sunni Baathist oppressors who are now openly allied with the Americans. In such a battle—a revived civil war—what the majority Shiite Iraqi army will do is another unknown.

What happens in Iraq will not stay in Iraq. That is, other states have an interest in the Sunni-Shiite fight. In many Arab countries, particularly the United States' oil-providing protectorates in the Persian Gulf, the ruling elite fear Iran and oppose the emergence of a Shiite-dominated Iraq, something the U.S. military occupation effectively created when it sided with the Shiites against the Sunnis in 2003. These ruling elites worry that they too could be replaced one by one with "faithful" Sharia-based Islamists.

The Bush State Department seems determined to exploit such fears, promising that giant American bases like the 30,000-man Balad Air Base will offer the Sunni elites security in the form of an anti-Iranian Maginot line that stretches from the Indian Ocean to the Turkish border. This may be the Bush administration's strategic ploy to win the support (or acquiescence) of neighboring Sunni Arab countries for continuing the U.S. military occupation of Iraq long after Bush leaves office. However, what the corrupt ruling elites of the Arab world agree to and what their restive populations will accept are very different things—meaning that a status quo predicated on U.S. troops remaining stationed in Iraq lacks stability.

Tehran is certainly watching developments in Iraq with interest. The Iranian leaders have turned out to be very competent chess players in foreign affairs, carefully calculating each move. As demonstrated by the recent National Intelligence Estimate's reassessment of Iranian nuclear aims, the Bush administration and its generals are, at best, poker players. Every raise and bluff by the Bush administration and its generals in Baghdad has been effectively countered with some very thoughtful, strategic moves by Tehran—moves aimed at cultivating close relationships with Turkey, Russia, China, and even Europe.

This brings us to the big concern: The unresolved (if not heightened) instability within Iraq could lead to unforeseen consequences of a strategic nature—say, a war between Turkey and the Kurds. Inside Turkey, the United States is viewed as a false friend, and as having betrayed the interests of its steadfast Turkish ally. Not only has Washington failed to end Kurdish support in Iraq for the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which advocates independence for Kurds inside Turkey, but the United States also occupied Iraq over Ankara's strong objections. These points of friction coincide with an Islamic revival and a growing desire within Turkey for an assertion of national power. Like the Orthodox Church and Russian nationalism, Islam is inextricably intertwined with Turkish identity, culture, and history.

According to the Pew Research Center, only 9 percent of Turks still hold a favorable view of the United States, a figure that places Turkey last of 46 countries surveyed. Turks now see America as a threat to Turkish national security. The anti-American attitude has been reinforced in the past few years within popular culture. In the Turkish blockbuster Valley of the Wolves Iraq, a small Turkish force heroically battles an evil U.S. military commander and his troops. In Metal Storm, a recent best-selling work of fiction, an all-out war between Ankara and Washington in 2007 is described, a war Turkey wins with the aid of Russian and European support.

Iran suspects it is a matter of when, not if, the Turks intervene in northern Iraq. Turkey, which boasts the largest army in NATO, is the 500-pound gorilla of the Muslim world and Iran knows it. And anti-Kurdish sentiment is leading to an alliance between Iran, Turkey, and Syria, each of which fear growing Kurdish independence.

It's hard to imagine a worse outcome for the United States than the sudden intervention of 100,000 Turkish troops in northern Iraq. Turkish intervention would rob the United States of the support of Kurdish troops that are now policing northern Iraq against Al Qaeda and containing the Sunni insurgency. And the Iranians, who are the real power behind the Shiite-dominated Baghdad government, would support a Turkish military intervention. (Russia and China might support the anti-Kurdish alliance, too.)

All this could well embolden the Sunni Arab insurgents to renew their war against the U.S. military. In the midst of this, the Saudis, Egyptians, and Gulf oil protectorates might even turn to the Turks, the natural leaders of the Sunni Muslim world, as a preferable alternative to their ties with the West and Israel. And add to this mix the instability within nuclear-armed Pakistan. This could all lead to a dreaded situation in which the United States finds itself stuck in the middle of a regional war, with the potential for chaos in Iraq on the rise and Iran's influence in Iraq growing.

Which brings us back to the Great Awakening. As 2008 approaches, all we can say with certainty is that unrelenting Arab hatred of the U.S. military presence in Iraq and the nature of the Sunni-Shiite struggle will make it unlikely that the cash-for-cooperation strategy will buy Iraq genuine stability, let alone the legitimate political order that is needed. (In the Saidiyah neighborhood of Baghdad, U.S. military officers have groups of "concerned citizens"—mainly Sunni—on the payroll. And the office of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has tried to undermine this effort, fearing the United States is organizing a rival Sunni force.)

Wherever American forces operate, they make a difference to their surroundings, but even officers with years of service in Iraq doubt that whatever the U.S. military builds for Iraq will survive the withdrawal of U.S. military power. History supports their conclusion. The last thousand years of history demonstrate that the imposition of foreign, particularly Western Christian, political systems or control on Muslim Arabs through military occupation has no chance of enduring permanently.

The storm may not hit soon. Until January 20, 2009, there is a high probability that the Arabs will take all the cash the generals are willing to give them, make minimal trouble, and bide their time. The Turks also prefer to wait for U.S. forces to leave or draw down before they intervene to eliminate the Kurdish threat. And Iran is nothing if not patient.

That said, if the next administration fails to disengage its forces from Iraq and renews the determination to hold on to the country, if it does not renounce the myth that America's mission in the world is to impose American concepts of political order on foreign peoples burdened with undeveloped economies and dysfunctional societies, all bets are off. Sunni and Shiite patience may well wear out, neighboring powers may cooperate to intervene, and this worst-case scenario (or one just as frightening) may eventually come to pass, compelling the United States to fight a major regional war far from its shores, one that is irrelevant to its strategic interests.

Meanwhile, thanks to superficial analysis and weak reporting from the media, the right questions about the "awakening" are going unasked and, therefore, unanswered. If the Marine Corps leadership were able to achieve a cease-fire with the Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province, a place where U.S. forces sustained a disproportionate number of their casualties on a monthly basis over the last three years, was it really necessary to commit additional U.S. combat troops? Why was it not possible to extend the Anbar model to the rest of Sunni-held Iraq? Or did the generals in Baghdad begin cutting deals with the Sunni insurgents only when the mounting casualties from the surge in the spring and early summer of 2007 compelled them to do so?

But the main problem is the belief held by U.S. policymakers and generals that the critical issue in Iraq is tactics, not the overall mission: occupying and trying to control a Muslim Arab country. Given the conventional wisdom that the U.S. counterinsurgency efforts are working, the imperial hubris at the top of the Bush administration, and the complacency in Congress, the conditions are ideal for a spin-off war that could cause us one day to wonder how we Americans could have ever been so stupid as to occupy Iraq.

Douglas Macgregor is a retired Army colonel and a decorated Persian Gulf War combat veteran. He has authored three books on modern warfare and military reform. His latest is Transformation Under Fire: Revolutionizing the Way America Fights. He writes for the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information in Washington, D.C. The views expressed here are entirely his own.

markk
07-22-2008, 08:47 AM
Well I guess I was wrong, I thought the whole Iraq trip where he was going to "listen to the generals on the ground" was going to be the stage for his great flip flop.

It is shocking though that he agrees the surge was a success but still would oppose it. Being against the Bush policy has always been more important than being on the side of what was the most competent policy.

Turns out I guess that he just wasn't going to pay much attention to the generals when he listened to them... that ABC interview where he talks about how he has an open disagreement with those generals about a timetable certainly doesn't convey the impression that their input meant much.

But on the other hand, I guess he's still supporting a timetable but not rigid adherence to a timetable like during primary season. If there's anything aplenty in his positioning it's wiggle room.

Wasn't ignoring the advice of the military one of the key criticisms of Gulf War 2 in the first place?

HonestChieffan
07-22-2008, 08:51 AM
arrogant

jAZ
07-22-2008, 09:11 AM
It is shocking though that he agrees the surge was a success but still would oppose it.
Did you bother to read the post just above your own?

markk
07-22-2008, 09:13 AM
Did you bother to read the post just above your own?

No. I don't have all day.

jAZ
07-22-2008, 09:14 AM
No. I don't have all day.

Really, not even the bolded sections? It's that sort of attention to detail that leads to zombie politics.

HonestChieffan
07-22-2008, 09:16 AM
Summary: Surge failed, violence is up and gaining ground, death squads own the streets, Bush and Chaney have control of all media reports, American soldiers are falling like leaves. Obama is only one with the answer and he will share it this week and the new dawn of peace will sweep the middle east. Muslims will open all doors to Christians everywhere and oil will be 30 bucks a barrel by August 15.

markk
07-22-2008, 09:16 AM
Really, not even the bolded sections? It's that sort of attention to detail that leads to zombie politics.

The post is almost 2,500 words long. Did you think there would be people who wouldn't just scroll past it?

Taco John
07-22-2008, 09:21 AM
The post is almost 2,500 words long. Did you think there would be people who wouldn't just scroll past it?


Confirmation on why I never take anything this shill says seriously.

There are very few people who identify with Republicans on this forum who are worthwhile. Plenty of soundbyte Republicans to knock around, though.

markk
07-22-2008, 09:26 AM
Confirmation on why I never take anything this shill says seriously.

There are very few people who identify with Republicans on this forum who are worthwhile. Plenty of soundbyte Republicans to knock around, though.

and just what are you? i rarely see anyone as quick to run to obama's defense anywhere in the forum.

i didn't realize i was obligated to read every word in every thread before posting in it though. i also was unaware that once someone posts an article, any further posts have to be on that article and not the subject of the thread. i'll take that under advisement. i didn't know that our speech was so restricted around here.

so in the future how about linking to the full text and showing some highlights instead of posting an article that is 5 pages long single spaced?

jAZ
07-22-2008, 09:32 AM
and just what are you? i rarely see anyone as quick to run to obama's defense anywhere in the forum.

i didn't realize i was obligated to read every word in every thread before posting in it though. i also was unaware that once someone posts an article, any further posts have to be on that article and not the subject of the thread. i'll take that under advisement. i didn't know that our speech was so restricted around here.

so in the future how about linking to the full text and showing some highlights instead of posting an article that is 5 pages long single spaced?
You are spending a whole lot of time arguing in this thread without reading the most substanative commentary on the very topic you've raised a question about.

You even took the time to copy/paste the article into word to get a word count?

You didn't skip it because you don't have time. You skipped it because it threatens to challenge you in a way that might cause you to rethink talking points.

And that last thing you want is thoughful, policy level discourse.

markk
07-22-2008, 09:37 AM
You are spending a whole lot of time arguing in this thread without reading the most substanative commentary on the very topic you've raised a question about.

You even took the time to copy/paste the article into word to get a word count?

You didn't skip it because you don't have time. You skipped it because it threatens to challenge you in a way that might cause you to rethink talking points.

And that last thing you want is thoughful, policy level discourse.

I copied and pasted it to give some kind of measure of how long it was. I'm not going to just read the parts you like without any context, and the context was five pages single spaced, so I skipped it and made my own comment.

Just for future reference, some posts in this forum I might reply to or reference in posts of my own, and others I might not.

Taco John
07-22-2008, 09:59 AM
and just what are you? i rarely see anyone as quick to run to obama's defense anywhere in the forum.

Yeah? Where?

I'm sure to criticize McCain. I'm sure to point out he's got less supporters than there are Obama detractors. But I can't think of any position Obama has that I've spent much, if any time defending. Not that it matters if I did. I'd happily defend Obama and see McCain lose. The current Republican status quo is poison to America, and I'll be happy to be part of clearing it out so that real conservativism can take a deep breath and get some roots in the discussion.



i didn't realize i was obligated to read every word in every thread before posting in it though. i also was unaware that once someone posts an article, any further posts have to be on that article and not the subject of the thread. i'll take that under advisement. i didn't know that our speech was so restricted around here.


Who said anything about restricted speech? This is about respect. You show little reason why anyone should respect anything you have to say in this forum. There's no point in getting into a discussion with you about issues, because you have clearly shown that you don't want to read the fine print. You're an "electioneer." You show up during election time, throw out your taunts, and then when it's done, you'll be gone.

My post wasn't intended for you. It was intended for the people around here who reside in this forum and witness all of the electioneers coming and going. I was merely pointing out to them why this particular electioneer (yourself) lacks merit.

BucEyedPea
07-22-2008, 10:29 AM
The current Republican status quo is poison to America, and I'll be happy to be part of clearing it out so that real conservativism can take a deep breath and get some roots in the discussion.

Kinda makes me ashamed as a Republican to see Republicans resort to such a low level of discourse. And they cried about Bush hatred. They are afraid, very afraid.

irishjayhawk
07-22-2008, 10:31 AM
Confirmation on why I never take anything this shill says seriously.

There are very few people who identify with Republicans on this forum who are worthwhile. Plenty of soundbyte Republicans to knock around, though.

I bet you live with your mother. [/markk]

On topic, I really don't think anyone has flip flopped or anything. In fact, it's another election cycle where "flip flop" as a term is meaningless.

markk
07-22-2008, 10:58 AM
Yeah? Where?

I'm sure to criticize McCain. I'm sure to point out he's got less supporters than there are Obama detractors. But I can't think of any position Obama has that I've spent much, if any time defending. Not that it matters if I did. I'd happily defend Obama and see McCain lose. The current Republican status quo is poison to America, and I'll be happy to be part of clearing it out so that real conservativism can take a deep breath and get some roots in the discussion.


My impression from reading the forum is that you're an Obama voter. If that's wrong then, well... not sure why you'd care anyway. But I agree with the last sentence.


Who said anything about restricted speech? This is about respect. You show little reason why anyone should respect anything you have to say in this forum. There's no point in getting into a discussion with you about issues, because you have clearly shown that you don't want to read the fine print. You're an "electioneer." You show up during election time, throw out your taunts, and then when it's done, you'll be gone.

My post wasn't intended for you. It was intended for the people around here who reside in this forum and witness all of the electioneers coming and going. I was merely pointing out to them why this particular electioneer (yourself) lacks merit.

Respect would be not demanding everyone reply to everything. I simply didn't want to spend 15 minutes reading that post.

Your opinion of me matters little, if you think I'm electioneering or what. I simply opine when a topic or a post interests me. When one doesn't, I don't. If you find my posts unsettling I would invite you to skip over them. You're not obligated to read every post on the forum.

Direckshun
07-22-2008, 11:02 AM
There are very few people who identify with Republicans on this forum who are worthwhile. Plenty of soundbyte Republicans to knock around, though.

In their defense, it's because times are tough for the GOP.

Message boards typically have an intellectual imbalance that reflects the political atmosphere. The worse and worse things get for the Republicans, the more that intelligent Republicans will find other ways to spend their time. As they recede, they leave behind the moronic shills.

The more respectable Republicans will come out in droves when things swing back to their advantage. The worthwhile Democrats will largely phase themselves out, leaving behind a number of blockheads, and they will return when the tides turn their way.

jAZ
07-22-2008, 11:11 AM
Respect would be not demanding everyone reply to everything. I simply didn't want to spend 15 minutes reading that post.
That's exactly right. You don't want to.

No need to lie and say you don't have time. You've demonstrated that you have plenty of time (well more than the time it would take to read my post).

You don't want to. Just own up to your shallow approach to politics, and at least you'll have earned that level of respect.

jAZ
07-22-2008, 11:13 AM
In their defense, it's because times are tough for the GOP.

Message boards typically have an intellectual imbalance that reflects the political atmosphere. The worse and worse things get for the Republicans, the more that intelligent Republicans will find other ways to spend their time. As they recede, they leave behind the moronic shills.

The more respectable Republicans will come out in droves when things swing back to their advantage. The worthwhile Democrats will largely phase themselves out, leaving behind a number of blockheads, and they will return when the tides turn their way.
Hey! I've been here through good and bad!

irishjayhawk
07-22-2008, 11:14 AM
Hey! I've been here through good and bad!

That must mean you aren't intelligent. The blockheads are the ones who remain. :)

jAZ
07-22-2008, 11:17 AM
That must mean you aren't intelligent. The blockheads are the ones who remain. :)

I know... :sulk:

irishjayhawk
07-22-2008, 11:18 AM
I know... :sulk:

I like that smilie though.

Direckshun
07-22-2008, 11:19 AM
Hey! I've been here through good and bad!
And some conservatives actually do good stuff around here too these days.

But you can't deny the fact that most substantial conservatives have flown the coup these days, and liberals (myself included) poured in. That's how it works.

And that's reasonable, I think. Message boards shouldn't be unpleasant, or "work." They become that when you have to support a party that's simply getting killed.

jAZ
07-22-2008, 11:25 AM
And some conservatives actually do good stuff around here too these days.

But you can't deny the fact that most substantial conservatives have flown the coup these days, and liberals (myself included) poured in. That's how it works.

And that's reasonable, I think. Message boards shouldn't be unpleasant, or "work." They become that when you have to support a party that's simply getting killed.

I agree with your point, I just like to think of myself as the intelligent exception that proves the rule.

Don't pop my own inflated self image.

;)

Radar Chief
07-22-2008, 12:37 PM
In their defense, it's because times are tough for the GOP.

Message boards typically have an intellectual imbalance that reflects the political atmosphere. The worse and worse things get for the Republicans, the more that intelligent Republicans will find other ways to spend their time. As they recede, they leave behind the moronic shills.

The more respectable Republicans will come out in droves when things swing back to their advantage. The worthwhile Democrats will largely phase themselves out, leaving behind a number of blockheads, and they will return when the tides turn their way.

You’ve got that backwards. It’s the “moronic shills” that have chased the reasonable people away regardless of political persuasion.
That has more to do with a complete lack of moderation that any political ebb and flow.

WilliamTheIrish
07-22-2008, 01:36 PM
You’ve got that backwards. It’s the “moronic shills” that have chased the reasonable people away regardless of political persuasion.
That has more to do with a complete lack of moderation that any political ebb and flow.


Hardly. The fact is that the war has not gone the way most real conservatives who supported the invasion, had hoped. (Me included). And I consider myself a reasonable person.

Granted you may have a case for a handful of people who have left due to "lack of moderation". My personal feeling is most left when they knew the invasion/ post war planning went to shit and didn't really want it shoved in their face all day.

JMO though.

WilliamTheIrish
07-22-2008, 01:45 PM
The post is almost 2,500 words long. Did you think there would be people who wouldn't just scroll past it?


Go back and count how many words you've typed in multiple replies markk. Seems you've taken the time to post probably 600 words in replies. Take the time to read the piece.
It's an interesting piece written by a former battallion commander who posits the theory that maybe the militias are just playing a little waiting game. And the thought of how Turkey could be a real problem for the US in the near future.

Radar Chief
07-22-2008, 02:20 PM
Hardly. The fact is that the war has not gone the way most real conservatives who supported the invasion, had hoped. (Me included). And I consider myself a reasonable person.

Granted you may have a case for a handful of people who have left due to "lack of moderation". My personal feeling is most left when they knew the invasion/ post war planning went to shit and didn't really want it shoved in their face all day.

JMO though.

So, all the “reasonable people” were "real conservatives that supported the invasion" and all the “moronic shills” are anti-war liberals?
If that’s what you’re saying I guess I won’t disagree.

Alphaman
07-22-2008, 07:23 PM
Well I guess I was wrong, I thought the whole Iraq trip where he was going to "listen to the generals on the ground" was going to be the stage for his great flip flop.

It is shocking though that he agrees the surge was a success but still would oppose it. Being against the Bush policy has always been more important than being on the side of what was the most competent policy.

Turns out I guess that he just wasn't going to pay much attention to the generals when he listened to them... that ABC interview where he talks about how he has an open disagreement with those generals about a timetable certainly doesn't convey the impression that their input meant much.

But on the other hand, I guess he's still supporting a timetable but not rigid adherence to a timetable like during primary season. If there's anything aplenty in his positioning it's wiggle room.

Wasn't ignoring the advice of the military one of the key criticisms of Gulf War 2 in the first place?

I just caught some of the interview he did while he was Amman, Jordan (I believe it was Katie Couric). He said that reason he would still oppose the surge is that it still doesn't make us secure against terrorist threat. The money and resources used for the surge could have been used to bolster the efforts in Afghanistan or used to help find alternative energy sources to reduce our dependence on oil. In essence he said that there is more to the issues facing America than just Iraq and just the surge. We can't look at that decision in a vacuum. We have to understand what we had to give up or not pursue in order to support the surge. He gave a wholistic view of why he still takes that stand. IMHO, he took the stance of a leader.

HC_Chief
07-23-2008, 09:03 AM
I just caught some of the interview he did while he was Amman, Jordan (I believe it was Katie Couric). He said that reason he would still oppose the surge is that it still doesn't make us secure against terrorist threat. The money and resources used for the surge could have been used to bolster the efforts in Afghanistan or used to help find alternative energy sources to reduce our dependence on oil. In essence he said that there is more to the issues facing America than just Iraq and just the surge. We can't look at that decision in a vacuum. We have to understand what we had to give up or not pursue in order to support the surge. He gave a wholistic view of why he still takes that stand. IMHO, he took the stance of a leader.

In other words he talked around the issue and still managed to denegrate a strategy that appears to be working.

***SPRAYER
07-23-2008, 09:16 AM
In other words he talked around the issue and still managed to denegrate a strategy that appears to be working.

The guy is an asshole.

Alphaman
07-23-2008, 09:29 AM
In other words he talked around the issue and still managed to denegrate a strategy that appears to be working.

You can CHOOSE to view it that way, but imho, he gave a very intelligent, thought out response to the question. In essence, their is a much bigger picture when speaking of America's national security and it's economic landscape than JUST Iraq. Curic interviewed McCain via satellite and all he talked about was Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. Obama's response appeared to be more from a leader with a view of what is good for America in totality, not for one line item on the agenda.

Chiefnj2
07-23-2008, 10:30 AM
McCrazy's entire campaign is "I supported the surge and the other guy didn't". That's all he has.

Bearcat2005
07-23-2008, 10:38 AM
McCrazy's entire campaign is "I supported the surge and the other guy didn't". That's all he has.

In regards to his entire campaign I disagree, the energy crisis has been a large focus of the McCain camp. He has offered a deep contrast to Obama's "plans" on addressing the energy crisis. Just a few examples of how mccain is attempting to make this contrast.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/i3hDT5JEB2M&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/i3hDT5JEB2M&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7O85jpuFKT4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7O85jpuFKT4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0n49qkoXoY0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0n49qkoXoY0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

markk
07-23-2008, 10:39 AM
He said that reason he would still oppose the surge is that it still doesn't make us secure against terrorist threat. The money and resources used for the surge could have been used to bolster the efforts in Afghanistan or used to help find alternative energy sources to reduce our dependence on oil.

So basically he still opposes the surge even though it worked because even being 4 years deep into a war, winning it is really not important, and would only be worthwhile if it were cheap.

ROYC75
07-23-2008, 11:07 AM
Douglas Macgregor is a retired Army colonel and a decorated Persian Gulf War combat veteran. He has authored three books on modern warfare and military reform. His latest is Transformation Under Fire: Revolutionizing the Way America Fights. He writes for the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information in Washington, D.C. The views expressed here are entirely his own.

Notice ..........It's possible that the militias are on vacation.;)

Pitt Gorilla
07-23-2008, 12:15 PM
So basically he still opposes the surge even though it worked because even being 4 years deep into a war, winning it is really not important, and would only be worthwhile if it were cheap.To which surge are you referring? The one that led to the Anbar awakening or the one after it?

Alphaman
07-23-2008, 12:21 PM
So basically he still opposes the surge even though it worked because even being 4 years deep into a war, winning it is really not important, and would only be worthwhile if it were cheap.

No, what he said there were other options to achieve the same thing that would not have left other issues impacting the national security of America as vulnerable.

HC_Chief
07-23-2008, 12:43 PM
No, what he said there were other options to achieve the same thing that would not have left other issues impacting the national security of America as vulnerable.

:spock:
No, he didn't. He danced around the question and you bought it because of Hope A' Dope.

mlyonsd
07-23-2008, 12:48 PM
Who'd have thunk Obama and Rumsfeld shared the same strategy when it came to troop levels.

SBK
07-23-2008, 12:51 PM
How did a thread about Obama being against the surge end up being a commentary on conservatives on Chiefsplanet? Color me shocked!! LMAO

Alphaman
07-23-2008, 01:02 PM
:spock:
No, he didn't. He danced around the question and you bought it because of Hope A' Dope.


No I listened to what he had to say because I thought it was a fair question and critique. I also listened to McCain on the topic because he has based a large majority of his campaign on the surge and Iraq.

As I have said before, there is alot about Obama's politics that I disagree with. There is alot about McCain's that I disagree with as well. Therefore, my decision comes down to is the better leader for America. Obama's response sought to address broader issues rather than just one issue. In football terms, Herm Edwards came to KC saying we need to build a good TEAM, not just a good offense. Obama's view is that the decision on the surge needed to be one that served America's needs as a whole, not just the issue in Iraq. His view is that the surge was all about Iraq, but left us vulnerable on other broader issues. McCain doesn't talk about broader issues and what impact the surge may have had on those issues. He only talks about winning in Iraq. Obama contends the surge was not the ONLY way to win in Iraq.