[goMac]

McCain is quoted tonight as saying Iraq is peaceful and stable...

"Q: Some members of the [Iraqi] government have made it clear in the last month or two that they might want to withdraw before complete stability, before totally secure borders, before some of the completeness of victory as you described. Is there any change, do you think there is some wiggle room there because what you described with Petraeus was an end point that was rather complete — a peaceful, stable country.

MCCAIN: Its a peaceful and stable country now."

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/28/...iraq-peaceful/

This is a duality I don't understand with the Republicans. On one hand they tell us Iraq is peaceful and stable, the terrorists are gone, the Iraqi government has control of the streets, everything is peachy. Yet when someone suggests we leave (and stop spending billions of dollars over there) the Republicans then tell us how horrible things are and that we are the dam holding back the flood and that the Iraqi government is incompetent....

Could someone clarify this for me? Why are we spending billions in Iraq when it is supposedly perfect?

Edit:
Rep. Wexler is already dealing with the hypocrisy...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/28/...-not-peaceful/

[Helmling]

It is rather nice of Senator McCain to voluntarily wrap this verbal albatross around his neck on behalf of the Obama campaign.

No one can say he's not a generous soul.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by goMac 

McCain is quoted tonight as saying Iraq is peaceful and stable...

"Q: Some members of the [Iraqi] government have made it clear in the last month or two that they might want to withdraw before complete stability, before totally secure borders, before some of the completeness of victory as you described. Is there any change, do you think there is some wiggle room there because what you described with Petraeus was an end point that was rather complete — a peaceful, stable country.

MCCAIN: Its a peaceful and stable country now."

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/28/...iraq-peaceful/

This is a duality I don't understand with the Republicans. On one hand they tell us Iraq is peaceful and stable, the terrorists are gone, the Iraqi government has control of the streets, everything is peachy. Yet when someone suggests we leave (and stop spending billions of dollars over there) the Republicans then tell us how horrible things are and that we are the dam holding back the flood and that the Iraqi government is incompetent....

Could someone clarify this for me? Why are we spending billions in Iraq when it is supposedly perfect?

Edit:
Rep. Wexler is already dealing with the hypocrisy...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/28/...-not-peaceful/

Why is it peaceful and stable currently? Is it because the Iraqis have everything under control, or is it because of our presence there? We were told over and over that there was a no-win situation in Iraq and we were faced with an ongoing civil war that couldn't be won. We now know that the people who said this where simply wrong.

Now we are told everything that people like Obama said couldn't happened has and it's time to leave and ignore the advise of the people who knew how to handle the situation and say that we still need to keep troops in Iraq. I think it's pretty clear why it is that things are currently stable and peaceful, and being too confident and leaving too soon would clearly do nothing to support a LASTING peaceful situation over there.

It really isn't rocket science. The ant-war nuts simply look sillier and sillier the more they make outrageous comments and suggestions that end up being 100% wrong. You'd think they'd learn by now. Is Obama still insisting that a surge can't work?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Why is it peaceful and stable currently? Is it because the Iraqis have everything under control, or is it because of our presence there? We were told over and over that there was a no-win situation in Iraq and we were faced with an ongoing civil war that couldn't be won. We now know that the people who said this where simply wrong.

But isn't this kind of against what McCain is saying? McCain is saying we've accomplished what we wanted to do. Wasn't one of our goals to create an Iraq that was stable? I mean, we either have accomplished that goal, or we haven't. McCain wants to have his cake and eat it too.

And the liberals have a good point. Either we need to leave because it's so awful and horrible, or we need to leave because our job is done. Either way, we need to leave because we can't afford the war. McCain is trying to squirm out of this by putting us in this other dimension where we have simultaneously won but are loosing.

I don't think this is really at all about America loosing the war, this is about the Republicans loosing the war. The Republicans want to take credit for withdrawing troops. I bet you within months of McCain taking office, we'll be withdrawing troops because everything is perfect and "has been since the surge".

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by goMac 

But isn't this kind of against what McCain is saying? McCain is saying we've accomplished what we wanted to do.

In regards to it being stable. It is. That was the goal of the "surge". Getting peace and maintaining peace are 2 different things though. Right now, we've accomplished our goal of reaching stability in Iraq. We also have a goal of KEEPING Iraq stabile. Have the generals "on the ground" said that the Iraqi people are capable of keeping the peace on their own? I think that will be key in when we start withdrawing large numbers of troops.

I don't think this is really at all about America loosing the war, this is about the Republicans loosing the war. The Republicans want to take credit for withdrawing troops. I bet you within months of McCain taking office, we'll be withdrawing troops because everything is perfect and "has been since the surge".

Quite possibly. Despite naysayers like you and Obama, the surge and the plan McCain had supported has worked. If it were up to you guys, we would have left Iraq in shambles and no stability which would hurt our interests just because we apparently "can't afford it". Others would say that we can't afford NOT to ensure stability in Iraq at this stage.

I say the time to leave is when those in Iraq are truly prepared to take over responsibility. If you do it sooner, all the investment we have made will be worthless.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

In regards to it being stable. It is. That was the goal of the "surge". Getting peace and maintaining peace are 2 different things though. Right now, we've accomplished our goal of reaching stability in Iraq. We also have a goal of KEEPING Iraq stabile. Have the generals "on the ground" said that the Iraqi people are capable of keeping the peace on their own? I think that will be key in when we start withdrawing large numbers of troops.

But again, part of our goals is that the Iraqi government should be able to maintain the peace. If they can't, then we haven't been successful.

McCain can't have it both ways.

[olePigeon]

After fumbling with reasons why we should be in Iraq, the Administration decided on Democracy. So the first thing the new government sets up is a Theocracy. We all know how well those work.

[stevesnj]

Well once we try to turn another culture into 'Republican Land'. It wont matter when the US leaves...they will go back to their ways once we do leave. The US is delaying the Iraqis from living their own deserved culture.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by goMac 

But again, part of our goals is that the Iraqi government should be able to maintain the peace. If they can't, then we haven't been successful.

McCain can't have it both ways.

Two goals. You can have success in one and not yet have success in the other. You can have it both ways since we are examining more than one thing.

Can you quote me where McCain has claimed success in keeping the peace long-term, which would be the deciding factor in when troops are removed?

[tie]

For the sake of our troops in Iraq, we really need a president who is not tied up in the circles trying to defend past failed strategy. McCain is just like Bush on Iraq. He doesn't want to change anything because that would be admitting a mistake, and his pride is worth more than our soldiers' lives. Obama is better, as would have been a Republican who hadn't tied himself so closely to Bush's policies.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

For the sake of our troops in Iraq, we really need a president who is not tied up in the circles trying to defend past failed strategy.

I agree. Which is why Obama is having a hard time. His strategy of giving up, losing and rejecting what has been proven to be an effective strategy has him tied in knots. Does he still claim that the "surge" strategy won't have any effect?

McCain is the guy who criticized the Bush administration for war blunders and fully backed the surge. Obama is the guy who simply criticized and wanted to go french.

[besson3c]

Is it really a surprise that throwing more resources (soldiers) at the problem was going to help? The question is, was the surge designed to give the Iraqis time to get their **** together, or was it some sort of change to our plans that have a non-fixed timetable? If the surge was designed for the Iraqis to get their **** together, it failed. If it wasn't, it has been a marvelous success.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I agree. Which is why Obama is having a hard time. His strategy of giving up, losing and rejecting what has been proven to be an effective strategy has him tied in knots. Does he still claim that the "surge" strategy won't have any effect?

McCain is the guy who criticized the Bush administration for war blunders and fully backed the surge. Obama is the guy who simply criticized and wanted to go french.

So, just what is the strategy? When will we have "won"? What is winning? What exactly are we doing their now?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Why is it peaceful and stable currently? Is it because the Iraqis have everything under control, or is it because of our presence there?

Ah, the "War is Peace" argument. "Peace and stability" with a gun pointed at you is neither peaceful nor stable.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

Well once we try to turn another culture into 'Republican Land'. It wont matter when the US leaves...they will go back to their ways once we do leave. The US is delaying the Iraqis from living their own deserved culture.

Perhaps that's what happens when a conservative government tries to teach a conservative culture to be liberal and reject it's traditional ways.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Two goals. You can have success in one and not yet have success in the other.

And now DoubleThink?

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I agree. Which is why Obama is having a hard time. His strategy of giving up, losing and rejecting what has been proven to be an effective strategy has him tied in knots. Does he still claim that the "surge" strategy won't have any effect?

McCain is the guy who criticized the Bush administration for war blunders and fully backed the surge. Obama is the guy who simply criticized and wanted to go french.

When the Bush administration was making the blunders, McCain supported them entirely. Doesn't that make them McCain's blunders, too? So how can you give him credit for later criticizing them as blunders, at the same time as the Bush administration was admitting it, too? McCain's policy on the war has never been any different from Bush's.

"Go French"? You're a fool. Grow up.

[Helmling]

Why would we want to leave? We're making so much money...

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Is it really a surprise that throwing more resources (soldiers) at the problem was going to help?

Apparently so. Most of the democrats said it was doomed to fail.

The question is, was the surge designed to give the Iraqis time to get their **** together, or was it some sort of change to our plans that have a non-fixed timetable?

Designed to create stability, so that the Iraqis would have a reasonable chance to keep things secure once they were ready. We've always had a non-fixed timetable. Those things don't work out well during wars. What was our timetable when we joined WWII to get out of Europe?

So, just what is the strategy? When will we have "won"? What is winning? What exactly are we doing their now

Providing security until the Iraqis are strong enough to take care of it themselves, at which point the country will be self-sufficient while not having to live under a ruthless dictator.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

And now DoubleThink?

Understanding the use of goals isn't your strong suit, I take it?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

When the Bush administration was making the blunders, McCain supported them entirely.

Fail.

He's criticized Bush and the Defense Department for their blunders for years. When they started to do as he suggested, things started to get better.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17231371

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Understanding the use of goals isn't your strong suit, I take it?

Not when the goals are diametrically opposed to each other.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Not when the goals are diametrically opposed to each other.

How are the following goals diametrically opposed:

• Make the region stable and secure via the use of our troops (successful)
• Once the region is stable, work to get to the point where the Iraqis can KEEP the region safe and secure without a large US troop presence (not yet there).

Two goals, the main one achieved, the second relies on Iraq. Where is the problem?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Apparently so. Most of the democrats said it was doomed to fail.



Designed to create stability, so that the Iraqis would have a reasonable chance to keep things secure once they were ready. We've always had a non-fixed timetable. Those things don't work out well during wars. What was our timetable when we joined WWII to get out of Europe?



Providing security until the Iraqis are strong enough to take care of it themselves, at which point the country will be self-sufficient while not having to live under a ruthless dictator.

Well then, we are on agreement with regards to its purpose, but it was intended to be a temporary surge, right? Instead, it has become a permanent increase in the number of forces, so why call it a surge? Secondly, how can we say that the surge has succeeded, since thus far it hasn't made Iraq self-sufficient? When will it?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Well then, we are on agreement with regards to its purpose, but it was intended to be a temporary surge, right?

Right. The assumption is that troops will be gradually reduced when the Iraqis are ready. In fact, it's being reported that come fall they'll start pulling troops out again.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,413862,00.html

Instead, it has become a permanent increase in the number of forces, so why call it a surge? Secondly, how can we say that the surge has succeeded, since thus far it hasn't made Iraq self-sufficient? When will it?

A. It hasn't "become permanent". Unless you believe that the Iraqis will never be able to secure their own land on their own, there's no reason to believe that.

B. Rome wasn't built in a day. All signs point to additional troop pull-outs in the very near future.

[besson3c]

That's what I figured you would say...

So then, the jury is still out, right? There was more to the surge than just looking for a temporary tactical advantage. If we pull troops out and violence returns, this would either show an error in our judgment about when is best to leave, or will suggest that maybe the violence was inevitable anyway once we leave (and I think we both agree that we can't stay there forever?) I think we can come to conclusions after a significant amount of time has elapsed starting from when we leave. If the violence returns, perhaps it was all for nothing. If it doesn't, *then* you can start suggesting that the increase in troops was a good idea. For the time being, it is wrong to say that the surge is "working" because we don't really know that. At best it is giving us a source of welcome optimism.

Of course, it's hard to be too optimistic if you feel that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place, so I think that you will need to exercise some degree of patience if others do not share your sense of glee. You'll excuse me if I distrust the calculations of this present administration and think that the violence upon our leaving will be inevitable. Logically speaking, they have given me no reason to trust them (and this would be the case regardless of what party was running the show).

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So then, the jury is still out, right?

Out on what? That the surge accomplished the stability and reduced violence as was intended? Uh, no. Most everyone (Obama yet?) agrees that it has.

AGAIN, to achieve a desired result there are often times numerous goals that have to be achieved first. The surge achieved it's goal. Now the next goal to reach is for the Iraqis to KEEP the peace without us. The commanders on the ground are currently analyzing when the next goal can be reached.

We will remove our troops when the commanders on the ground decide that based on evidence, that the Iraqis can provide the security that is needed without a large US troop presence. Reports state that it appears this will start in the fall.

If the violence returns, perhaps it was all for nothing. If it doesn't, *then* you can start suggesting that the increase in troops was a good idea.

Ridiculous. The increase in troops achieved the goal of increased peace and less violence. It worked. It worked regardless of whether or not the Iraqis can manage the peace themselves later on down the line. The surge worked for what it was designed to do. No one ever claimed or thought that it's purpose was to be able to immediately pull out as soon as the fighting slowed down. Could you please quote for me someone in charge, or McCain who stated this?

[besson3c]

It was a successful tactic, and predictably so, but the larger question still looms: will it provide more than just temporary relief? Will it be a stepping stone to a peaceful Iraq once we have left? This much we don't know yet.

You're saying that it was a goal - an incremental step, but what I'm saying is that you can look at an incremental step without looking at the larger picture. If we fail at the larger goal, the intermediate step will have been pointless.

It's like installing a home anti-burglar thingamabob on your house... If it is installed correctly, does it make the whole purchase and purchase decision smart when and if somebody still has no problems breaking into your house and stealing your stuff? Can we call the thing a success without knowing whether it actually succeeds at its larger goal of preventing home invasions?

My example is very crude, but hopefully illustrative.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

• Make the region stable and secure via the use of our troops (successful)
• Once the region is stable, work to get to the point where the Iraqis can KEEP the region safe and secure without a large US troop presence (not yet there).

How is the first "goal" not something you just made up to make your argument easier?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It was a successful tactic, and predictably so...

You would have thought had that been the case that the current Democrat candidate for President would have been able to predict such a thing. Even as the tactic was working, he was telling everyone that it wouldn't.

...but the larger question still looms: will it provide more than just temporary relief? Will it be a stepping stone to a peaceful Iraq once we have left? This much we don't know yet.

It was never the goal of the "surge" to provide long-term relief. It has always been the plan that the Iraqis would have to govern and supply security on their own at some point. The surge was just something used to get them to the point where they could take over when they were ready.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

How is the first "goal" not something you just made up to make your argument easier?

Your acknowledgement that you don't have an effective rebuttal is noted.

[spacefreak]

Let's get our troops out of the old war zones (Japan, Germany, Korea) before we take them out of recently active ones.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You would have thought had that been the case that the current Democrat candidate for President would have been able to predict such a thing. Even as the tactic was working, he was telling everyone that it wouldn't.



It was never the goal of the "surge" to provide long-term relief. It has always been the plan that the Iraqis would have to govern and supply security on their own at some point. The surge was just something used to get them to the point where they could take over when they were ready.

I think you are misrepresenting Obama to score political points here. I've never heard him say that the surge will not provide a tactical advantage and a temporary quelling of violence. I think he has been pretty clear that the point of the surge was to provide the Iraqi government with an opportunity to take control, and they have not done so, at least not yet. They have somehow managed to create a budget surplus, but they are still dependent on us for their security. I'm not saying this as a partisan counter punch, I have honestly heard him say these very words, or my paraphrased version of this.

Stupendousman, are you happy with how this war has gone from the start up until now? Happy with the information the American public has received? Can you understand why some people would be distrusting of this administration? I know this is a separate question, but I'd really like to understand what fuels the partisan fires of people such as yourself... What inspires your fervent and constant defense of your party, and makes it seemingly so difficult to connect with people that feel differently than you?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think you are misrepresenting Obama to score political points here. I've never heard him say that the surge will not provide a tactical advantage and a temporary quelling of violence.

Obama's been all over the map on this one, so you are both a bit correct. The one constant is that Obama wanted the US to give up and pull out.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Obama's been all over the map on this one, so you are both a bit correct. The one constant is that Obama wanted the US to give up and pull out.

Has the thought crossed your mind that perhaps there is absolutely no military solution to this problem? I'm not suggesting that this is the case, necessarily, but it's a valid possibility, no?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Your acknowledgement that you don't have an effective rebuttal is noted.

Well, I'll admit that it is quite challenging to rebut against fabricated facts. Has it ever been stated that there were two goals?

[Andy8]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Let's get our troops out of the old war zones (Japan, Germany, Korea) before we take them out of recently active ones.

Great idea, then spend that budget on your health care system.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Has the thought crossed your mind that perhaps there is absolutely no military solution to this problem? I'm not suggesting that this is the case, necessarily, but it's a valid possibility, no?

Peace has never come about without a strong military component.

When you can go through millennia of historical records and show me an instance where peace was achieved for a nation without a military component, let me know.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Why would we want to leave? We're making so much money...

Yep - we can close this thread now - Helmling has hit the nail on the head.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Peace has never come about without a strong military component.

When you can go through millennia of historical records and show me an instance where peace was achieved for a nation without a military component, let me know.

Well, I don't of any other unilateral invasions under the guise of fighting terrorism there have been in our history. How was peace achieved in Vietnam?

There has been a strong military component thus far. Like Vietnam, there exists a certain point where political accommodations have to be made that can no longer solely involve the use of military force. Did you want us to stay in Vietnam for longer than we did?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

Well once we try to turn another culture into 'Republican Land'. It wont matter when the US leaves...they will go back to their ways once we do leave. The US is delaying the Iraqis from living their own deserved culture.

I've not seen anything more xenophobic in all my days here. You're right, those barbarian Iraqis aren't capable of civility and rule of law.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Why would we want to leave? We're making so much money...

How much have we made so far?

[zombie punk]

Depends who 'we' is - if 'we' is the contractors, a metric boat-load.

[0157988944]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Ah, the "War is Peace" argument. "Peace and stability" with a gun pointed at you is neither peaceful nor stable.

Amen.