Sen. McCain - do you have a plan for victory in Iraq?

[srellim234]

I'm all for not having a presence there, but I'm open-minded enough to recognize that situations develop and change and a long term presence is a distinct possibility. I'm seeing a lot of "either-or" closed minds minds here.

Right now we should be on our way out. The time frame being discussed is around 2010. That's two years from now. The world could be a totally different place by then and we must be open to the possibility. In January 2000 we didn't foresee what happened in September of 2001. We can argue about whether the government should have, but as a general public we didn't. It changed our world and we must be flexible to respond.

No one has answered my other point. Are you telling me that Obama is not flexible and open to change enough to recognize that a long term presence is a possibility if something happens over the next two years and the Iraqi people change their minds?

[rn79870]

To answer your question, yes, Obama is a realist, differing from the current adminstration (including McCain) in the long term peace plan, in that he wants the Iraq leadership to have a say in the process. I haven't asked Obama, but I'd say his position allows for exceptions, like a full scale invasion of Iraq by Iran, etc.

[mtcookson]

Afterwards Obama says that its 16 months no matter what Gen P says.

Great, we have found a leader. A President willing to put it on the line and get us out of the mess the Iraqi people, Iraqi Parliament and Iraqi President want us out of, not to mention the majority of the American people.

Whoa... wait a minute. When Obama goes against Petraeus its ok but when McCain does its not? (you don't have to answer that, I already know that kind of stuff happens on a daily basis)

Issue #2. Peace in the middle east. Tell me how McCain has the skills necessary to address that problem. He doesn't. He lacks a moderate approach to the issues involved. At least Obama is open to sitting down and listening to the parties. That's a good start in my opinion.

Apparently not.

Perhaps a President more willing to trust and rely upon the recommendations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as the Generals in the field will be more of a blessing than a President led by someone like Rumsfeld.

But Obama apparently doesn't even want to listen to anyone... just himself.

[AZhitman]

He doesn't SHUT UP long enough to listen to anyone, he thinks he's the President.

Now he's babbling on about the Shia / Sunni conflict, and basing "success" on reducing their factional differences.

History books must be scarce where he's from.

[AZhitman]

Ah, Thank you Mother Jones for offering something that puts this whole matter in perspective...

I trust The Onion more than Mother Jones. Cute graph, but about as accurate and useful as the source.

[rn79870]

I trust The Onion more than Mother Jones. Cute graph, but about as accurate and useful as the source.

I don't want to trust Mother Jones because I don't want to see the truth from the other sides views...besides, I haven't heard what Rush has to say about it yet...

Isn't that what you really mean there big guy?

[smockers83]

And anyone arguing WWII strategy with respect to Iraq strategy probably never had a history class nor comprehends the difference between the two issues. It would be like the US attacking Mexico because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. That logic = fail.

Bob, you fail to read what I write and comprehend it on several occasions, this being one of them. Take a comprehensive reading class or something, please. Nowhere in my post in which I used a WWII analogy did I discuss WWII strategies. The analogy that I used was specifically to the timetable plan today--WWII was said to be able to be completed by 1944. If we just decided to pull out in 1944, Nazi Germany and the Axis would be running around the globe. Do you realize what the US would have looked like in the eyes of Europeans if we said Xmas of 1944 and thats it? Now apply that today. I am actually well studied on 20th century American wars, thank you--WWII I've studied on several occasions, written papers on it, and watch anything about it on the History/Discovery channel, my two favorite channels. I also have a collection of WWII movies directed by Steven Speillberg, the only director in Hollywood wanting to make historically accurate WWII movies as he has a fascination with it as I do. I have also formally studied our situation in Iraq, Vietnam, the Cold War, a little of Korea. Do not think for one bit that I don't know what I'm talking about--I may have not been in the military, but modern American warfare is a fascination of mine. Do not insult my intelligence with a closed mind like yours that doesn't comprehend what it reads.

The reason I've been using WWII analogies as of late is because in modern history and in US international affairs and conflicts, it is truly the only major success we have experienced. We can use Vietnam to make analogies of why and how we're in Iraq, but look at the poor state of Vietnam today. Now, I know that conditions for us to stay were not like that of WWII. We learn from our experiences so we must apply what we've learned to today.

[rn79870]

Bob, you fail to read what I write and comprehend it on several occasions, this being one of them. Take a comprehensive reading class or something, please. Nowhere in my post in which I used a WWII analogy did I discuss WWII strategies. The analogy that I used was specifically to the timetable plan today--WWII was said to be able to be completed by 1944.

I called your WWII a faulty analogy because you failed to address the multifaceted differences that exist. Our national security was at stake - and the enemy had the ability, and the desire to destroy our country. See any difference?

If we just decided to pull out in 1944, Nazi Germany and the Axis would be running around the globe. Do you realize what the US would have looked like in the eyes of Europeans if we said Xmas of 1944 and thats it? Now apply that today. I am actually well studied on 20th century American wars, thank you--WWII I've studied on several occasions, written papers on it, and watch anything about it on the History/Discovery channel, my two favorite channels. I also have a collection of WWII movies directed by Steven Speillberg, the only director in Hollywood wanting to make historically accurate WWII movies as he has a fascination with it as I do. I have also formally studied our situation in Iraq, Vietnam, the Cold War, a little of Korea. Do not think for one bit that I don't know what I'm talking about--

No offense, but you're comparing frogs and tigers. Steven Spielberg is a good authority??? Why not quote Curly, Joe and Moe too?You've written papers on WWII, read a few books, and watched the history channel and that's suppose to qualify you as an authority on WWII?No disrespect intended, but I'm not buying it..

I may have not been in the military, but modern American warfare is a fascination of mine. Do not insult my intelligence with a closed mind like yours that doesn't comprehend what it reads.

There is another possibility you haven't addressed. Perhaps you're, uh, wrong ....never mind.

The reason I've been using WWII analogies as of late is because in modern history and in US international affairs and conflicts, it is truly the only major success we have experienced. We can use Vietnam to make analogies of why and how we're in Iraq, but look at the poor state of Vietnam today. Now, I know that conditions for us to stay were not like that of WWII. We learn from our experiences so we must apply what we've learned to today.

I'll say it again. WWII has nothing in common with Iraq. *The nation was behind the effort in WWII, In fact and in practice. Not so Iraq.*Our nation wanted the devastation of our enemies. *Our enemies were clearly identifiable. *We understood what the strategies were and how to achieve them. *We had a winning plan, that is destroy everything the enemy had. *We had a moment and a clearly defined progress. *We had an industrial base fully behind the effort. *We had the support of the free world. *The enemies were in a declared war against us and they had the power and the ability to destroy us. *And finally, the occupied countries wanted us, and the allied troops there.

Now, you see why I call your WWII analogy a failure?

You want to start on Vietnam...

[smockers83]

You're still failing to understand my analogy. Forget all of what you just said as for why my analogy fails, just forget it all because we aren't concerned about any of that with this analogy. The only one that has validity in this sense is the last one and on a stretch, the 3rd to last. But with that point, again there is evidence that they want us to stay in Iraq as well. But forgetting all of that, reread my analogy. I'm not using WWII as a complete analogy to Iraq, just one tiny little bit of it. I understand where you are coming from, but understand where I'm coming from as well.

No, my collection of Speilberg movies does not make me a WWII expert, I was just ranting. I am not an expert either, but I have studied it on several occasions and I would say that I understand it better than at least 2/3 of the people in this country. I'm not trying to tout myself or be arrogant here.

Vietnam on the other hand, and the same for Iraq, there are a couple of reasons there was/is large public outcry against them. I also just want to add that before Pearl Harbor happened, WWII is one of the most, if not the most, controversial and debated topics in American foreign policy. Anywho, Vietnam was a break away from current US foreign policy of containment during the Cold War. Also because Vietnam didn't attack us and we as Americans fight with a chip on our shoulder. The same can be said about Iraq, that it was a break away from current foreign policy. This is how Afghanistan is justified in the American's POV and not Iraq, yet they are essentially the same war, just different theaters. If you want to read up on Iraq and a truly successful way to deal with it with minimal costs to the taxpayer, I suggest reading Containment by Shapiro.

[rn79870]

You're still failing to understand my analogy. Forget all of what you just said as for why my analogy fails, just forget it all because we aren't concerned about any of that with this analogy. The only one that has validity in this sense is the last one and on a stretch, the 3rd to last.

We'll do that, we'll ignore all the points that don't agree with what you are trying to say in favor letting you...never mind..

But with that point, again there is evidence that they want us to stay in Iraq as well.

Who is they? Pres al-Mikali? The Parliament? The majority that want the Us out? Who is the "they" want us there? And what is your source of information.

But forgetting all of that, reread my analogy. I'm not using WWII as a complete analogy to Iraq, just one tiny little bit of it.

Come on Smocky, admit it was a bad analogy and save the backpedaling.

I understand where you are coming from, but understand where I'm coming from as well.

You're trying to say that we didn't quit in world war 2 because we wouldn't have won? I got that much. Never mind that the 2 situations you're comparing are about as similar as a Indy car and a skateboard.

No, my collection of Speilberg movies does not make me a WWII expert, I was just ranting. I am not an expert either, but I have studied it on several occasions and I would say that I understand it better than at least 2/3 of the people in this country. I'm not trying to tout myself or be arrogant here.

Okay, We'll accept that at face value.

[smockers83]

We'll do that, we'll ignore all the points that don't agree with what you are trying to say in favor letting you...never mind..

Who is they? Pres al-Mikali? The Parliament? The majority that want the Us out? Who is the "they" want us there? And what is your source of information.

Come on Smocky, admit it was a bad analogy and save the backpedaling.

You're trying to say that we didn't quit in world war 2 because we wouldn't have won? I got that much. Never mind that the 2 situations you're comparing are about as similar as a Indy car and a skateboard.

Okay, We'll accept that at face value.

To your points of my failure, which one of those has to deal with the goal of a time table? That's the only point I'm trying to make here, apparently it isn't a good one, I thought it was.

My source of "they" is right on this page and on another page in this forum as well. From the poll of Iraqi people across all of Iraq:

Q22 How long do you think US and other Coalition forces should remain in Iraq? Should they leave now, remain until security is restored, remain until the Iraqi government is stronger, remain until Iraqi security forces can operate independently, remain longer but leave eventually, or never leave?Leave now 38Remain until security is restored 35Remain until the Iraqi government is stronger 14Remain until the Iraqi security forces can operate independently 10Remain longer but leave eventually 3Never leave 1

There its. 62% of the Iraqi people want us to stay conditionally. That one percent that say never leave must be in some sort of relationship with a soldier, haha. Notice that answers 2, 3, and 4 are saying essentially the same thing as answer 5, just worded differently.

Here's another one:

Q34 For each item I name, please tell me if you think the United States should or should not have a future role in that area:Providing training and weapons to the Iraqi armyShould 76Should not 23Refused/don’t know 1Providing financial aid for reconstruction within IraqShould 73Should not 26Assisting in the security of Iraq in terms of IranShould 68Should not 31Assisting in the security of Iraq in terms of TurkeyShould 66Should not 34Participating in security operations against al Qaeda or foreign jihadis in IraqShould 80Should not 19Refused/don’t know 1

Super majority in every single answer in that one.

My source for al Maliki are news reports that others have posted as well.

As for the two situations being different, yes, they are. But the point I was trying to prove wasn't because I'm not basing my point on situational happenings. You can race an Indy car and a skateboard, you can do 180s, 360s, 540s, and 720s with them too. The situations are both wars.

[skylndrftr]

just to be fair i'll bet the same super majority of people wouldn't know we had troops in Turkey to begin with.

The Turkey question shows a lot. those 66% probably think Turkey is hurting the iraq situation as opposed to helping it.

[smockers83]

For them its more of the issue that Turkey has crossed their border or have attacked from across the border to attack the Kurds.

[AZhitman]

just to be fair i'll bet the same super majority of people wouldn't know we had troops in Turkey to begin with.

I do. My buddy runs an EOD team there (USAF). They're doing a lot of GOOD things, which the media NEVER reports on. More on that later....

[heliochrome85]

the turkish government is very much anti kurdish. that cant help Iraqi kurdish relations, since both have sizable populations, and the iraqi kurds control the fertile farmland and oilfields in the north.

[ishkabibble]

Where was the media circus when he went to the Middle East?

There was a huge media circus when he went to "stroll" the market.

What's the media going to report these days? "McCain visits Iraq again?" Not going to get ratings that way.

[AZhitman]

What's the media going to report these days? "McCain visits Iraq again?" Not going to get ratings that way.

Very true, so true.

I'll tell you guys, I'm concerned. I have a son who will likely follow in his grandfather's footsteps in just 11 short months and join the US military.

In what capacity, I don't know. I believe he'll make a good soldier. I hope and pray his mother and I have given him the tools and the character he'll need to represent this country well.

And at this point, knowing 11 months can pass all too fast, I can't fathom having him serve under a Commander-in-Chief whose position I simply can't pinpoint for any length of time.

I was sent this today by someone whose email address I didn't recognize. I read it, and something told me that it came to me for a reason. I know we'e been discussing the differences between the candidates' "plans", and it's been a hot topic (likely an election-maker)...

Anyhow, it struck me as reasonable and a position I could certainly live with, knowing my own son could be deployed in the not-too-distant future:

“I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there. Our goal is an Iraq that can stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighborhood. Our goal is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops. And I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine. But I do not believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for President that they cannot keep if elected. To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility. It is a failure of leadership. “

“I know the pain war causes. I understand the frustration caused by our mistakes in this war. And I regret sincerely the additional sacrifices imposed on the brave Americans who defend us. But I also know the toll a lost war takes on an army and on our country's security. By giving General Petraeus and the men and women he has the honor to command the time and support necessary to succeed in Iraq we have before us a hard road. But it is the right road. It is necessary and just. Those who disregard the unmistakable progress we have made in the last year and the terrible consequences that would ensue were we to abandon our responsibilities in Iraq have chosen another road. It may appear to be the easier course of action, but it is a much more reckless one, and it does them no credit even if it gives them an advantage in the next election.”

[heliochrome85]

congrats on your son. i guess your positions on the war make a bit more sense with that bit of information. that being said, i think voting for mccain will likely come down to who he picks for this veep. his chance of illness in office is prolly higher than that of obama. you never know if the person you voted for, will be the one making the decision to send your son/mom/dad/sis in to war.

[AZhitman]

congrats on your son. i guess your positions on the war make a bit more sense with that bit of information.

Please don't misinterpret me, tho... I don't like this conflict. I don't think it was the right move in hindsight. I don't like wars, period.

I'd be perfectly fine bringing our crew home and letting other countries do their own thing, EXCEPT for the fact that we have strategic interests overseas AND we owe it to the weak among us as a human race to defend them.

So, to be clear, I don't take all this lightly. Hindsight being 20/20, this position we're in SUCKS. But whining gets us nowhere - We're there, and we can't leave it worse than it was. Period.

Thanks for the kind words Tariq - I'm glad you're back.

[skylndrftr]

I'll tell you guys, I'm concerned. I have a son who will likely follow in his grandfather's footsteps in just 11 short months and join the US military.

Bravo on you and him Greg

In what capacity, I don't know. I believe he'll make a good soldier. I hope and pray his mother and I have given him the tools and the character he'll need to represent this country well.

I don't doubt it.

Jut thought this deserved a post by itself

[AZhitman]

Thanks, brother.

Hold your praise, you're gonna hate me after my post in the "Sex" thread.