Candidates' positions on Iraq differ less than you'd think

[AZhitman]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped...#more

It would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall in Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's office a few days ago when the call came from the U.S. Embassy, demanding that he "clarify" his endorsement of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's plan to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq in 16 months.

Not only did that boost the credibility of the Democrat's plan, it contradicted President Bush's position that there should be no timetable for a U.S. pullout. A few hours later, U.S. officials transmitted al-Maliki's statement that his remarks to the German magazine Der Spiegel had been "misunderstood (and) mistranslated."

Problem fixed? Apparently not. On Monday, as Obama visited Baghdad, al-Maliki's spokesman defiantly repeated the timetable idea, in English this time, saying the Iraqis would prefer to have U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of 2010.

This tense back-and-forth was a vivid reminder that as conditions improve in Iraq, the U.S. is losing its ability to dictate terms to the sovereign government it has worked so hard to put in place. Less noticed is that the rapidly shifting events are beginning to make the presidential candidates' debate over Iraq seem oddly out of sync with reality.

Obama and Republican John McCain are maximizing their differences when they talk to voters, but in practical terms there's less and less daylight between them.

Rhetorically, Obama backs a fixed timetable for withdrawing American troops while McCain wants to stay as long as "victory" takes and beyond. But if the Iraqis want the U.S. out and they prove capable of taking over, both ideas lead to the same end on about the same schedule.

It's difficult, for example, to imagine a President McCain insisting on keeping U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely if Iraq's government demands that they leave. Al-Maliki is acknowledging the reality that most Iraqis and most Iraqi politicians want U.S. forces out, at least as soon as they are confident that their own government can protect them.

At the same time, it's equally difficult to imagine a President Obama insisting on an inflexible withdrawal timetable if that means squandering security gains won with great American sacrifice. Though Obama has repeatedly insisted on a timetable, he has pointedly not said that every U.S. troop will be gone when the timetable ends. In fact, he has promised to leave a "residual force" of undefined size in Iraq, and carefully left himself an escape hatch in case the situation worsens. "You've got to make sure the country doesn't collapse," he says.

Thanks largely to the troop surge that Obama opposed, violence has lessened to the point that a timetable seems less and less unthinkable to its fiercest opponents, provided that it's linked to success on the ground. President Bush has signed on to a "time horizon" for withdrawing U.S. troops, and McCain said Monday that U.S. troops "could be largely withdrawn" within two years because the war is being won. That's remarkably close to what Obama wants.

So while the candidates demonize and distort each other's positions, reality is drawing them closer and closer. Both also support sending additional troops to Afghanistan.

The wild card is whether U.S. forces can hand off the fighting to their Iraqi counterparts, and here the news is promising. Lt. Gen. James Dubik, who until recently was in charge of the Army's effort to build Iraqi forces, told Congress earlier this month that Iraqi units would be able to take over front-line fighting as soon as April, allowing U.S. ground troops to shift to a support role.

The presidential debate over Iraq needs a reality check. Voters would do well to understand that the familiar differences echoing from the campaign trail are less significant than the new reality emerging in Iraq.

[rn79870]

It's difficult, for example, to imagine a President McCain insisting on keeping U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely if Iraq's government demands that they leave. Al-Maliki is acknowledging the reality that most Iraqis and most Iraqi politicians want U.S. forces out, at least as soon as they are confident that their own government can protect them.

Wow, finally, someone sees what I've been saying. Iraq wants us out. Thanks Greg. One candidate believes in listening to the Iraqi people, while McCain doesn't. And they want us out now. Not later, but asap.

This alone is but one major difference between the two candidates. One has a mindset that being there another 1000 years is a possibility, the other that withdrawal starts in January and is completed in 16 months. Not all that similar.

If this "Iraq Plan" thing is so simple, why can't McCain put his thoughts on paper the way the NYT has asked him to do - you know, the way Obama did?

[AZhitman]

Wow, finally, someone sees what I've been saying. Iraq wants us out. Thanks Greg. One candidate believes in listening to the Iraqi people, while McCain doesn't. And they want us out now. Not later, but asap.

This alone is but one major difference between the two candidates. One has a mindset that being there another 1000 years is a possibility, the other that withdrawal starts in January and is completed in 16 months. Not all that similar.

If this "Iraq Plan" thing is so simple, why can't McCain put his thoughts on paper the way the NYT has asked him to do - you know, the way Obama did?

Cripes, Bob. You must read different newspapers than I do.

BO's position has changed a ton of times. He SAID "no rigid timelines". Are you ignoring that?

There's NO DIFFERENCE IN THE END RESULT. That's what the article is ALL about.

[rn79870]

No rigid timeline? Bossman, your newspapers are spinning you the wrong way.

Here is what Obama said...

Barack Obama believes we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

Again, that's about a rigid as any timeline can be.

[srellim234]

I don't support either candidate, but I am so tired of hearing this "100 years, 1000 years" garbage rolled out by the left every day.

Face it, folks. We've had a military force, capable of combat operations, in Germany for over 50 years. The situation is radically different there than it was 52 years ago. The situation and the force have evolved but they're still there.

If the situation happened to evolve along those lines, McCain is prepared to have a force in Iraq. There are other scenarios that could lead to extensions of our presence there. As long as needed and wanted. Are you telling me that Obama wouldn't even consider the option? Is he that inflexible that HE's not willing to change based on the situation as it evolves? If I planned on voting for him, that inflexibility would lose my vote for sure.

[rn79870]

We have 10 nuclear carriers that could be on station in a matter of days. We have transcontinental bombers. We have cruise missiles. We have technology. We could transport men and supplies in no time. We really don't need to be spread thin wating for things to happen there.

If you don't like the 100 to 1000 year scenarios, I'd suggest you express your dislike to McCain, he's the one who said it.

[smockers83]

Can I just say the 100 and 1000 year comments as policy statements are getting old, kinda like when the NYT was constantly being posted and no arguments being made except random stuff not even dealing with what was being talked about.

[AZhitman]

No rigid timeline? Bossman, your newspapers are spinning you the wrong way.

Shall I post the direct quote? He said, with his own mouth, NO RIGID TIMELINE.

You can't "spin" something that comes out of someone's mouth when you quote it DIRECTLY.

He's the dizzy one here, trying to appease everyone and not comprehending the fact that sometimes it's better to STFU and look uninformed, rather than spew inaccuracies and confirm our notions.

[AZhitman]

...would not choose "a rigid timeline of such and such a date, come hell or high water." At the same time, he said, he also would not simply defer to military commanders.

I'm not making this up.

[96Qowner]

Bob, you run a great forum and I'm glad Greg agreed to let it exist, but man, I would REALLY appreciate it if you stopped acting like a total boob about this 100 year thing. It just makes you look stupid, seriously. Please knock it off.

I am absolutely certain you're bright enough to understand the exchange McCain had with the reporter. I hope you don't try to prove me wrong by insisting that you just don't get it.

It's ... dumb.

[rn79870]

So, in a thread entitled "Candidates' positions on Iraq differ less than you'd think" you're saying we need to ignore statements that are "old." I can't think of a more appropriate place to discuss differences in plans than here.

Seriously, what kind of discussion can you have about two differing plans without pointing out statements made by either of the candidates?

[AZhitman]

What's the difference in their "plans"?

Hopefully you can nail BO down on one. So far, I can't - and I'm a pretty smart dude.

[rn79870]

Bob, you run a great forum and I'm glad Greg agreed to let it exist, but man, I would REALLY appreciate it if you stopped acting like a total boob about this 100 year thing. It just makes you look stupid, seriously. Please knock it off.

I am absolutely certain you're bright enough to understand the exchange McCain had with the reporter. I hope you don't try to prove me wrong by insisting that you just don't get it.

It's ... dumb.

There is another answer. Perhaps when McCain clarifies his war position per the Times request (which he refuses to do) he can address what he really meant by those comments many don't want to hear. In the mean time let's just pretend that he didn't mean, or that he didn't say them okay? Nice try, but you'll have to dig a pretty deep hole to bury McCain's faux paux with that one.

I suppose offering you the opportunity to explain what he meant isn't fair either. So we should just pretend he really didn't say it, right?

Name calling doesn't really divery attention from your weak point now does it?

[smockers83]

Seriously, what kind of discussion can you have about two differing plans without pointing out statements made by either of the candidates?

Because here's the thing about the 100/1000 year quote. It was not in any means a statement of policy. It was to prove a point. If one gets past all of the hogwash of the two candidates, there is essentially no difference between the two. There just isn't and with more people agreeing with this, I guess that's evidence.

[rn79870]

Shall I post the direct quote? He said, with his own mouth, NO RIGID TIMELINE.

You can't "spin" something that comes out of someone's mouth when you quote it DIRECTLY.

He's the dizzy one here, trying to appease everyone and not comprehending the fact that sometimes it's better to STFU and look uninformed, rather than spew inaccuracies and confirm our notions.

Greg, this is his plan. This hasn't changed. This is from his mouth.

Barack Obama believes we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

Perhaps you (or anyone) would be so kind as to post McCain's plan. Then we'll discuss.

[smockers83]

Obama refers to himself in the 3rd person?

[rn79870]

Because here's the thing about the 100/1000 year quote. It was not in any means a statement of policy. It was to prove a point. If one gets past all of the hogwash of the two candidates, there is essentially no difference between the two. There just isn't and with more people agreeing with this, I guess that's evidence.

I can guess what he means too, but I'll guess that he means what he says.

[smockers83]

Perhaps you (or anyone) would be so kind as to post McCain's plan. Then we'll discuss.

Didn't I already do that?

[smockers83]

I can guess what he means too, but I'll guess that he means what he says.

You can't use bits and pieces of a complete conversation because once you start doing that you begin to take things out of context. I can find bits and pieces of any conversation and take any piece of it out of context. That's a major problem of campaigning in our recent history--nothing is taken with context. If you lived here in MI, I would have suggested taking a history class with a specific professor at U of Michigan, one on 20th Century American Wars, and the whole class is about putting context back into things that have been taken out of context over the course of time.

[Encryptshun]

Why are we wasting time talking about exit strategies when we all know that neither candidate's position will remain unchanged once the variable of the political machine is applied come January, 2009?

What we should be talking about is the $56 billion+ financial windfall that Iraq will be seeing this year on oil exports and why we (who are the reason that government is in power in the first place) aren't getting some $$$ or at least preferred oil pricing as recompense.

I mean, what we did is done, right or wrong. What we need to do is to make sure we at least profit a little bit from it.

[AZhitman]

I can guess what he means too, but I'll guess that he means what he says.

Good idea.

We'll apply that to BO's blather as well.

[rn79870]

No you, nor has anyone posted anything concrete. Interestingly enough, McCain is refusing to do that per the Times request to do the same. What is he afraid of? Perhaps you missed the story about the NYT returning McCain's response to Obama's plan and asking for something concrete to be put in the article.

McCain refused to commit to a plan and refused to define what he considered a victory in Iraq.

Maybe you can see why I'm asking someone to post something concrete about McCain and his plan in Iraq, not what you think he said, but what he in fact said. The fact that he refused to comment doesn't bother you?

[AZhitman]

I mean, what we did is done, right or wrong. What we need to do is to make sure we at least profit a little bit from it.

I like you. A lot.

While we're at it, let's go pick a fight with those nincompoops in our attic.

After all they supply us with FAR more oil than the Middle East (our #1 supplier, in fact).

[smockers83]

The problem with that is, is we don't know what McCain wrote in his essay since it hasn't been published. The NYT, a liberal newspaper is going to look for things similar to Obama, such as a timetable for Iraq. That's what they're looking for. McCain doesn't want an explicit timetable and he's smart in doing so, because what happens when your timetabled plan doesn't work?

[AZhitman]

No you, nor has anyone posted anything concrete. Interestingly enough, McCain is refusing to do that per the Times request to do the same. What is he afraid of? Perhaps you missed the story about the NYT returning McCain's response to Obama's plan and asking for something concrete to be put in the article.

McCain refused to commit to a plan and refused to define what he considered a victory in Iraq.

Maybe you can see why I'm asking someone to post something concrete about McCain and his plan in Iraq, not what you think he said, but what he in fact said. The fact that he refused to comment doesn't bother you?

Let's get one thing clear. No one gives a damn about the NYT, it's a spin rag.

So, one guy keeps his mouth shut on a dynamic ever-changing situation, which doesn't lend itself to concrete plans.

Another guy says one thing, shifts, says another, shifts, opposes a surge, sees it working, stubbornly refuses to acknowledge even a minor success, shifts, claims to want a rigid timetable, shifts, retracts, says he won't defer to military commanders, retracts, shifts, says he'll follow their recommendations....

I'll take the guy who sits quietly over the guy who won't shut the f*** up.

[AZhitman]

The problem with that is, is we don't know what McCain wrote in his essay since it hasn't been published. The NYT, a liberal newspaper is going to look for things similar to Obama, such as a timetable for Iraq. That's what they're looking for. McCain doesn't want an explicit timetable and he's smart in doing so, because what happens when your timetabled plan doesn't work?

Bobby won't get that. They're gonna make him look like a Savior no matter how much nonsense he spews.

If he were a car enthusiast, he'd be a magazine racer, a ricer of the worst kind. Regurgitating what he's been fed, acting like he "knows" something we don't.

Bottom line? Their positions differ less than people think.

WHICH was the point of the article.

[smockers83]

God do I love this forum! If I could insert a music clip right now, it would be God Bless America. In other countries, right now some of us would be getting killed for this.

[AZhitman]

Exactly.

And let's not forget the men and women who defend our right to sit here, as relatively uninfored but interested civilians, and armchair-quarterback their commander-in-chief.



Now, let's get back to Senator Oprahma.

[rn79870]

Bobby won't get that. They're gonna make him look like a Savior no matter how much nonsense he spews.

You don't suppose that he is.... never mind. You want GW2nd. in January, you won't see it.

[Encryptshun]

I like you. A lot.

While we're at it, let's go pick a fight with those nincompoops in our attic.

After all they supply us with FAR more oil than the Middle East (our #1 supplier, in fact).

The Canuks give us curling, hockey, and Celine Dion. Fair trade. And our imports are capped. Meanwhile, imports from Iraq [EDIT], Saudi Arabia, [/EDIT]and Kuwait are growing. [EDIT]Two of[/EDIT] those countries owe us a debt of gratitude. And maybe I shouldn't have said "profit" -- I should have instead said "return on investment". That whole country would be considered an indentured servant for a decade to pay back the money we blew on them.

EDIT -- and the Middle East supplies us an average of 880,000 barrels of oil per year, while Canada provides us about 689,000.