Forums | MacLife

Tallgeese wrote:

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. [b]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.

Whether it is responsible remains to be seen. Having is set arbitrarily is not responsible. If despite, facts on the ground not warranting a pullout it goes through anyway, it certainly is not responsible.

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.

Which military experts? Last I heard both Patreus and Crocker were both less than enthused about such a plan.

Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. He will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.

This is all well and good, but it should be predicated on actually being able to do so, because situations in Iraq warant it.
i.e. if your goal is to fight terrorism and train iraqis you need a sufficient number of forces there to meet the needs on the ground. If everything is copacetic, then that's great, but if Al Qaeda moves back in and reclaims territory that the IRaqis can't control because we pulled out troops too fast before they were readily to assume said responsibilty, then that will impact on our troops in the area trying to carry out their mission. And maybe said troops shouldn't have been removed in the first place if, for example the Iraqis aren't able to control their territory. Because, how then are they going to achieve reconciliation if they can't in fact secure Iraq?

Before we leave we should know that in fact that is something that can be achieved. How many regions are in Iraq? How many have we ceded to Iraqi control already. How well are they doing? How many are not controlled yet by us. HOw long would it take to train soldiers where they're ready to assume control of said region. Iraqs defence minister says 2012 before they can control internal security. we should be there until we can ensure that those conditions can be met and then draw down troops BECAUSE they're no longer necessary.

IF 2010 is the goal, then shouldn't OBama ask said questions before demanding that generals on the ground start pulling troops out willy nilly?

Last edited by everlong205 (2008-07-28 12:54 pm)

McCain's supporters must be incredibly annoyed that the senator has now suddenly decided to talk about how the timeline is a good idea while simultaneously fumbling an attempt to draw some sort of meaningful distinction between his new position and the one held by Obama. 

Meanwhile, McCain has wholly discarded his pledge to run any sort of 'honorable' or 'dignified' campaign as evidenced by his latest (false) attack ads directed at Obama's trip.

Rovian tactics without the skill.

bullsmurf.

Bush and McCain previously rejected any sort of timetable.  Can you point me in the direction of any prior statements from Bush or McCain claiming that timetables or "horizons" () are just fine as long as they're open-ended and capable of being revised? 

This is a transparent attempt to defuse Maliki's statement in support of Obama and an acknowledgment that the American public rejects an open-ended commitment without some sort of plan for leaving.

Maliki cannot see into the future.  ANY timetable is "artificial," no matter how badly you'd like to spin it otherwise.

bratboy wrote:

bullsmurf.

Bush and McCain previously rejected any sort of timetable.  Can you point me in the direction of any prior statements from Bush or McCain claiming that timetables or "horizons" () are just fine as long as they're open-ended and capable of being revised?

Its been operating on a timeline since the get go. Not a timeline of withdrawal though, a timeline to achieve benchmarks and get results. Bush has said As the Iraqis stand up we'll stand down. That's certainly a broad commitment, but it has an endgoal in sight. Namely, standing Iraqis up. STablilizing Iraq. Any long term commitment would be kind of like what Obama says he would still keep there (he's also not saying he would remove all troops either) to oversee any terrorist ooperations and any additional training. But it keeps enough troops on the ground to ensure that stablility is maintained so that any objectives envisioned are achieved.
As more reconciliatino occurs and as more benchmarks are met and as IRaq gets more capable, fewer troops are needed (and we've already removed many brigades) and often are no longer needed in combat roles. But any drawdown has to, if it makes any sense be based on actual facts.


None of said objectives can be achieved if security is not maintained, and if the Iraqis are not capable of maintaining said security, they will not achieve said objectives. Which is one of the flaws in Obama's plan. He is suggesting that Iraqis need to step up, but is removing the stablizing force that would allow them to do so. Further he will have troops on the ground attempting to deal with terrorists and trainig of Iraqis but if combat trooops are removed prematurely it will not only endanger IRaqis but will make his goal of assisting Iraqis close to impossible.
Can Iraqis handle internal security yet? Clearly the answer is no. They've taken over some provinces, but they are not yet ready to assume control of all of IRaq yet. IF they are not, then you potentially are jeapordizing any gains made by the surge in handing over security to IRaq when they aren't ready. ANd if there is no security, or inadequate security any political reconciliation cannot be achieved. So unless OBama is deliberately trying to sabotage Iraqis and ensuring that they don't in fact achieve reconciliation, then he has to explain how his escalated drawdown, not based on any facts on the ground would in fact make the Iraqis better able to deal with their security needs. Clearly the defense ministser isn't saying 2010. Clearly Patreus isn't saying 2010. And many Iraqis who Obama  tallked to were worried about us pulling out too quickly, even though they ultimately want to govern themselves.

This is a transparent attempt to defuse Maliki's statement in support of Obama and an acknowledgment that the American public rejects an open-ended commitment without some sort of plan for leaving.

Maliki cannot see into the future.  ANY timetable is "artificial," no matter how badly you'd like to spin it otherwise.

So if Maliki can't see into the future we shouldn't necessarily take it as a given that because he says 16 months might work to withdraw that this is remotely realistic. None of the generals on the ground who have implemented the surge strategy are saying this is realistic.

Last edited by everlong205 (2008-07-28 5:06 pm)

bratboy wrote:

None of them are saying it's "realistic," but McCain is (now).

Mccain is saying Obama's plan is realistic?

bratboy wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

bratboy wrote:

None of them are saying it's "realistic," but McCain is (now).

Mccain is saying Obama's plan is realistic?

Regarding Maliki's plan:

McCain wrote:

I think it’s a pretty good timetable.

Both McCain and Bush have insisted that any "artificial" timetable was inappropriate.  The fact remains that timetables are "artificial" because they are forward-looking.  This is a conspicuous about-face.

You're taking him out of context. He explained this on CNN today. He said he loves the season of the soundbite, meaning clearly his words are being misconstrued (and of course when his words are further cut to a single sentence like the one you quote it twists his meaning).

it could be a removal in 16 months or a day, or a year, based on conditions. He's saying, he's not averse to us getting out in a day or a day, based on conditons. But that any drawdown needs to be based on conditions. So clearly a day is unrealistic, and if 16 months is to be considered conditions on the ground have to warrant it. HE then said again that Patreus and the joint chiefs of staff in fact said obama's plan was dangerous (which it is).

Even Maliki's plan, while certainly optimistic is based on conditions. ONly Obama sees fit to withdraw troops based on no conditions on the ground. So Mccain is not saying he wants us out in 16 months, or endorsing Obama's plan, unless conditions permitting we are able to achieve all our objectives in those 16 months and cna withdraw leaving a stable IRaq.

bratboy wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

I know you want to pull out. You've wanted to since day one. we've been hearing nothing but whining for years about pulling out.

He must have been "whining" in between his deployments.  I'll look into it. 


http://homepage.mac.com/oatmeal/MAF/maxes/shakefist.gif

Actually, the only whining I did was when Shnicky rented the last leaky boat with Sean Penn and didn't let me come.

(heh, just noticed this)

bratboy wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

You're taking him out of context. He explained this on CNN today. He said he loves the season of the soundbite, meaning clearly his words are being misconstrued (and of course when his words are further cut to a single sentence like the one you quote it twists his meaning).

I know exactly what he said, and took nothing out of context.

He's acknowledging a timetable, just as Bush opted to last week.  That is in direct contradiction to his previous position rejecting talk of ANY timeline, timetable, time horizion, whatever (unless you call "100 years" a timeline...though I'm guessing he won't be making that comment again).

Well in fact you ALSO took the 100 year comment out of context too. CLearly there as well he wasn't saying he expected the war to last 100 years, only that if there was no longer a war going on that he wouldn't have an issue with us maintaining a presence there, like we do in many areas where we've long ago been at war but now are there for peaceful purposes. He also wasn't saying that he expected us to be in that role and have troops stationed there for a hundred years, only that so long as we are not actually at war in Iraq anymore, he doesn't have an issue with having troops there if it serves our and Iraqis interests. He can only be in power for, at most, 8 years anyway, so any talk beyond that 8 years would have to be addressed by his successor anyway. (And how is this ultimately all that different than Obama saying he'll keep soldiers there to assist in training etc. are they on a timetable? Do they have 16 additional months with which to achieve THEIR objective, or rather would he keep soldiers there so long as it served our interests?)

But again, we've always been on a timeline, or a horizon or timetable. We've moved forward slowly but surely, and our operations have gone through many phases each with its own benchmarks and goals. But again, its not  a timetable for leaving, but rather a timetable for achieving results. Leaving is certainly part of the timetable, but the duration of the timetable is not specific to a fixed duration but to results, which determine the timeline.
Mccain would say we shouldn't have 16 months to get the job done or we have to leave, even if Iraq is turning into a smurf while or even because we're leaving. Mccain would rather say, if we can get the job done in 16 months then he's ok with that but the proof would be in the pudding. Say there were ten goals that needed to be met to some degree of satisfaction. If all ten were met, and it took place in only 16 months or 16 days, then great. You stay until you get the job done.

I think Patreus and Mccain and Bush would all say that the surge has succceded so well thus far that they can move their time horizon forward and remove troops faster. BUT to do so, they would need to show, through results that removing the troops would be feasible and wouldn't impact on remaining operations and that Iraqis could take over for the missing troops. Anything else would simply be stupid.

I can't believe serious candidates for president are arguing that they want to have a plan to remove troops that doesn't take into account the facts on the ground and suggesting that their lack of care is somehow a sign of their judgment.

Last edited by everlong205 (2008-07-29 1:13 am)

everlong205 wrote:

...only that I heard a lot of whining in general over the years.

I've been away awhile, but if this "whining" is directly related to the collective smurf of bad policies from Bush and Co., then I'm going with "justified whining".