http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-iraq-argument-11454

If he argues that he has superior judgement, then his arguement doesnt hold water. Imagine the killings if we had left when he proposed we did.

He can no longer argue for superior judgement.

Even his advisors are disagreeing about the way to handle Iraq. Part of the problem is admiting they were wrong.

Quote :

"The Iraq Argument Abe Greenwald John McCain has won the Iraq argument. The disagreement on Iraq between McCain and Barack Obama, indeed between Democrats and Republicans, was not about the future of American "neocolonialism" or about the candidates' sympathy for the Marines and soldiers eager to return home. It was about the strategic benefit of keeping active U.S. troops in the War. John McCain believed that a continued American troop presence would hasten Iraq's progress toward national security and political reconciliation. Barack Obama thought a speedy withdrawal would best achieve that goal. So there is no confusion on this point, let us consider the following: Our troops have performed brilliantly in Iraq, but no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war. That's why I have introduced a plan to not only stop the escalation of this war, but begin a phased redeployment that can pressure the Iraqis to finally reach a political settlement and reduce the violence. -- Barack Obama, January 2007 The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops," Mr. Obama said. "Not in six months or one year - now. -- Barack Obama, September 2007 Now contrast those with the quotes below: Sen. John McCain defended President Bush's Iraq plan on Friday as a difficult but necessary move, parting company with lawmakers questioning the wisdom of the military build up. "I believe that together these moves will give the Iraqis and Americans the best chance of success," said McCain, R-Ariz., a leading presidential contender for 2008. --CBS News, January 2007 "I am not guaranteeing that this [U.S.troop build-up] succeeds. I am just saying that I think it can. I believe it has a good shot." The most optimistic scenario he envisioned involved a steady reduction in violence and a gradual turnover of security responsibilities to the Iraqis during the remainder of the Bush administration. Under those circumstances, Mr. McCain said, the United States military would gradually withdraw to its bases in Iraq, though he did not provide a timetable for how long that might take. -- The New York Times, April 2007 We are currently in the midst of John McCain's "most optimistic scenario." What we're witnessing in Iraq is what McCain called success. Violence in Iraq is down to 2004 levels. Iraqi forces are taking the lead in more and more in successful operations countrywide. Al Qaeda is being marginalized. Political reconciliation is happening. Yesterday, even the anti-Iraq War Joe Klein acknowledged the manifestation of the scenario that McCain described in April 2007: Daily attacks continue, but at a fraction of 2006 levels--indeed, at levels not seen since before the Sadrist and Falluja rebellions began in April of 2004. Al Qaeda in Iraq still has the capability to ignite the occasional car bomb, but it has been weakened to the point of defeat. The real estate market in Baghdad is beginning to blossom. And on a broader front, as reported in the New Yorker and The New Republic, Al Qaeda's wanton butchery is facing an intellectual challenge from within its own ranks. With the Iraq argument resolved in John McCain's favor, Democrats, independent Obama supporters, and anti-war members of the media are now on the hunt for a new Iraq narrative--some hook that enables Barack Obama to look less than wrong. Many try to claim that the two candidates' positions have grown closer since the primaries, but that's not true. The candidates never altered the positions described above. The facts on the ground simply determined who was right and who was wrong. What we're seeing now is the strident effort to manufacture a new post-success argument about Iraq. Obama fan, Andrew Sullivan, for example, has wasted no time in completely reframing the issue as "A Question of Empire": That's the critical question in this campaign: do Americans want a neo-empire in the Middle East? Do they want US troops permanently stationed in Iraq with up to 60 permanent bases? That's what the Bush administration wants to foist onto Iraq; and that's what McCain believes in. . . McCain would love to see US troops stationed peacefully in Iraq for the foreseeable future. To him it does not matter when they come home. What matters is that the casualty rate get low enough to persuade Americans they shouldn't care about another expansion of American empire. In fact, the entire debate about bringing them home is puzzling and frustrating to McCain. After all, why should we bring them home when being there for ever is the point? It wasn't WMDs or Saddam's threat that motivated this war, we now understand, so much as the capacity to forward station US troops in an oil-rich region and help contain Iran. Is this a good idea? That's what the Iraqis are now furiously debating. And it's what Americans should be furiously debating in this campaign. It's the biggest difference between the two candidates and it couldn't be more important. The details are still hazy. Sullivan can't decide if it's empire or neo-empire (whatever that is) - all he knows is that in the face of U.S. success his entire conception of the war must undergo some drastic change. He, like most who bet against the surge, must now bend their anti-Bush, anti-McCain passions around the facts on the ground, and it isn't going to be pretty. Indeed the Obama camp itself is publicly conflicted about how to move the Iraq argument forward. Yesterday at a Democratic think tank even, two of Obama's Iraq advisors disagreed with each other on how to proceed after the success of the surge. Colin Kahl argued for leaving a large troop presence in Iraq, contingent upon continued political reconciliation. Brian Katulis argued for withdrawing all troops except for a small group left behind to defend the U.S. embassy. It's clear that Obama and his supporters are guilty of the charge they'd grown accustomed to leveling at the Bush administration: no Iraq foresight. It's true that President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld had not come up with a plan B in the case of strong Iraqi resistance. Obama and Co. have failed to consider what their next move would be in the face of U.S. success. "

[Edited on June 18, 2008 at 4:25 PM. Reason : fsd]

6/18/2008 4:22:53 PM

Quote :

"If he argues that he has superior judgement, then his argument doesn't hold water."

Depends on the question asked.

He was against the War in Iraq from the start, and he was right when so many others were wrong.

6/18/2008 4:43:44 PM

I am just making the case that he cant use judgment as an argument. The error that would have resulted from troops leaving is so great, and would have such terrible consequences, that you can not ignore that error in logic.

I am not saying he has always been wrong about things, but that that argument should be and probably will be pounced on my McCain.

Therefore he shouldnt be using it.

[Edited on June 18, 2008 at 4:48 PM. Reason : fsd]

6/18/2008 4:48:27 PM

colin khal wins imo^^^

[Edited on June 18, 2008 at 4:49 PM. Reason : ^]

6/18/2008 4:49:09 PM

Quote :

"Depends on the question asked. He was against the War in Iraq from the start, and he was right when so many others were wrong."

NO NO NO.

Look, I really like Obama... BUT.

He wasn't even THERE to vote. How do you know HOW he would have voted? So many Democrats were drawn into voting for the war. Based on lies that were fed to them and everyone else.

Claiming he was RIGHT is just asinine. How the hell did he know that all the claims that were made during the build-up were fictitious... HE DIDN'T.

6/18/2008 4:51:05 PM

Just to add to this...

Its that error in logic with Iraq in 07 that scares the crap out of me if he is to make decisions in 09 about the same country.

If nothing else, I hope he learns a great deal between now and November.

6/18/2008 4:51:22 PM

I assumed this would be the case. Obama and HIllary would pitch a pull out to the anti war left to gain their support during the primaries, and afterwards, when they really see the gravity of a pull out, would reverse their opinion because they know they can't leave now. We're far too close to having a victory over there to fold and leave leaving certain chaos to the Iraqi people.

6/18/2008 4:52:40 PM

He will continue to use this tactic regardless of what people think or say.

6/18/2008 5:00:43 PM

McCain appears right, for now. What's saying violence won't return at some point? Look at Afghanistan.

6/18/2008 10:43:45 PM

Quote :

"He can no longer argue for superior judgment."

Like heck he can't. Opposition in 2003 v. "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."

One is sound judgment, the other is judgment seemingly worse than Bush's.


a. I think you're patting yourself on the back a little early. We still have no real plan to ensure the survival of democracy in Iraq. Until this is remedied there's no reason to believe than in 20 years, McCain's 10 year plan will look much different than Obama's timetable.

The only certain difference is what it will cost us.


b. You haven't explained why McCain's judgment was better. The fact that our military miraculously managed to prop Iraq up with a bayonet is not vindication of McCain's strategy.

That's like arguing Evil Knievel had sound judgment because he was never killed.

Hemorrhaging money over there so as to postpone a collapse that we don't have a solution for is not my idea of "mission accomplished."

6/18/2008 11:53:43 PM

Could someone please define "victory in Iraq" for me

I really can't tell what our objective is so how do we know when we've met it

6/19/2008 12:20:09 AM

i think that focus on the family guy doesnt like him cause he called his wife a cunt

[Edited on June 19, 2008 at 12:51 AM. Reason : ^if we keep on having months like may?]

6/19/2008 12:51:10 AM

Quote :

"Claiming he was RIGHT is just asinine. How the hell did he know that all the claims that were made during the build-up were fictitious... HE DIDN'T. "

A fairly large amount of people knew the claims were false, here and elsewhere in the world. But, the bush admin was still using 9/11 as the excuse, and voters were still riding the 9/11 wave at the time, so it would look extremely bad for a politician to buck this trend.

6/19/2008 12:54:50 AM

^ Precisely. This political tactic for Obama will only become more effective over time. You will see.

6/19/2008 9:33:14 AM

i really don't understand anyone can claim to know what would have happened if we made a different decision regarding the war. and to criticize obama for having two people on staff who have different opinions is ridiculous. there are disagreements in any administration about plenty of policies. it would be scary to imagine if there weren't. and yes, the surge has reduced violence levels in many places in iraq. but who's to say those gains will last in any substantial way? and what is success in iraq?

i heard someone say a while back that as long as we're not taking heavy casualties in iraq, we will stay there in a major way, just because no one wants to make the decision to pull out troops if it might result in chaos there. sadly, i think this may be true.

6/19/2008 9:41:43 AM

well ill say we need to pull our troops out, I dont think the time is now though. Id like to see the iraqi people vote to whether we stay for a period of time.

Id also like us to pull our troops out of most of the countries we are stationed in. We cant afford the commitments we have now for the long term.

And we sure as hell dont need MORE spending like Obama proposes. He is MORE wrong on that issue.

6/19/2008 9:58:53 AM

Quote :

"i heard someone say a while back that as long as we're not taking heavy casualties in iraq, we will stay there in a major way, just because no one wants to make the decision to pull out troops if it might result in chaos there. sadly, i think this may be true."

You are not considering the Iraqi security forces.

There are hundreds of thousands of them.

That is the key to get out.

6/19/2008 11:25:40 AM

So did they become a reliable fighting force after I went to sleep last night?

6/19/2008 11:36:38 AM

according to my neighbor who is a marine, the iraq forces are really stepping up. He said they used to have almost a one on one ratio in training and patrolling when they started. Now they have about a 100 to 1. He also said that we have started pulling out of iraq and afganistan, just not making it public. ftw, its just what he told me.

6/19/2008 11:44:16 AM

Then according to your friend, Obama's plan was unarguably correct.

6/19/2008 11:52:12 AM

how so?

I think the surge has really been a success and allowed them more time for the training. But we have been backing out, just not publicly. according to him. I used to see him once a quarter. Now he is only goes for a couple weeks a quarter.

6/19/2008 12:15:46 PM

Quote :

"Then according to your friend, Obama's plan was unarguably correct."

I think we would notice pulling out as fast as logistically possible.

Thats 2 brigades a month.

Hell, if Iraq is improving that much, where we can pull out that fast then thank god. But Obama has been saying this for over 2 years. All he has to do is keep saying it until conditions improve enough and then he is a god or some shit.

6/19/2008 4:09:59 PM