Are we winning the War in Iraq?

[SilverNRed]

lol, you said with respect to warfare, he's the Washington Generals. That infers he's a joke to Iraqi stability and he has very little influence over what happens there.

 

The fact is he's a huge threat. Nobody said we couldn't deal with him and statements that his power has been reduced or that every time he fights, he gets his ass kicked... are very subjective and seems to contradict General Petraeus. The man lives in Iran and his militia is backed by the Quds Force! That alone should cause us to take him seriously.

 

Sure, lots of countries have threats to stability, but when the General says militias like Sadr's are one of the greatest long term threats to Iraq, that's some heavy shyt.

 

It doesn't mean we can't note important achievements or admit improvement in some areas. I like Crocker's and Petraeus's description of improved conditions in Iraq: it's fragile and reversible

Tell me what Sadr has achieved in the past few years. Can you honestly say he's getting stronger? Of course not. Like I said, people notice failure.

 

That doesn't mean he's a nobody. We're able to swat him down every time he decides to try something exactly because we take him seriously. He's a douche that we've been dealing with for years. Our press makes him out to be a huge threat that we can't handle when, in fact, we've been handling him successfully for years and decreasing his influence for just as long.

 

Yes, take him seriously. But don't write off a year and a half of progress in the country because al-Sadr continues to run his mouth. If anything, Petreaus is pointing out the importance of our military continuing what it's been doing.

[pBills]

Of course you want failure in Iraq or, at least, the appearance of failure. That's a huge talking point for your political party. Basically, military humiliation in Iraq helps you get your guys elected and you think that helps the country long term. I won't say you hate America, but you do think that losing now helps us later. (Like the Bills fans who think losing now helps later because it gets us a better draft pick.)

 

There's no way in hell you're hoping for enormous success in Iraq due to the surge. If that happens and it gets reported, McCain probably gets elected in November.

 

You just spent months on this board finding any ridiculous rationale you could to support Hillary over Obama. You're clearly capable of finding any rationale to downplay U.S. success in Iraq to help your party.

 

 

 

 

Oh my god that is absolutely ridiculous. The talking point is how it's time to leave, not stay there for 100 years. Or in McCain land, win. Winning is all that matters. Not one democrat is humiliating the military. I think it's a shame that you even believe that.

[Adam]

Oh my god that is absolutely ridiculous. The talking point is how it's time to leave, not stay there for 100 years. Or in McCain land, win. Winning is all that matters. Not one democrat is humiliating the military. I think it's a shame that you even believe that.

I may be wrong, but I think that McCain wants to remove much of the fighting force, but wants to keep a presence there to help rebuild and restore stability. If he wants to keep a fighting force there for 100 years, then he's a moron. The Iraqies will have to stabilize their government or switch to a government that can be stable. We can't subsidize their stability forever.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Obama in 04

Of the prospect of war in Iraq, you said, "I believe that success will be fairly easy –" John McCain., September 24, 2002.

 

"I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time –" John McCain, September 29, 2002.

 

Asked, about a long-term commitment in Iraq, "are you talking about something in terms of South Korea, for instance, where you would expect U.S. troops to be in Iraq for decades?" "No," he answered. "I don’t think decades, but I think years. A little straight talk, I think years. And I hope that we can gradually reduce that presence – " John McCain, March 18, 2004.

 

"I would hope that we could bring them all home. I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff."

 

"…I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence. And I don’t pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be – " John McCain, January 31, 2005.

 

"Make it a hundred! We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine by me … – " John McCain, January 3, 2008.

 

"By January, 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq war has been won – " John McCain, May 15, 2008.

 

"If it’s now working, Senator," said Matt Lauer, "do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?"

 

"No," answered McCain. "But that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany. - "John McCain, June 11, 2008.

 

So, we have navigated from a fairly easy victory; an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time; which would not require our troops stay for decades but years; in which all those troops coming home will also stay there, for a 100 years; but most will be back by 2013; and the timing of their return, is not too important.

[erynthered]

In his St. Paul victory speech, Barack Obama pledged again to pull out of Iraq. Rather than "continue a policy in Iraq that asks everything of our brave men and women in uniform and nothing of Iraqi politicians. … It's time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future."We know Obama hasn't been to Iraq in more than two years, but does he not read the papers? Does he not know anything about developments on the ground? Here is the "nothing" that Iraqis have been doing in the last few months:

 

1. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki sent the Iraqi army into Basra. It achieved in a few weeks what the British had failed to do in four years: take the city, drive out the Mahdi Army and seize the ports from Iranian-backed militias.

 

2. When Mahdi fighters rose up in support of their Basra brethren, the Iraqi army at Maliki's direction confronted them and prevailed in every town -- Najaf, Karbala, Hilla, Kut, Nasiriyah and Diwaniyah -- from Basra to Baghdad.

 

3. Without any American ground forces, the Iraqi army entered and occupied Sadr City, the Mahdi Army stronghold.

 

4. Maliki flew to Mosul, directing a joint Iraqi-U.S. offensive against the last redoubt of al-Qaida, which had already been driven out of Anbar, Baghdad and Diyala provinces.

 

5. The Iraqi Parliament enacted a de-Baathification law, a major Democratic benchmark for political reconciliation.

 

6. Parliament also passed the other reconciliation benchmarks -- a pension law, an amnesty law, and a provincial elections and powers law. Oil revenues are being distributed to the provinces through the annual budget.

 

7. With Maliki having demonstrated that he would fight not just Sunni insurgents (e.g., in Mosul) but Shiite militias (e.g., the Mahdi Army), the Sunni parliamentary bloc began negotiations to join the Shiite-led government. (The final sticking point is a squabble over a sixth Cabinet position.)

 

The disconnect between what Democrats are saying about Iraq and what is actually happening there has reached grotesque proportions. Democrats won an exhilarating electoral victory in 2006 pledging withdrawal at a time when conditions in Iraq were dire and we were indeed losing the war. Two years later, when everything is changed, they continue to reflexively repeat their "narrative of defeat and retreat" (as Joe Lieberman called it) as if nothing has changed.

 

It is a position so utterly untenable that John McCain must seize the opportunity and, contrary to conventional wisdom, make the Iraq war the central winning plank of his campaign. Yes, Americans are war-weary. Yes, most think we should not have engaged in the first place. Yes, Obama will keep pulling out his 2002 speech opposing the war.

 

But McCain's case is simple. Is not Obama's central mantra that this election is about the future not the past? It is about 2009, not 2002. Obama promises that upon his inauguration, he will order the Joint Chiefs to bring him a plan for withdrawal from Iraq within 16 months. McCain says that upon his inauguration, he'll ask the Joint Chiefs for a plan for continued and ultimate success.

 

The choice could not be more clearly drawn. The Democrats' one objective in Iraq is withdrawal. McCain's one objective is victory.

 

McCain's case is not hard to make. Iraq is a three-front war -- against Sunni al-Qaida, against Shiite militias and against Iranian hegemony -- and we are winning on every front:

 

• We did not go into Iraq to fight al-Qaida. The war had other purposes. But al-Qaida chose to turn it into the central front in its war against America. That choice turned into an al-Qaida fiasco: Al-Qaida in Iraq is now on the run and in the midst of stunning and humiliating defeat.

 

• As for the Shiite extremists, the Mahdi Army is isolated and at its weakest point in years.

 

• Its sponsor, Iran, has suffered major setbacks, not just in Basra, but in Iraqi public opinion, which has rallied to the Maliki government and against Iranian interference through its Sadrist proxy.

 

Even the most expansive American objective -- establishing a representative government that is an ally against jihadists, both Sunni and Shiite -- is within sight.

 

Obama would forfeit every one of these successes to a policy of fixed and unconditional withdrawal. If McCain cannot take to the American people the case for the folly of that policy, he will not be president. Nor should he be.

 

Give the speech, senator. Give it now.

 

By Charles Krauthammer

Washington Post

 

http://www.aina.org/news/20080613013413.htm

[pBills]

Even better....

 

 

 

 

[erynthered]

Of the prospect of war in Iraq, you said, "I believe that success will be fairly easy –" John McCain., September 24, 2002.

 

"I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time –" John McCain, September 29, 2002.

 

Asked, about a long-term commitment in Iraq, "are you talking about something in terms of South Korea, for instance, where you would expect U.S. troops to be in Iraq for decades?" "No," he answered. "I don't think decades, but I think years. A little straight talk, I think years. And I hope that we can gradually reduce that presence – " John McCain, March 18, 2004.

 

"I would hope that we could bring them all home. I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff."

 

"…I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence. And I don't pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be – " John McCain, January 31, 2005.

 

"Make it a hundred! We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That's fine by me … – " John McCain, January 3, 2008.

 

"By January, 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq war has been won – " John McCain, May 15, 2008.

 

"If it's now working, Senator," said Matt Lauer, "do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?"

 

"No," answered McCain. "But that's not too important. What's important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany. - "John McCain, June 11, 2008.

 

So, we have navigated from a fairly easy victory; an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time; which would not require our troops stay for decades but years; in which all those troops coming home will also stay there, for a 100 years; but most will be back by 2013; and the timing of their return, is not too important.

 

 

Clearly, when things seemed to be going well at that time, Obama didn’t see a need to withdraw from Iraq. He could very well make the argument that he changed his mind as things got worse, which would be reasonable, if not correct in retrospect. However, Obama has claimed that he always opposed the Iraq war, while this shows that to be not quite the case.

[Chilly]

I wouldn't ignore the political idealogy behind most reporters either. They're only going to report what makes sense to them (i.e. what fits their world view).

 

In a way, thats true, but corporate biases far outweigh the biases of each individual reporter - the people that run the company are more concerned with what is going to pull in the largest share of advertising audience than what necessarily fits in with how they perceive the world.

[SilverNRed]

Oh my god that is absolutely ridiculous. The talking point is how it's time to leave, not stay there for 100 years. Or in McCain land, win. Winning is all that matters. Not one democrat is humiliating the military. I think it's a shame that you even believe that.

Thank you for reminding me what your "talking point" is. (And for bringing up the "100 years" BS.)

 

McCain is right (and, apparently, so was Obama back in 2004): This shouldn't be about an artificial timetable or just bringing the troops home ASAP. You commit to troops to a task because you think it's important enough that it has to be completed. You don't send American forces to a country and then announce they have X number of months to fight before it's time to leave. Casualties matter and success matters.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Al-Sadr does not live in Iran and his links to Iran are somewhat less than the so-called Iraqi government.

well dude, about 800 web pages explicitly state that he lives in Iran and I doubt if anyone can say for sure that Sadr gets a '2' for Iranian Support and The Iraqi government gets a '5' (or any kind of scale). The facts are that our military says he's heavily supported ideologically and militarily by Iran and specifically mentions the Quds Force as being a strong backer.

[pBills]

Thank you for reminding me what your "talking point" is. (And for bringing up the "100 years" BS.)

 

McCain is right (and, apparently, so was Obama back in 2004): This shouldn't be about an artificial timetable or just bringing the troops home ASAP. You commit to troops to a task because you think it's important enough that it has to be completed. You don't send American forces to a country and then announce they have X number of months to fight before it's time to leave. Casualties matter and success matters.

 

 

 

100 years BS? Go tell McCain that, he's the one that said it. Let's set up a base over there in a land where people clearly do not want us around. Now following your philosophy about the task at hand, if our troops were getting slaughtered left and right, no light at the end of the tunnel... would you want them to stay there and finish the task just in the hopes that something changes and things start to go their way?

 

At some point, the US has to tell the Iraqi government times up. We're going to start going home. They have to start that at some point. Oh and you are quite welcome. I have no problem reminding you what one of the talking points is.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Clearly, when things seemed to be going well at that time, Obama didn’t see a need to withdraw from Iraq. He could very well make the argument that he changed his mind as things got worse, which would be reasonable, if not correct in retrospect. However, Obama has claimed that he always opposed the Iraq war, while this shows that to be not quite the case.

ok, so the score is 5 (or so) McCain flip flops to Obama's 1

[erynthered]

ok, so the score is 5 (or so) McCain flip flops to Obama's 1

 

 

I'm not keeping score. I really dont care for McCain. Nor Obama as you can see. I'm just tired of this love-fest for Obama, like he can do no wrong. Their both lying politicians.

 

Quite frankly I'm not sure if I'm even going to vote for the Presidency this year.

[SilverNRed]

100 years BS? Go tell McCain that, he's the one that said it. Let's set up a base over there in a land where people clearly do not want us around.

Are you sure they "clearly do not want us around" when we're the ones helping them stabilize and rebuild their country?

 

Taking McCain's "100 years" statement out of context doesn't make you look smart. His point is that a presence abroad isn't a bad thing so long as our troops aren't being killed for nothing. We've maintained bases overseas for decades elsewhere.

 

Now following your philosophy about the task at hand, if our troops were getting slaughtered left and right, no light at the end of the tunnel... would you want them to stay there and finish the task just in the hopes that something changes and things start to go their way?

If our troops were getting slaughtered left and right, I'd advocate a change in strategy. Which is what McCain actually did, even when it was extremely unpopular to do so. McCain's stance on the surge was extremely unpopular at the time, but it paid off. He deserves credit for that.

[Chilly]

I'm not keeping score. I really dont care for McCain. Nor Obama as you can see. I'm just tired of this love-fest for Obama, like he can do no wrong. Their both lying politicians.

 

Bingo.

 

Quite frankly I'm not sure if I'm even going to vote for the Presidency this year.

 

Vote, go vote, just write in yourself if you have to. Anything that adds to the vote total overall that doesn't add a vote to either of the major parties = good.

[/dev/null]

Vote, go vote, just write in yourself if you have to. Anything that adds to the vote total overall that doesn't add a vote to either of the major parties = good.

[pBills]

Are you sure they "clearly do not want us around" when we're the ones helping them stabilize and rebuild their country?

 

Taking McCain's "100 years" statement out of context doesn't make you look smart. His point is that a presence abroad isn't a bad thing so long as our troops aren't being killed for nothing. We've maintained bases overseas for decades elsewhere.

 

If our troops were getting slaughtered left and right, I'd advocate a change in strategy. Which is what McCain actually did, even when it was extremely unpopular to do so. McCain's stance on the surge was extremely unpopular at the time, but it paid off. He deserves credit for that.

 

 

Taking it out of context.... he did state 100 years. No one in their right mind wants our troops to be there for that long - troops safe or not safe. Here is the statement for you though.

 

 

During a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire last night, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told a crowd of roughly two hundred people that it “would be fine with” him if the U.S. military stayed in Iraq for “a hundred years“:

 

Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — (cut off by McCain)

 

McCAIN: Make it a hundred.

 

Q: Is that … (cut off)

 

McCAIN: We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans …

 

Q: [tries to say something]

 

McCAIN: As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.

 

 

Does he really think that there won't be car bombs? Other bombings? On a side note, I do remember statements saying that many Iraqis thanked the US for their help but now feel as though it's time for us to leave. Once I find that, I will post it. However, it does ask a larger question... why? Why stay there? Do we really have to be the police department for the world? Haven't we spent enough money in and on Iraq?

 

McCain's main strategy on Iraq is to win no matter the cost.

[Chef Jim]

Taking it out of context.... he did state 100 years. No one in their right mind wants our troops to be there for that long - troops safe or not safe. Here is the statement for you though.

 

 

During a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire last night, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told a crowd of roughly two hundred people that it “would be fine with” him if the U.S. military stayed in Iraq for “a hundred years“:

 

Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — (cut off by McCain)

 

McCAIN: Make it a hundred.

 

Q: Is that … (cut off)

 

McCAIN: We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans …

 

Q: [tries to say something]

 

McCAIN: As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.

 

 

Does he really think that there won't be car bombs? Other bombings? On a side note, I do remember statements saying that many Iraqis thanked the US for their help but now feel as though it's time for us to leave. Once I find that, I will post it. However, it does ask a larger question... why? Why stay there? Do we really have to be the police department for the world? Haven't we spent enough money in and on Iraq?

 

McCain's main strategy on Iraq is to win no matter the cost.

 

Once we no longer need the middle east (their oil) we can pack our bags tell them to !@#$ themselves and carbomb eachother into oblivion. Until then we need to be there.

[pBills]

But we do not need to have a base there.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Once we no longer need the middle east (their oil) we can pack our bags tell them to !@#$ themselves and carbomb eachother into oblivion. Until then we need to be there.

These wackos have been blowing themselves and their neighbors up for what seems like a billion years. Do you really think the US can and should be the guardians of peace? How come China and others don't think it's necessary for them to even help maintain peace in the region? They are just as dependent on the oil as we are, at least on the surface, and nobody is invading Saudi Arabia or the other Middle East oil producers. The domino theory just doesn't seem to have an end game in this part of the world.