The facts are the surge has turned the tide, at least. It's bought time for the Iraqi troops to become far better trained, so we're not carrying the whole load anymore. I am starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel, when the Iraqi troops can hold their own without us, and then we can come home. In this sense, I have to favor McCain in the whole argument. But McCain already sounds like a sore loser and a broken record (to mix metaphors). He's pounding Obama for being wrong about the surge. Righto, McCain, he was indeed quite wrong and we all have to question his judgment. But Mr. McCain and Obama seem to be in agreement about escalating things in Afghanistan, which I see has a horrible mistake. Not only that, McCain talks a lot about going after the poppy crops in Afghanistan, something I cannot agree with at this time. My view is Afghanistan is a NATO problem, not a US one. Unlike Iraq, there is a great coalition of NATO forces there and they're supposed to do the job. I see it as a Kosovo situation - NATO is there to rebuild and keep the peace. NATO isn't much without us, but to talk like McCain does about us needing a strategy there like we have in Iraq is foolish. Afghanistan does need to be secured. We may be better of spending $50B bribing the natives and the govt. in Pakistan to work at securing the borders and close down the Al Qaeda camps. Afghanistan isn't Iraq in the sense they have a 25M population and vast oil reserves to build their own economy around. Afghanistan basically only has the poppy crops, which we used to burn to the ground until we realized it devastated the locals' pocketbooks. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of thing; the better approach is to stabilize the country and spend a lot of reconstruction (not war!) dollars building them infrastructure and an economy that can survive and thrive without the poppy crops. THEN you go after the poppies. Obama's not much better. He's got some bloodlust about escalating the war in Afghanistan, too. The worst case scenario is we end up with a USSR/Afghan kind of quagmire there and end up with a 3rd Iraq war if we remove our troops there before the job is done. There are two truisms in McCain's sore loser rant. Obama would lose the war to win the election. Clearly. And the best thing for the country and the world is to come home from Iraq as victors; I fail to see how any other outcome can be acceptable, regardless of whether the war was a good idea or not. The press won't talk about it much, but Obama's op-ed in the NYT makes him look far worse than Bush (if you think Bush is misguided and stubborn). He's basically made up his mind to ignore what's best, to ignore the situation on the ground, to ignore the advice of our military leaders... He wrote his op-ed before he went on his photo op trip with his press corps (otherwise known as the main stream press and media). Maybe he should have written it after he got back, so it at least gave the appearance he is open to the facts and had seen the evidence before coming to his conclusion.
I think its silly that politicians get judged based on their analysis of the actions and going-ons in someone else's administration. Granted a sports writer would get heat for criticizing a player that later becomes a star, but in politics there is no real prediction of things. I don't know if escalating things in Afghanistan would be such a problem. I don't think it's "bloodlust" I think it's demanding results. I don't see how we can "lose" the war either. I certainly think its irrelevant to say that Obama would lose the war to win the election.
How is it irrelevant? It basically means the guy is a scheming, conniving, power hungry politician who puts his own gain over that of The People. If you don't like war, how can you dislike the one in Iraq but lust for one in Afghanistan?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>In this sense, I have to favor McCain in the whole argument. But McCain already sounds like a sore loser and a broken record (to mix metaphors).</div> If the public hears Obama say that we should be putting troops in Afghanistan and take them out of Iraq, they will favor him over McCain, because that's where they think Bin Laden is. McCain has to take that position regardless of what he believes. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>My view is Afghanistan is a NATO problem, not a US one. Unlike Iraq, there is a great coalition of NATO forces there and they're supposed to do the job. I see it as a Kosovo situation - NATO is there to rebuild and keep the peace. NATO isn't much without us, but to talk like McCain does about us needing a strategy there like we have in Iraq is foolish.</div> Bingo.
The true mark of leadership isn't telling people what they want to hear, it's telling them what actually needs to be done and convincing them to follow. GW Bush succeeded at the first part, but failed (over the long haul) at the second.
McCain on Afghanistan. Off wikipedia but it's all sourced: [Afghanistan McCain was an advocate for strong military measures against those responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks and supported the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan.[46] In a late October 2001 Wall Street Journal op-ed piece he wrote, "America is under attack by a depraved, malevolent force that opposes our every interest and hates every value we hold dear." He advocated an overwhelming, not incremental, approach against the Taliban in Afghanistan, including the use of ground forces, saying, "War is a miserable business. Let's get on with it."[47] In October 2005, McCain said “Afghanistan, we don’t read about anymore, because it’s succeeded. And by the way, there’s several reasons, including NATO participation and other reasons, why Afghanistan is doing as well as it is.”[48] In December 2006, asked if the U.S. would send more troops to Afghanistan, McCain said, "The British have said that they will be sending additional troops, taking troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan. If it's necessary, we will, and I'm sure we would be agreeable, but the focus here is more on training the Afghan National Army and the police, as opposed to the increased U.S. troop presence."[49] In July 2008, McCain said that reducing U.S. forces in Iraq would free up troops for Afghanistan, where "at least" three additional brigades, or about 15,000 troops, must be sent. A campaign aide said later that McCain's proposal included a combination of both U.S. and NATO forces.[50]
I'm not convinced. I'm not a military expert, either, but it sure seems that we haven't gotten Bin Laden for good reason. The country there is rugged and mostly undeveloped. The parts where Bin Laden is believed to be are extremely remote, the natives there are friendly toward him and provide support, and Bin Laden can cross between Afghanistan and hide deep in Pakistan. We rely too heavily on electronic surveillance, when we probably need someone able to infiltrate the area and pose as a native.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 23 2008, 07:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How is it irrelevant? It basically means the guy is a scheming, conniving, power hungry politician who puts his own gain over that of The People.</div> Isn't that the definition of a politician? Seriously though, the reason that statement is irrelevant is because its completely 100% hypothetical. Unless Obama comes out and says that he would lose the war to win the election then it is just unsubstantiated speculative theory. A theory which is coming from Obama's opponent no less.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jurassic @ Jul 23 2008, 11:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 23 2008, 07:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How is it irrelevant? It basically means the guy is a scheming, conniving, power hungry politician who puts his own gain over that of The People.</div> Isn't that the definition of a politician? Seriously though, the reason that statement is irrelevant is because its completely 100% hypothetical. Unless Obama comes out and says that he would lose the war to win the election then it is just unsubstantiated speculative theory. A theory which is coming from Obama's opponent no less. </div> Actions speak louder than words.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jurassic @ Jul 23 2008, 09:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 23 2008, 07:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How is it irrelevant? It basically means the guy is a scheming, conniving, power hungry politician who puts his own gain over that of The People.</div> Isn't that the definition of a politician? Seriously though, the reason that statement is irrelevant is because its completely 100% hypothetical. Unless Obama comes out and says that he would lose the war to win the election then it is just unsubstantiated speculative theory. A theory which is coming from Obama's opponent no less. </div> Obama's opponent supported the surge and predicted its success. Maybe we should listen to his prediction if we withdraw our troops based upon a timetable vs. based upon success/situation on the ground. Whether we elect McCain or not. From what I see, it looks like the situation on the ground may be "victory" in 24 months vs. an arbitrary 16 months' timetable.
I think it is weird seeing McCain trying to explain that the Surge happened before the Sunni Awakening. Didn't make any sense.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 24 2008, 08:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think it is weird seeing McCain trying to explain that the Surge happened before the Sunni Awakening. Didn't make any sense.</div> I think he misspoke, and he's making it worse by not clarifying his statement. I do think that without the surge, the Sunni Awakening would have been an utter failure, something you can't discount. It had been going on for a year before the surge, yet the levels of violence were so bad that guys like Obama and Harry Reid were writing off the war as lost.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 24 2008, 10:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 24 2008, 08:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think it is weird seeing McCain trying to explain that the Surge happened before the Sunni Awakening. Didn't make any sense.</div> I think he misspoke, and he's making it worse by not clarifying his statement. I do think that without the surge, the Sunni Awakening would have been an utter failure, something you can't discount. It had been going on for a year before the surge, yet the levels of violence were so bad that guys like Obama and Harry Reid were writing off the war as lost. </div> He's definitely making it worse, it's arguably the worst gaffe I've seen him make. He was making the term "Surge" so amorphous, they had to cancel his press conference the next day since it was such a bad statement.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 23 2008, 07:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The true mark of leadership isn't telling people what they want to hear, it's telling them what actually needs to be done and convincing them to follow. GW Bush succeeded at the first part, but failed (over the long haul) at the second.</div> Kinda like Politics is about compromise & building consensus? Not, one allegedly decisive jackass w/ the brainpower of flea trying to 1 up daddy?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thoth @ Jul 24 2008, 01:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 23 2008, 07:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The true mark of leadership isn't telling people what they want to hear, it's telling them what actually needs to be done and convincing them to follow. GW Bush succeeded at the first part, but failed (over the long haul) at the second.</div> Kinda like Politics is about compromise & building consensus? Not, one allegedly decisive jackass w/ the brainpower of flea trying to 1 up daddy? </div> Compromise isn't always right. Slavery was compromised on, time and time again. For every political issue out there, there is a "correct" answer to the problem. Sometimes, its by compromise. Other times, its not. What's the purpose of compromising if the end result is wrong, anyway? Action for action's sake leads to more problems.
