A few weeks ago it was accepted, in the day to day scoring of the presidential campaigns in the media that passes as coverage, that Sen. McCain had scored a hit versus Sen. Obama by apparently goading him into visiting Iraq. It was said that this proved that Obama was weak and bowing to McCain’s supposed superiority on the issue.
Now that Sen. Obama is a few days into his trip, the dominant theme is that the trip has made Obama seem more presidential, and the Iraqi prime minister agreeing with him so important that the White House tried to push back the story on behalf of McCain.
It’s possible that that perception is also incorrect, and the trip will turn out to be a wash for Sen. Obama. But it shows us once again that the media created narrative is wrong with an alarming frequency. Its only because we now have alternative media outlets that we learn just how wrong they regularly are.
Excellent post!
You’ll notice, though, that all the goading is now conveniently forgotten, both in the media and among the rightblogs.
How come Obama isn’t wearing body armor in Bagdad? Oh, yeah — we didn’t run away and the surge worked.
A few weeks ago it was accepted, in the day to day scoring of the presidential campaigns in the media that passes as coverage, that Sen. McCain had scored a hit versus Sen. Obama by apparently goading him into visiting Iraq. It was said that this proved that Obama was weak and bowing to McCain’s supposed superiority on the issue.
What coverage was this and what did I miss?
Of course, all we’re seeing now is drooling by the media during this trip and suddenly, Brian Williams, Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson are all following Obama around joining in on the drooling, falling over themselves to declare how “presidential” he looks.
OK, so in the last fortnight:
our sloberer-in-chief agrees to “horizons” for withdrawal;
our puppet-in-Iraq says that Obama’s 16 month withdrawal “horizon” sounds good to him; and
J. Sidney McSame agrees that maybe another brigade or so would be nice to have in Afghanistan.
At this point, I don’t want to hear any more about whether Barack Obama has the experience/judgment to lead… HE IS LEADING US!!!! And that includes George W. Bush. (and if you can lead Bush, you can lead ANYONE!!!) Whatever their “narrative”, it is the judgment of Barack Obama that is leading this nation, three months before his election.
What did you miss, Jay?
Stories like this one:
Yeah, yeah, I know. I’m only giving you one story. There wer more, Jay. I’d look them up for you, but I’ve been told it’s bad form to do other people’s research for them.
Oh, I’m sorry, did Jay say something?
And as we all know, the Commander Decider Guy knows what sovereign means.
“the Commander Decider Guy knows what sovereign means.”
Indood!
I really can’t wait until that asshole slinks off to Texas and drinks himself into oblivion.
How come Obama isn’t wearing body armor in Bagdad?
Because he’s surrounded by thousands and thousands of soldiers with big-ass guns. If you think walking around Iraq is so safe, I encourage you to go.
“If you think walking around Iraq is so safe, I encourage you to go.”
Granted, Iraq is off peak violence, but ethnic cleansing does tend to have that effect. (And yes, forced migration is considered genocide, and that has happened in Iraq. The amount of internally displaced is HUGE.)
Different ethnic groups are now segregated, which is good for the short term level of violence, bad for long term viability of the government.
“I really can’t wait until that asshole slinks off to Texas and drinks himself into oblivion.”
I just hope he doesn’t do something epically stupid before then, something he thinks will cement his place in history.
Riiiiight — so when McCain goes and wears body armor it’s evidence by OW that McCain was wrong about conditions improving in Iraq. When Obama goes and doesn’t wear armor, it’s not because it’s safer, it’s because we have “big guns.”
Seriously, do you even pay attention to your own arguments?
How come Obama isn’t wearing body armor in Bagdad?
Because he’s not walking down a public street like McCain did to ‘prove’ that it’s safe.
“Riiiiight — so when McCain goes and wears body armor it’s evidence by OW that McCain was wrong about conditions improving in Iraq. When Obama goes and doesn’t wear armor, it’s not because it’s safer, it’s because we have “big guns.”
Seriously, do you even pay attention to your own arguments?”
Do you?
McCain said a public street in Baghdad was safe, then walked down one in body armor, surrounded by a 100 troops, and covered by several helicopters.
Do you get the problem?
Compare that to what Obama did.
So it’s Danack’s position that Iraq’s security position has NOT improved? Because that was certainly the left’s argument when McCain was in Iraq claiming it was getting better. It couldn’t be that the left was wrong and things are getting better, right?
So it’s Danack’s position that Iraq’s security position has NOT improved?
My position would be that wearing a bullet proof vest in a helicopter or when playing basketball is not necessary. It’s only necessary if you’re walking down an Iraqi street.
I guess thats a bit too complicated for you to grasp.
What’s not complicated is that if we had run away like Obama advocated, then no American or Iraqi could walk around Baghdad without armor today. Now even Obama is forced to admit that Iraq is improving.
What’s not complicated is that if we had run away like Obama advocated, then no American or Iraqi could walk around Baghdad without armor today.
Certainly could have done so in 2002, and even attended one of the many Christian churches. What changed?
Now even Obama is forced to admit that Iraq is improving.
Holy hell, not everything comes down to partisan politics. Sometimes, if things are improving, people will say they’re improving, regardless of whose party it helps. “Forced to admit” is a bit of a stretch.
We got rid of your pal, Saddam. I guess you’d trade it all to have your mass-murdering thug back. Sorry.
We got rid of your pal, Saddam. I guess you’d trade it all to have your mass-murdering thug back. Sorry.
Pro-Saddam Does another position belong in here? Pro-War
Fine. I’ll change it to: He was forced to admit he was wrong to claim the surge wouldn’t work and would even make things worse.
For months after the beginning of the surge, pro-war types kept changing the metric. First, “The surge only just began.” Then “We’ve only been at full strength a short time.”
Well and good. Now that we’ve only just drawn down to pre-surge levels, shouldn’t we wait and watch before you start crowing?
JWG: “We got rid of your pal, Saddam.”
It’s nice to see you are completely incapable of having an intellectually honest debate.
For one, can we say the surge really ‘worked’ until things are still better after the troop levels have gone back down. I mean yeah, if we stationed a soldier in every house, things would be peaceful for a while. But aren’t we calling the game at halftime if we say it has ‘worked?’
For two, there are those who only grudgingly and bitterly admit when they’re wrong, and there are those who actively try to perceive reality as it is and call it as they see it. As has often been reported, the war turned out much as he said it would, and not at all as the administration said it would. So I’m not sure if you want to get into a contest about who’s a better predictor of war conditions.
Do you have any evidence that Sen. Obama is the former, the grudging type? (I don’t ask snottily, I legitimately would like to know if that’s the case.)
CSS: It’s nice to see you are completely incapable of having an intellectually honest debate.
Yeah, that much was pretty obvious when he said described Obama’s position (or anyone’s position) as advocating we “run away”.
For months after the beginning of the surge, pro-war types kept changing the metric. First, “The surge only just began.” Then “We’ve only been at full strength a short time.”
First of all, it’s incorrect to label people who support what is happening “pro-war.”
Secondly, the metric was never changed. Those responses came as a result of “THE SURGE ISN’T WORKING!!” shouts that emanated from the left from the moment it began. It was another example of claiming something “failed” if it didn’t work at the snap of fingers.
Getting back to the original theme of this entry, I am sure there were stories here and there like the one Quaker excerpted, but a few stories hardly matches that of a media theme. And of course the current theme is that Obama looks presidential. What does one expect from a media falling over themselves to declare he looks Presidential? And why not? Obama’s campaign has pretty much got the media tagging along as their own personal photographers as media access has been severely limited and when opened up, like with ‘Face The Nation’, the term ’softball’ doesn’t even apply to the questioning.
“Secondly, the metric was never changed. Those responses came as a result of “THE SURGE ISN’T WORKING!!” shouts that emanated from the left from the moment it began. ”
Cite?
seems obvious to me that JWG only wishes to maintain a single, close-minded and partisan view to international political events. this is a much too tender moment in the development of the international society for such a brutish perspective to over shadow the attempts of reasonable individuals, and sovereign entities to work towards global harmony.
if the sovereignty of another nation requests that the sovereignty of another nation provide strength and might in order to preserve the sovereignty of the first nation, then by all means the second nation is welcome to do so. however, once the first nation says, “Hey thanks, I’ve got it now.” the second nation is obliged to remove its force and might from the first, specifically if the second is operating under the public agenda of “Spreading Democracy” then it is not advancing that agenda by ignoring the sovereignty of the first nation and continuing to occupy the first.
Should the US wish to remain in its current position of hegemon, it is imperative that it maintain its moral authority. this will be truly achieved only by allowing its actions to reflect the principals and ideals which are purportedly the foundations of its entire society.
Jay: Getting back to the original theme of this entry, I am sure there were stories here and there like the one Quaker excerpted, but a few stories hardly matches that of a media theme. And of course the current theme is that Obama looks presidential.
Whoa, whoa, waitaminnit. Trying to follow the logic here. We can’t accept the story Quaker excerpted because it didn’t match some overall media theme. So… we should accept what is part of the theme?
So you’re saying, given the current theme is Obama looks presidential, that Obama is presidential.
Here’s one:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/04/the-surge-isn’t-working/
And another from Senate Majority ‘Leader’ Reid:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1207/Reid_pushes_back_on_Iraq_optimism.html
It took 4-6 months from initiation for the surge to “work”(and of course the ethnic cleansing, the Sadr ceasefire and the Sunni Awakening had just as much to do with the downturn in violence levels). Logically, it should take 4-6 months from the withdrawal of the last surge troops this month to determine whether or not the reduction in violence persists. So, basically, once the next president is inaugurated, we’ll know for sure whether or not the surge worked.
Of course, the real purpose of the surge was to reduce violence so that political reconciliation in Iraq could occur. Wake me when that happens, would you?
“He was forced to admit he was wrong to claim the surge wouldn’t work and would even make things worse.”
Just once I would like a conservative to admit that the addition of 30,000 extra troops wasn’t the only factor in bringing down the levels of violence in Iraq.
There were two other factors involved that had nothing to do with the surge:
“U.S. officials say the buildup helped cut violence in Iraq to four-year lows. Other factors were a decision by Sunni Arab tribal leaders to turn against al Qaeda and a ceasefire by anti-American Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose Mehdi Army militia was accused of carrying out sectarian killings.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSL22490131
The change on the part of Sunni Aran tribal leaders came before the surge began and was helped along, not by US troops, but by US cash, paid out to tribal leaders who had already turned on al-Qeada for their own reasons. These same tribal leaders didn’t do a thing when al-qaeada was focussing on US troops and they themselves do not want a US military presence in Iraq either.
As for Sadr, he’s one of the leaders putting pressure on Maliki to call for a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Maliki is responding to this political pressure because he knows that the only way to hold the country together and keep violence down is for the US to begin leaving. This is not new and has nothing to do with the surge “creating the conditions for withdrawal.” Sadr pulled out of the government last year while demanding US troops to withdraw.
Add to this the fact, as CSS points out, the years of ethnic cleansing have taken their horrible toll on the country. What were once mixed neighborhoods are now either all Sunni or all Shiite or no longer in existence. Iraq is now a highly polarized country geographically which, again as CSS points out, is not a good prospect if our goal is to create a centralized, unified Iraqi government. (A problem compounded by our decision to create and supply tribal paramilitary units completely outside the command and control of the Iraqi army, which is now reluctant to absorb them — even if the units wanted to).
Of course, the addition of troops helped but it wasn’t the only factor and other tactics that we have taken have only laid the seeds for further division and conflict within the country. The only thing Iraqis seem to have agreed on is that they want the US to begin withdrawing troops.
Finally, let’s put these gains in perspective: Violence has dropped to 2004 levels, which is like saying it’s dropped from the incomprehensibly horrific to the simply horrific. There’s no way of knowing what might have happened if US troops had withdrawn in 2004 but it isn’t a given that the country would have descended into the carnage of 2005, 2006 and 2007 precisely because the US troop presence has itself been a trigger for much of the violence - particularly that violence aimed at those individuals and ethnic groups seen as “collaborating” with the “occupiers.” Maliki’s recent calls for a withdrawal have been a carefully worded, but nevertheless clear admission, of that fact.
All in all, this simplistic narrative that “the surge worked” is just more of the same bullshit from the people who fucked this whole thing up in the first place.
Obama was right on the invasion, right on the surge and right on a timeline for withdrawl. Bush and McCain were wrong and continue to be wrong. Simple as that.
The real reasons the surge “worked”:
http://www.juancole.com/2008/07/obama-in-iraq-der-spiegel-proves-al.html#c7753650712997298238
First of all, it’s incorrect to label people who support what is happening “pro-war.”
So sorry. I’ve been reminded repeatedly that “we are at war.” I have been told that I am in favor of surrender. I am instructed that Iraq is the “central front” in a war.
But people who support “what is happening” are not supporting a war? The President insisted that we could not wait to see what would happen. He told us that we needed to use our military to invade a country so we could destroy its army and depose its leader.
Maybe you have a different word for “what is happening” than the one I have used. By any other name, it is a war, and those who support it are correctly called pro-war.
but a few stories hardly matches that of a media theme
Now that’s true. And on this point, I might be inclined to disagree with Oliver. In my recollection, it was a right-wing blog, radio talk show, and McCain campaign theme, more so than a media theme.
Sean: That’s what happens to people that live in a world of only absolutes. There are only two choices: Full steam ahead, or run away. Anything else isn’t comprehended or understood.
Of course, having more than two brain cells helps the understanding of nuance…
Obama was right on the invasion, right on the surge and right on a timeline for withdrawl.
Oh please. You just spent a bunch or paragraphs saying how the surge has worked, complaining that people aren’t considering other factors. Ok, fine. There are other factors at work as well, but to say that Obama was “right” about the surge is completely absurd. If he was right, he wouldn’t be scrubbing his website of the criticisms he made about the surge. After all, why redact information that is “right.”
The timeline for withdrawal is terrible idea. To use such benchmarks to move U.S. forces out of Iraq prior to the attainment of our political goals would run counter to the ends necessary to achieve peace. A peace that would be undermined by setting a specific timetable for withdrawal in Iraq.
And give me a break with your “horrific” analysis with regard to the drop in violence. Your sophistry is good for the herds of left wing defeatists, but the fact of the matter is, the drop in violence in Iraq over the last 6-8 months is nothing short of astounding and you’re writing it off as it is nothing.
We can’t accept the story Quaker excerpted because it didn’t match some overall media theme.
No, I said that a story here and a story there does not make for a media theme as Oliver claims.
I’m going to have to either google or wikipedia the ‘two brain cells’ crack to discover its origins, the way I did with ‘aware of internet traditions…’ it’s been used enough that I’m beginning to suspect it’s an internet tradition itself.
The timeline for withdrawal is terrible idea. To use such benchmarks to move U.S. forces out of Iraq prior to the attainment of our political goals would run counter to the ends necessary to achieve peace. A peace that would be undermined by setting a specific timetable for withdrawal in Iraq.
This strikes me as a legit criticism, and I go back and forth on it. On the one hand I can see the argument that the insurgency will simply wait out the time table and go back to trying to achieve their goals - bring down the government and set up a part of their Islamic republic centered around (IIRC) Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem and Baghdad, which is a damn important city to the Arabs, being the first post-Ottoman kinda-sorta independent sovereign capital under King Hussayn.
However, I get the feeling that any government perceived as an American puppet in the region will face a constant stream of attacks from pissed off young men with little to lose. It almost seems that the Iraqi govt. could gain a great deal of cred with the moderate-to-radical elements by defying the Americans and booting us the hell out. In Tom Ricks’ book ‘Fiasco’ a young Iraqi (early 20s, i.e. prime guerilla age) describes the American presence as ‘walking over my heart.’ How do we counter that while we’re still there? Light footprint tactics (having tea with the tribal chiefs, etc.) may be too little, too late.
“Your sophistry is good for the herds of left wing defeatists, but the fact of the matter is, the drop in violence in Iraq over the last 6-8 months is nothing short of astounding and you’re writing it off as it is nothing.”
I’m not writing it off as nothing. But it’s a long way from “victory” is it not? And we now have McCain saying that conditions in Iraq have made it possible to start considering troop reductions. Really? Well, the conditions in Iraq are now back to what they were in 2004 but in 2004 anyone who spoke about withdrawal was, ad nauseum, labeled a defeatist.
If the levels of violence are now what they were in 2004 so we can start considering troop withdrawals, why couldn’t we consider troop withdrawals in 2004?
As for this:
The timeline for withdrawal is terrible idea. To use such benchmarks to move U.S. forces out of Iraq prior to the attainment of our political goals would run counter to the ends necessary to achieve peace. A peace that would be undermined by setting a specific timetable for withdrawal in Iraq.
You really have no idea what you’re talking about. Have you not been paying attention to the news the last week? al-Maliki has made it plain as day that the only way to achieve any of the political goals for a stable, democratic Iraq is for US troops to begin withdrawing. The domestic political situation in Iraq requires it. The Iraqi people want us gone and the entirety of Maliki’s political opposition want us gone. Maliki’s own administration would not survive past December if he got on board with what the Bush administration first demanded in negotiations over the long-term status of force agreement. At this point, setting a timetable for withdrawal is the only way to avoid more political turmoil and bloodshed.
Seriously, Jay. Maliki has made it clear that the political situation in Iraq is the exact opposite of what you think it is.
“In Tom Ricks’ book ‘Fiasco’ a young Iraqi (early 20s, i.e. prime guerilla age) describes the American presence as ‘walking over my heart.’ How do we counter that while we’re still there?”
The bottom line is we can’t and we never could. Tribal leaders turned on al-Qeada before the surge because they saw the terrorists as foreign intruders. As long as al-Qaeada was targeting US troops, they didn’t have a problem with it. When al-Qaeada switched tactics to begin stirring up civil violence by targeting Iraqis, the tribal leaders turned against them. It’s only a matter of time before the same people we’ve armed and paid to fight al-qaeada turn their attentions back to fighting US troops. They do not want us there in any capacity.
This idea that the “insurgency” will wait us out is just bullshit. How people can still say that after five years of violence boggles the mind. No has been “waiting us out.” One reason why violence has lessened recently is because the insurgency, in particular Sadr, is waiting right now to see if we’ll leave! Who knows what they’ll do when and if we go, but it’s a certainty that if they think we’re staying, they’ll ramp the violence right back up again because, again, the do not want us there and they will try to drive us out if we insist on staying.
Well, the conditions in Iraq are now back to what they were in 2004 but in 2004 anyone who spoke about withdrawal was, ad nauseum, labeled a defeatist.
If the levels of violence are now what they were in 2004 so we can start considering troop withdrawals, why couldn’t we consider troop withdrawals in 2004?
Uh, because you’re talking about two completely different sets of circumstances. In 2004, Iraqi forces were nowhere near equipped to handle such situations on their own, and now they are far better equipped to do so. In 2004, Al Qaeda was just getting going and now they are pretty much being driven from the country. In 2004, the interim government had just been implemented. I could go on, but I am sure you get the picture.
You really have no idea what you’re talking about. Have you not been paying attention to the news the last week? al-Maliki has made it plain as day that the only way to achieve any of the political goals for a stable, democratic Iraq is for US troops to begin withdrawing.
Actually, I do. It’s you that has no idea what you’re talking about and you have reading comprehension issues. Is drawing down forces a good idea? Probably. Is opening a calender, pointing to a date, and saying, “This is when we’re going to be out of here” a good idea? Absolutely not, and even al-Maliki concedes that any such withdrawal is based upon the conditions on the ground. You cannot just pick a date in these kinds of situations.
At this point, setting a timetable for withdrawal is the only way to avoid more political turmoil and bloodshed.
Sorry, but you are flat out wrong. Setting an arbitrary date for withdrawal is just wrong and you’d be hard pressed to find any expert, political or military that would agree with you.
it’s incorrect to label people who support what is happening “pro-war.”
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, must be a goat.
Hey Oliver, I’ve been as civil as possible on these comments about not calling people “pro-whatever” but if you want, I can easily do that.
“Setting an arbitrary date for withdrawal is just wrong and you’d be hard pressed to find any expert, political or military that would agree with you.”
Would al-Maliki fit the bill of political expert? He would like to see us gone by 2010, based on conditions on the ground. It’s Maliki who gave a specific year. Are you suggesting that Maliki doesn’t know what he’s talking about, doesn’t know what’s going on politically in the country he’s running?
Now what if violence kicks back up again between now and 2010. That doesn’t exactly fit with the “they’ll just wait us out” argument does it? How would you explain an uptick of violence in the interim after 2010 is set as a goal for withdrawal?
At the same time, if we fail to set a target year for withdrawal and violence kicks back up again what would that tell you?
It is far more likely a scenario that planning to withdraw by 2010 would go along way toward speeding up political reconciliation in Iraq, which is the only real way to quell the violence.
Now if you want to argue the opposite, take it up with Maliki.
It didn’t take very much to move you from “civility” to “I-will-call-you-a-name”, did it Jay?
There is another choice, you know. You could expand on your original statement:
What is the word you prefer for “what is happening”? And how would you describe the people who support whatever it is?
Here’s yet another choice: If you don’t like being labeled “pro-war,” then don’t argue in favor of wars.
He would like to see us gone by 2010, based on conditions on the ground. It’s Maliki who gave a specific year.
You said it yourself Fafaroo:
based on conditions on the ground.
If you don’t like being labeled “pro-war,” then don’t argue in favor of wars.
Congratulations. For a smart person, that’s perhaps the dumbest thing you’ve ever written in these comment sections.
Being “pro-war” implies that people actually “want” to see war. It’s also coincidentally the same mindset that allows people to whip out the “chickenhawk” trope. It’s as intellectually dishonest as saying that somebody who supports abortion rights is “pro-abortion.”
Well, I did offer you another option. However, I guessed you’d ignore it and go for the “I-will-call-you-a-name” option instead.
You don’t disappoint, Jay.
Being “pro-war” implies that people actually “want” to see war.
And when I wrote above, “For months after the beginning of the surge, pro-war types kept changing the metric,” I was referring to people who argued in favor of this elective, first-strike invasion–also called a “war”–and wanted to see it started and wanted to see it continue.
Being “pro-war” implies that people actually “want” to see war.
Yes, it does. And whining about the use of the term in this way implies that people don’t really “want” war but decided we ought to have one anyway.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go try to figure out why this isn’t the sort of hair-splitting you always claim you never do.
It’s as intellectually dishonest as saying that somebody who supports abortion rights is “pro-abortion.”
Excuse me, are you the same commenter who accused someone else of “sophistry” just this morning? This is absolutely precious.
Supporting a woman’s right to control her own reproduction is exactly the same as supporting an American President’s right to invade and occupy another country.
Awesome!
” … based on conditions on the ground.”
Uh, yeah, Jay and right now political conditions on the ground require setting a goal of withdrawing troops by 2010. Now 2010 is a specific target year.
By your way of thinking Maliki has already given away the game to the terrorists. He can say “commensurate with conditions on the ground’ all he wants but all the terrorists have to do now is chill out for two years and they’ve won. Right? If the terrorists and others chill out, we’ll think conditions are good for a withdrawal, proceed with the 2010 target in mind and BAM: Iraq becomes the capital of the new Islamic caliphate. Why would Maliki mention a specific year if he didn’t think that’s what needs to be said to move Iraq forward politically?
So please do enlighten us as to why Maliki wants the terrorists to win?
Well, I did offer you another option.
And you and I have conversed enough for you to know what I was getting at, so I didn’t think I had to spell it out for you.
I was referring to people who argued in favor of this elective, first-strike invasion–also called a “war”–and wanted to see it started and wanted to see it continue.
Oh this is rich. Elective. As if there are times when we’re forced to go into war. The administration chose a policy. Some people agreed with it and some didn’t. I am no more “pro-war” then you’re “pro-Saddam” as no war would undoubtedly have left him in power. Remember that one? There isn’t a shriek meter that could be invented that could measure the sound of said shrieks from those opposed to the war when Glenn Reynolds whipped that one out. But I guess it goes back again to “What is ok for me, isn’t ok for you.” Typical.
And whining about the use of the term in this way implies that people don’t really “want” war but decided we ought to have one anyway.
Did you ever do something you didn’t want to do, but came to the conclusion it was necessary anyway? Does that automatically make you “pro” whatever decision it is that you made?
Supporting a woman’s right to control her own reproduction is exactly the same as supporting an American President’s right to invade and occupy another country.
Huh? You’re not making sense. I was referring to those who are pro-choice getting their panties in a twist whenever somebody refers to them as “pro-abortion” because of their viewpoint.
Did you ever do something you didn’t want to do, but came to the conclusion it was necessary anyway? Does that automatically make you “pro” whatever decision it is that you made?
It does. Especially when what is “necessary” involves invading countries and killing its citizens. If you decide that invading and killing is the best available option, then yes, you are “pro-” invading and killing.
Huh? You’re not making sense. I was referring to those who are pro-choice getting their panties in a twist whenever somebody refers to them as “pro-abortion” because of their viewpoint.
Yes you were. And I was pointing out that it is a false equivalence. You are equating being in favor of letting a woman go to her doctor without interference from politicians with being in favor of a President sending an army and an air force into a foreign country to invade and kill. And you say I’m not making sense?
By your way of thinking Maliki has already given away the game to the terrorists. He can say “commensurate with conditions on the ground’ all he wants but all the terrorists have to do now is chill out for two years and they’ve won. Right?
Unfortunately, your conclusion is based on the (incorrect) assumption that I am saying terrorists are just lying in wait, hoping for all the troops to leave so they can spring out of their hiding spots and go terror crazy. It goes far beyond that. If you’re interested in discussing it, let me know. If you’re more interested in, “Please do enlighten us as to why Maliki wants the terrorists to win?” hyperbole, go right ahead.
Jay, please explain why you think setting 2010 as a target withdrawal date is “a terrible idea.”
And speaking of making sense:
But in your next paragraph, you ask:
You mean, forced into it?
Do try to put a couple of paragraphs between your contradictions. It makes them less glaring.
And I was pointing out that it is a false equivalence.
Except I’m not equivocating the two scenarios and that’s merely a weak attempt at deflection on your part to accuse me of doing so. Are you “pro-abortion” because you support abortion rights, yes or no?
Do try to put a couple of paragraphs between your contradictions. It makes them less glaring.
Nice try, except there is no contradiction. If you if you determine to do something you don’t want to do, you’re not being forced to do it. You’re still making the choice. IE, it’s elective. Comprende?
Jay, please explain why you think setting 2010 as a target withdrawal date is “a terrible idea.”
Fafaroo, setting any arbitrary date is a terrible idea. Gotta run now. I’ll expand more on it later.
It is great watching all you “the war is lost” types spinning so hard. Obama was wrong. You were wrong. Running away was never a good solution.
OK, let’s summarize:
Some people believe the invasion of Iraq was legally and morally justified. They supported the president’s decision to start the war with a massive bombing campaign. They dismissed those who wanted more time for inspections. They scoffed at those who wanted to seek another authorization from the U.N. They reviled those who said the war would be costly in both lives and money. They urged the president to continue the war and the occupation. They call it “partisan” to mention the number of lives lost. They accuse those who want to bring our troops home of “surrender.”
But it’s incivil to call these people “pro-war”?
Then I won’t describe the other thoughts that cross my mind. They are far worse.
Except I’m not equivocating the two scenarios and that’s merely a weak attempt at deflection on your part to accuse me of doing so.
I’m deflecting? You’re the one who brought abortion into it.
“Running away was never a good solution.”
Yeah, right up until the Iraqi government said it’s time for us to start leaving.
Reducing and limiting the US presence in Iraq was always the key to political progress and reducing violence. Our presence there is part of the problem. The Right’s characterization of withdrawal as “retreat” or “surrender” for it’s own domestic political purposes is one of the biggest travesties/tragedies of the whole botched endeavor.
“I’ll expand more on it later.”
Gee, I can’t wait.
Unfortunately, your conclusion is based on the (incorrect) assumption that I am saying terrorists are just lying in wait, hoping for all the troops to leave so they can spring out of their hiding spots and go terror crazy.
Isn’t that exactly what you guys were saying about a year or so ago?
But it’s uncivil to call these people “pro-war”?
Their feelings are easily hurt, poor things.
Gee, I can’t wait.
The hell with you then. I won’t waste my time.
But it’s incivil to call these people “pro-war”?
Actually, I said nothing about ‘civility.’ I said it was incorrect.
I’m deflecting? You’re the one who brought abortion into it.
Merely as a way of showing you how your assertion that those who support the Iraq War are “pro-war” is wrong. Again: You support abortion rights. Does that make you “pro-abortion”, yes or no? It’s a simple question.
Merely as a way of showing you how your assertion that those who support the Iraq War are “pro-war” is wrong. Again: You support abortion rights. Does that make you “pro-abortion”, yes or no? It’s a simple question.
You are deflecting (by your own admission) and equating things that are not equal.
Perhaps another time.
Actually, I said nothing about ‘civility.’
Sure you did:
“The hell with you then. I won’t waste my time.”
I had no idea you were such a fragile, delicate soul, Jay. Is this what it sounds like when dove’s cry?
Zoinks, it’s another syntax duel. As usual, the words are in shades of grey and we appear to be arguing in blacks and whites. This one depends upon the speaker’s use of the word ‘war.’ When I use the phrase ‘pro-war,’ I typically use it in the context of ‘pro-Iraq war,’ not pro-war in general. And I’ll use it to describe those people who in late 2002 and eary 2003 were in favor of starting a war against a country who had not committed a hostile action against ours. That point cannot be argued, unless you want to barrel into some tin-foil-hattery regarding links to al-Qaeda, and I don’t know anybody who supports that with much fervor anymore.
So pro-war means ‘in favor of starting the war six years ago,’ and also ‘in favor of finishing the war in a state of little to no violence in Iraq and leaving the Iraqi military with only mop-up duty, as that is the best thing for Iraqi and American security.’ It doesn’t mean ‘in favor of continuing the war indefinitely.’ That’s a bad representation of the conservative Iraq war position. So it may be a little oversensitive for 2002 regime change advocates to be offended by the pro-war terminology.
As Quaker has already pointed out, ‘pro-war’ and ‘pro-abortion’ are basically apples and oranges. War advocates argued that our country had a right to start a war with no overt cause, in the face of the largest international protests in history, and with an international coalition built primarily on political favors. In that way, they argued for, essentially unilateral rights of war, so pro-war might equate with ‘pro-unilateral abortion rights,’ but not ‘pro-abortion.’
This idea that the “insurgency” will wait us out is just bullshit. How people can still say that after five years of violence boggles the mind. No has been “waiting us out.”
What you wrote sounds basically correct to me Fafaroo. I probably go to this parallel too often, but I was thinking of how quickly the North overwhelmed S. Vietnam as the Americans ‘Vietnamized’ the war. My concern with a premature withdrawal would be to see that occur again in Iraq. We could conceivably see a government that made Iran’s look moderate, couldn’t we? The growth of a “Shi’a crescent” that so concerns the other gulf states?
“My concern with a premature withdrawal would be to see that occur again in Iraq. We could conceivably see a government that made Iran’s look moderate, couldn’t we?”
Yes, we could. But there doesn’t have to be some violent take over by Islamic extremists for that to happen. It could happen entirely politically if the right groups form the right alliances and win elections. And then what are we supposed to do? Overthrow yet another Iraqi regime, this time one that has popular support?
We’ve already basically turned Iran’s long time mortal enemy into a friendly neighbor state if not an out an out satellite. I don’t remember anyone in favor of this war acknowledging that as a real possibility and yet - here we are. This would be yet another example of how completely wrong the Bush administration and its supporters were on the invasion and occupation. Anyone who thought about it for a few minutes before the invasion should have realized that this was a definite possibility given the ethnic make up of Iraq.
Need two answers here.
First, what condition would be described as “victory?” Would it be the Prime Minister asking us to start the withdrawal from a sovereign nation for which he has been democratically chosen to speak?
Second, you can’t redeploy without setting time frames and goals, identifying who is leaving and in what order. If you can’t do that, then the only recourse is to stay forever.
So how can we EVER leave without putting some sort of timeline on the withdrawal? Should it take a year? Two?
As an Army veteran unlike the chickenhawks who disagree with me, I say leave NOW. Will someone who disagrees please explain how to withdraw without making a schedule of some kind?
“Will someone who disagrees please explain how to withdraw without making a schedule of some kind?”
Tell the entire Iraqi nation to “Look over there” then hurry for the planes.
“Say, is that Salman Rushdie?”
[run, run, run, run, run, run....]
“Will someone who disagrees please explain how to withdraw without making a schedule of some kind?”
“Tell the entire Iraqi nation to “Look over there” then hurry for the planes.”
You need a distraction, Maybe that’s why those two from The Hills are going to Iraq.
By the way, I will officially call the Iraq war a success if those two get killed while they are there.
Fucking hate Reality TV.
You have to admit that was good advice McCcain gave Obama about visiting Iraq. I don’t know why all these wingnuts are sore about it.