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

[rn79870]

It seems McCain wants to avoid stating his concrete plan for victory in Iraq. When McCain's submittal to the Times in response to a clear and concise plan from Obama did not define a plan, they returned it for revision. Maybe one of the McCain supporters here can shed some light on McCain's plan for victory in Iraq.

NEW YORK, July 21 (UPI) -- The New York Times (NYSE:NYT) asked likely Republican U.S. presidential nominee John McCain to rewrite an opinion piece he submitted to the newspaper. The McCain campaign declined to alter the piece, ABC reported.The Arizona senator's op-ed article was a response to one his Democratic counterpart, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, had published in the New York newspaper about the Democrats' proposal to pull U.S. troops from Iraq. But the Times rejected McCain's piece, saying it wanted specifics about how he would approach the Iraq situation, ABC News reported Monday.The rejection was first reported by The Drudge Report, ABC noted. Times op-ed editorial page editor David Shipley wrote in an e-mail Friday night to McCain's staff he would be happy to run a piece by McCain if he addressed his points, according to a copy obtained by ABC News. "It would be terrific to have an article from Sen. McCain that mirrors Sen. Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Sen. McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troop levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate." The New York Times had not yet responded to ABC's requests for comment.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/20...70894/

Anyone care to defend McCain in this?

[smockers83]

It would be a grave mistake to leave before Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated and before a competent, trained, and capable Iraqi security force is in place and operating effectively.

When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home.

Those are two excerpts on his view of Iraq from his website. With those goals, no one person can create more specifics such as a time table for all of this to happen, it just happens as it goes. Never before has a war been fought with a specific deadline to accomplish goals.

[AZhitman]

What difference does it make?

More libby media spin. Publish it as-is. Let the reader decide if it's worth the paper it's printed on.

I don't blame him for saying "Screw you pencil-pushing assclowns." Where was the media circus when he went to the Middle East? Where?

Now BO's heading over there and he's got an entourage of big-name adoring nutsack-swinger journalists like a damn rock star.

OMG BO is gonna tour teh Middle East!!!

I want to see what they edit OUT. I want to see the parts they deem "unfit" for publication or primetime. I want his "handlers" to take him everywhere, not just to parts of the area that support his uninformed ideologies.

Lastly, I want to know WHO his "advisors" are, since THEY will be the TRUE "President" if he's elected. Why are we not privy to who these people are? You all know Karl Rove, right? So.....

[rn79870]

It would be a grave mistake to leave before Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated and before a competent, trained, and capable Iraqi security force is in place and operating effectively.

When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home.

Those are two excerpts on his view of Iraq from his website. With those goals, no one person can create more specifics such as a time table for all of this to happen, it just happens as it goes. Never before has a war been fought with a specific deadline to accomplish goals.

Makes no difference that, as I pointed out yeaterday with 2 years of polls, that the Iraqi people want us out as soon as possible? We're Americans and we know what's best for the rest of the world right? Or should I say, we know what's best for the Iraqi people, after all, they only live there.

[rn79870]

They don't follow McCain because, as I tried to point out here, he has no plan for Iraq other than surge, stay as long as it takes to win - and when asked, he can't even define win.

Where is the spin in asking McCain to define what he considers a win?

[smockers83]

Makes no difference that, as I pointed out yeaterday with 2 years of polls, that the Iraqi people want us out as soon as possible? We're Americans and we know what's best for the rest of the world right? Or should I say, we know what's best for the Iraqi people, after all, they only live there.

Back in March, only 38% wanted us out ASAP so you cannot draw that conclusion. Its not that we know what's best for them, we're not there controlling them. Like I said in another thread, for them right now its like learning to ride a bike, so they need to gain experience of success with just a tad bit more help so they don't crash into the garage again.

[smockers83]

To be honest, McCain and Obama have essentially the same plan, just one with a proposed deadline one without. But as I pointed out earlier, no war in history as been fought with a deadline because you cannot control what happens and what your enemy does.

A win to McCain is stated in my excerpt. Essentially a win in Iraq is accomplishing a set of goals. McCain's goals are oust al-Qaeda so that they cannot reform there, get their military trained, make sure the government is firmly on its feet.

[rn79870]

To be honest, McCain and Obama have essentially the same plan, just one with a proposed deadline one without. But as I pointed out earlier, no war in history as been fought with a deadline because you cannot control what happens and what your enemy does.

That's not so. Obama wants to involve the Iraqi leadership and listen to the Iraqi opinions. Obama wants to begin the withdrawal immediately. Remember, McCain is the one who said our presence would be okay there for 1000 years.

Why is it that what the Iraqi people's wishes are something the republicans don't wish to hear? Seriously, if they (The citizens of Iraq) want us out, why are we still there? When your host tells you it's time to go, it's time to go.

A win to McCain is stated in my excerpt. Essentially a win in Iraq is accomplishing a set of goals. McCain's goals are oust al-Qaeda so that they cannot reform there, get their military trained, make sure the government is firmly on its feet.

That's what this thread is about. Why can't McCain put his "win" plan on paper. The NYT sent his article back to him to have him add that little tidbit to and his staff said to the times "pub it as is". Translated, McCain has no plan or a very poor one, so we don't want to have it published.

[AZhitman]

They don't follow McCain because, as I tried to point out here, he has no plan for Iraq other than surge, stay as long as it takes to win - and when asked, he can't even define win.

Hmmmm... Not a good enough explanation.

"The major broadcast television networks gave heavy coverage to Obama's trip to Afghanistan and plan to do the same on his upcoming visits to Jordan, Israel and western Europe.

The three major network news anchors stayed home during John McCain's recent foreign travels, prompting Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., to complain that Obama's travels were "nothing but a political stunt."

[AZhitman]

That's not so. Obama wants to involve the Iraqi leadership and listen to the Iraqi opinions. Obama wants to begin the withdrawal immediately. Remember, McCain is the one who said our presence would be okay there for 1000 years.

And you're taking that literally?

When BO says something hypothetical, it gets a free pass. Mac says something like he said (which needs to be placed in context) and it's grasped at like a lifeline by the libs.

See my recent thread on the candidates' Iraq plans... Smocky's got this one right.

[rn79870]

Back in March, only 38% wanted us out ASAP so you cannot draw that conclusion. Its not that we know what's best for them, we're not there controlling them. Like I said in another thread, for them right now its like learning to ride a bike, so they need to gain experience of success with just a tad bit more help so they don't crash into the garage again.

I'll repost this again for you Smocky as you apparently missed it in the other thread...

From a year and a half ago…

– A large majority of Iraqis–71%–say they would like the Iraqi government to ask for US-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less. Given four options, 37 percent take the position that they would like US-led forces withdrawn “within six months,” while another 34 percent opt for “gradually withdraw[ing] US-led forces according to a one-year timeline.”

– Support for attacks against US-led forces has increased sharply to 61 percent (27% strongly, 34% somewhat). This represents a 14-point increase from January 2006, when only 47 percent of Iraqis supported attacks.

– More broadly, 79 percent of Iraqis say that the US is having a negative influence on the situation in Iraq, with just 14 percent saying that it is having a positive influence.

Asked what effect it would have “if US-led forces withdraw from Iraq in the next six months,” 58 percent overall say that violence would decrease (35% a lot, 23% a little).

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/27/iraqis-poll/

From a year ago…

On Tuesday, without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, according to Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, the nationalist Shia group that sponsored the petition.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51624/From a few weeks ago…

AMMAN -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has made a substantial policy shift by insisting on a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, defying his close ally, U.S. President George W. Bush, and submitting to domestic pressure for an end in sight to foreign occupation.

Pressure was stepped up in Iraq, as Friday sermons in Shiite and Sunni mosques across the country called for the U.S. and other foreign forces to leave their country, almost five-and-a-half years after the American military led an invasion of Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein's regime.

The Maliki government in Baghdad made it clear this week that any security deal with the United States defining the role of the U.S. troops should entail a time frame for the withdrawal of these forces, a demand that the Bush administration has repeatedly refused.

http://www.metimes.com/Interna.../5785/

I don't know how to state it any clearer. Iraq wants us out as soon as we can get out. What is so wrong with giving them wnat they want? If someone moved into my house and refused to leave, I'd call the police and have them removed. Why is it that we can stay in Iraq against their will? Becasue we're bigger and have bombers and tanks?

[AZhitman]

Obama said he 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.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said neither President Bush nor the Iraqis want strict timetables. "We are not setting an arbitrary date for withdrawal that is a date that is plucked out of thin air," she said. "We are going to do this based on conditions."

So, how is that "different"?

I don't put one iota of faith in any of those "polls" of the Iraqi people. Sorry. When their news consumption is reliable and broad (which it isn't), then I'll believe they're well-informed.

So now BO says he's not tied to a rigid deadline. This means you can't hitch your wagon to him wanting a pullout "now".

Looks like BO pulled the rug right out from under ya, Bobby.

[rn79870]

And you're taking that literally?

When BO says something hypothetical, it gets a free pass. Mac says something like he said (which needs to be placed in context) and it's grasped at like a lifeline by the libs.

See my recent thread on the candidates' Iraq plans... Smocky's got this one right.

It's his fly in the face of logic mindset Greg. He isn't interested in anything but exercising the military training that runs deeply in his soul. He knows no other way to respond. Logic and negotiation are not options to him.

I'm particulary interested in why no one has offered any response to the fact that the Iraqi people want us out. (other than the "no they don't" response) I've posted the results of polls taken over the last 2 years which clearly show the Iraq leadership, not to mention the Iraqi people, want us out as soon as possible. That wish isn't consistent with McCain's "hypothetical" we'll could be there another 1000 years. How to win friends in the middle east - tell them our troops might be there another 1000 years.

This is also ironic given that the Us has at least 10 nuclear aircraft carriers that can reach any ocean in days. Bombers that can fly thousands of miles between refueling, and transportation systems that can deliver troops in days to any point on the globe. Maybe it's time to start being a good neighbor in the world community and bring our war machine home.

[AZhitman]

See above.

[AZhitman]

...and after all the yapping about J-Mac being "stubborn":

"After meeting with top U.S. military commanders and members of the Iraqi government, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said his opposition to the surge and support for a firm timetable for the withdrawal of troops hasn't changed. (Really? See my quote above - which is it, Barack?)

In an exclusive interview, Obama told "Nightline" that if elected president, "we're going to begin to phase out our troops." Obama is seeing a vastly different Iraq than the one he saw when he last visited more than two years ago. Violence and American casualties are way down, and the streets of Baghdad are bustling again. So far this month, five U.S. troops have been killed in combat, compared with 78 U.S. deaths last July. Attacks across the country are down more than 80 percent.

Still, when asked if knowing what he knows now, he would support the surge, the senator said no. (Stubborn? Yup.)

"These kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult," he said. "Hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is, at that time, we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with, and one that I continue to disagree with -- is to look narrowly at Iraq and not focus on these broader issues." (Say WHAT? How about just answering the question without a canned statement from your THREE HUNDRED advisors, Slick.)

[rn79870]

Obama said he 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.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said neither President Bush nor the Iraqis want strict timetables. "We are not setting an arbitrary date for withdrawal that is a date that is plucked out of thin air," she said. "We are going to do this based on conditions."

So, how is that "different"?

I don't put one iota of faith in any of those "polls" of the Iraqi people. Sorry. When their news consumption is reliable and broad (which it isn't), then I'll believe they're well-informed.

So now BO says he's not tied to a rigid deadline. This means you can't hitch your wagon to him wanting a pullout "now".

Looks like BO pulled the rug right out from under ya, Bobby.

You're missing the point Greg. Obama wants to start the withdrawal in January. He wants to continue troop withdrawal over a 16 month period until the US is out. He wants Iraq to stand on it's own two feet.

GW's conditions for withdrawal is crystal clear isn't it. By the way, could you tell me what those conditions are?

And finally, the polls. You may not choose to believe them, but that's the Republican attitude. Let's disregard what the citizens of Iraq say if we don't agree, after all, we know what's best for them. The audacity of a nation telling another nation half way around the world what's best for them is insane. GW Bush insane.

[smockers83]

Bob, did you read my analysis of the poll I posted in the other forum? There is tons of conflicting information in the March poll of Iraqis. 38% want us out now, yet a super majority want us to stay for various reasons. One cannot simply pick out statistics to use to their advantage, that's what CNN and Fox do.

That's not so.

Oh really, and your biased opinion is good for what? As an undecided, I look at both of their plans and objectively they essentially the same thing, just that Barack wants out in 16 months, McCain says when his goals are accomplished, which IMO would take just over 16 months and under 2.5 years if done correctly, McCain's soul? Are you God? Do you know him personally? Have you talked to him face to face? Quit taking him being in the military as him being a future war mongerer. If you talk to veterans, the last thing that 90% of them are are war mongerers. McCain is not in that 10%, if he was he wouldn't be able to hold any sort of political office today.

[AZhitman]

You're missing the point Greg. Obama wants to start the withdrawal in January. He wants to continue troop withdrawal over a 16 month period until the US is out. He wants Iraq to stand on it's own two feet.

Nope. I don't miss much.

Obama said he 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.

He's even got you confused. You should tell him to stand still so you can help him out.

[rn79870]

Smocky you must have even missed what Greg posted...

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.

Your analysis doesn't hold in the face of all the evidence supporting the fact that they want us out. And out as soon as possible.

[rn79870]

Nope. I don't miss much.

Obama said he 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.

He's even got you confused. You should tell him to stand still so you can help him out.

Here is Obama's plan. He has the courage to publish it for the world to see.

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.

That's confusing? That lacks a timeline? Short of an absolute date, that's about as specific a timeline as one can ask for. Who's confused now big guy?

[smockers83]

Smocky you must have even missed what Greg posted...

Your analysis doesn't hold in the face of all the evidence supporting the fact that they want us out. And out as soon as possible.

My analysis is perfectly fine, I've written several statistical papers doing much more rigorous analysis, so this is nothing new to me. The polls are evidence and that evidence is conflicting. The polls show public opinion. Also of what Greg posted is that their news sources may not be reliable, which would explain why people polled say their neighborhoods are better but all of Iraq is worse. If randomly polled people across Iraq say that their neighborhoods are safer, that should imply that Iraq is truley safer. I'll tell you what I'll do, I'll post the poll here and you can go through it again. Find a statistic or statistics on this subject and I'll show a statistic or statistics that conflicts with yours. Please include the question number you get it from.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared...8.pdf

Watching Barack just now on CNN as I finished this said the Iraqi people and tribal leaders are concerned about the US leaving now and too quickly.

[AZhitman]

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.

That's confusing? That lacks a timeline? Short of an absolute date, that's about as specific a timeline as one can ask for. Who's confused now big guy?

That's not BO's plan. Nothing in that says "this is MY plan".

Didn't he just say he WOULD NOT "defer to military commanders"? So now he's giving them "a new mission"?

Which is it?

Does BO have a plan that doesn't involve the military commanders (who know far more than he does)? Is he going to argue with them if they tell him to STFU and wait?

He said "no rigid timeline", yet you're patting him on the back for having one.

Which is it?

You're getting sucked into his spiraling jibber-jabber.

Too much talk, not enough thinking. He talks too damn much, like most women I know.

[96Qowner]

Here is Obama's plan. He has the courage to publish it for the world to see.

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.

That's confusing? That lacks a timeline? Short of an absolute date, that's about as specific a timeline as one can ask for. Who's confused now big guy?

Well, um ... I'm still confused. Which is it, 1 per month or 2 per month? How does "1 to 2 brigades a month" add up to 16? Why 16? Why not 17 or 18 or 32? Did he just pick that figure out of the air? Who else agrees that it will be 16, and not 17 or 18 or 32?

Obama has said that he will/will not base the withdrawal on advice from the generals. Which is it? That's confusing to me. He said he has a timeline, but he said it will depend on stuff.

Obama's entire position, the thing he's been trumpeting since 2003, is that he wants to quit. People hear him say "16" and they get all goose-bumpy. Whoopee, means nothing. It's now 5 YEARS after Obama first said "Hey, let's just quit!".

[AZhitman]

Obama has said that he will/will not base the withdrawal on advice from the generals. Which is it? That's confusing to me. He said he has a timeline, but he said it will depend on stuff.

Right.

JM has a "timeline" as well. He's just not flapping his gums about it in a quest for votes.

It DOES depend on events in the 'box.

To think otherwise and to make broad statements like BO has (which later require reassessment) is simply naive... And I'm not the first to term him as such.

My advice to the young Senator: Keep your mouth shut until you KNOW what your plan is... I have no doubt he wants what we all want... But instead of yammering on at any opportunity, making it up as he goes along, floating with the tides, shut up and think.

[AZhitman]

It seems McCain wants to avoid stating his concrete plan for victory in Iraq.

Imagine that.

A man doesn't want to commit fully to a plan for a volatile situation that we've all agreed is DYNAMIC and requires frequent reassessment and adjustment.

Wow.

If BO would have STFU and done the same thing, he'd be lauded as "thoughtful" and "cautious".

Spin. Pure spin.

[rn79870]

Imagine that.

A man doesn't want to commit fully to a plan for a volatile situation that we've all agreed is DYNAMIC and requires frequent reassessment and adjustment.

Wow.

If BO would have STFU and done the same thing, he'd be lauded as "thoughtful" and "cautious".

Spin. Pure spin.

That's one take on the fact, the other is that he simply doesn't want to admit what he really has in store for keeping the rust off his war machine.

Either way, one offers something we can weigh while the other offers gusses and questions. A known vs. an unknown.

[AZhitman]

Either way, one offers something we can weigh while the other offers gusses and questions. A known vs. an unknown.

How is one a "known" when he shifts constantly? He's repeatedly contradicted himself. So how does one "weigh" something which changes daily?

[rn79870]

Well, um ... I'm still confused. Which is it, 1 per month or 2 per month? How does "1 to 2 brigades a month" add up to 16? Why 16? Why not 17 or 18 or 32? Did he just pick that figure out of the air? Who else agrees that it will be 16, and not 17 or 18 or 32?

Seriously 96, are you this strapped for ammo? That's the best you can do?

Obama has said that he will/will not base the withdrawal on advice from the generals. Which is it? That's confusing to me. He said he has a timeline, but he said it will depend on stuff.

I'd post the quoted part of his plan again, but why, you don't want to see it.

Obama's entire position, the thing he's been trumpeting since 2003, is that he wants to quit. People hear him say "16" and they get all goose-bumpy. Whoopee, means nothing. It's now 5 YEARS after Obama first said "Hey, let's just quit!".

Yes, Obama wasn't president. Neither was McCain. (You're coloring all over the page here 96).

[smockers83]

Can someone tell me, whether here or by email, how to make the font bigger and different colors? I took an HTML class 7 or 8 years ago but haven't used any of it since. Thanks. Someone can delete this post later, and you'll know when that time comes.

[AZhitman]

"It would be terrific to have an article from Sen. McCain that mirrors Sen. Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Sen. McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troop levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate."

I'm dyin' here. This is so effing hypocritical it's funny.

Are the people reading this really this STUPID?

A journalist gets to determine WHAT'S "required" to be in a published article????

Guys, where's BO's "plan" that meets this pinhead's ridiculous criteria? SHOW ME.

And since when does the Dem camp care about "achieving victory"? ANSWER ME! Really - Weren't we JUST hearing BO rail on about getting out of Iraq UNCONDITIONALLY??? Unconditionally means "win or lose".

Where's BO's timetable? He SAID "no firm timetable". Guess no one's reporting on that? Where's the timetable? NOT the military commanders' guesses - Obama's TIMETABLE, since he's "The Boss"

How's BO gonna get Iraq to comply? By running? HOW? How is he going to ensure cooperation? Where's his plan?

What a f***ing joke.

We'll never know what was in J-Mac's op-ed piece, will we? Because it ddn't pass muster for some pencil-necked libbyass reporter.

Where's our freedom of speech, you clowns? PUBLISH IT LIKE THE MAN WROTE IT.