home

Obama v. McCain on War On Terror

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War on Terror
Posted on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:27:19 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Today, Barack Obama said:

What’s missing in our debate about Iraq, what has been missing since before the war began, is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq and its dominance of our foreign policy . . . [T]his war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe.

McCain responded:

Sen. Obama will tell you we can't win in Afghanistan without losing in Iraq. In fact, he has it exactly backwards," McCain told a town hall meeting. "It is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan.

I know how to win wars. And if I'm elected President, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory.

McCain's "comprehensive strategy for victory in Afghanistan" appears to be sending troops to Afghanistan that seem to be unavailable at this time because of the Iraq Debacle:

[McCain] said three more brigades should be sent to Afghanistan, and said that he would appoint a White House czar for the Afghanistan war.

The Bush Administration is said to be considering withdrawing troops from Iraq in September in order to move more troops to Afghanistan. The Bush Administration also already has a "czar" to "oversee" the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It appears to me that McCain is implicitly endorsing withdrawing troops from Iraq and focusing military efforts on Afghanistan.

McCain is moving towards the longstanding Obama position on Iraq and Afghanistan. McCain (like the Bush Administration) is flip flopping on withdrawal from Iraq and the need for more troops in Afghanistan (almost certainly the change on Iraq is due to the need for more troops in Afghanistan.)

In short, McCain is proving that his judgment for the past 7 years, just like the Bush Administration's, was utterly misguided and wrong. He is proving that he is running for Bush's third term.

Speaking for me only

< Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread | 4th Circuit Upholds Military Detentions, But Not Unchecked Executive Power >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama v. McCain on War On Terror | 133 comments (133 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Notice how Obama's rhetoric (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:32:38 PM EST
    has gotten stronger and more contrasty lately? I'm expecting his numbers to tick up because of this. Good policy is the same thing as good politics WRT Iraq.

    Very contrasty, (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:40:42 PM EST
    as long as he doesn't have to, you know, vote.

    Parent
    Good point (4.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Prabhata on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:34:49 PM EST
    Obama can talk it up (FISA), until it's time to vote.

    Parent
    Yeah. (none / 0) (#116)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:57:07 PM EST
    You tell me how Barack would have voted in October 2002.

    Sen. Cut-Throat, I believe, is his new name.

    Parent

    Pesident's don't vote (none / 0) (#143)
    by DYBO on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:58:55 AM EST
    eom

    Parent
    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:33:28 PM EST
    But if McCain is moving towards Obama's position on Iraq, isn't it true that he's running for Obama's first term?

    No (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:34:09 PM EST
    They are both running for Reagan's fourth term.

    Parent
    Someone told me about. . . (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:44:05 PM EST
    an editorial cartoon with a picture of McCain holding signs saying "Iraq" and "Tax Cuts" and labeled "Bush's Third Term".  Standing next to him was a picture of Obama holding signs saying "FISA" and "Faith Based Programs".  He was labeled "Bush's First Term".

    Parent
    I'm offended (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:49:02 PM EST


    Parent
    Thanks for what? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:38:44 PM EST
    As far as McCain is concerned (and the Bush Administration for that matter), I think they are lying. I do not believe that they will withdraw from Iraq because the bankruptcy of their policy would be exposed.

    HOWEVER, I think Obama can use their lies to buttress his own withdrawal policy, which I believe is sincere.

    What I did not cite is the poll finding from my morning post - only 34% believe "Winning in Iraq" is necessary for success in the War on Terror. 51% say winning in Afghanistan is essential to winning the War On Terror.

    Parent

    Afghanistan? (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:42:22 PM EST
    51% say winning in Afghanistan is essential to winning the War On Terror.

    Staying in Iraq worked out well for the Russians.  I hope we're not tradng one war for another.

    That would NOT be cool.

    Parent

    Ack! (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:43:04 PM EST
    Afghanistan for the Russians, not Iraq.

    Parent
    We may not have a choice (none / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:24:39 PM EST
    And the difference is that it wasn't U.S. forces that took Kabul, but the Northern Alliance....

    We had an existing power structure to work with--that was viewed as legitimate by many in Afghanistan.   That gave us a real shot.  But much time has passed....

    Parent

    While your (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by TomP on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:50:56 PM EST
    post is find, I disagree with the framing of a "war on terror."  George Soros called it a false metaphor and he is right.  We may have wars on specific terrorists, but not on a method.  

    Parent
    Admiral Mullen (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:33:42 PM EST
    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said this month:

    I don't have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq.

    I mean, I know McCain's plan is to win the Iraq war on day 1, send the victorious troops to Afghanistan on day 2, and balance the budget with the savings on day 3, but who is he kidding here?

    I may have my doubts about whether Obama has the political courage to actually implement his plan for Iraq, but at least he's proposing something that is physically possible.  McCain is just spouting nonsense.

    Implicitly (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:42:48 PM EST
    McCain is endorsing the Bush Administration plan to draw down troops in Iraq to move them to Afghanistan.

    And the reality is Iraq will fall into high intensity civil war again when we leave - but that was inevitable. The silliness about the Surge is ignoring this reality. We can not win in Iraq.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:49:44 PM EST
    Politically, it is important to make the implicit explicit.  Hopefully everyone in America will read my comment before voting.

    It's all well and good for Obama to claim victory on the issue of Afghanistan, but it makes no difference if they have the same plan because Obama has the troops to deploy and McCain doesn't.

    The problem I'm running into as I float this stuff by voters is that even though everyone I run into wants the war over with, they simply don't believe Obama will actually do what he says he'll do.  It suggests to me that what he needs is not more position papers or speeches (although I like what he's been saying lately), but something more intangible where he demonstrates that he has the political courage to actually follow through on his promises.

    This is one of the ways that the FISA vote hurts him, even though most people don't care about the nuances of FISA.  It's a trust issue.

    Parent

    Questions for both candidates... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by santarita on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:14:19 PM EST
    What does winning in Iraq mean to Americans?  Is it achievable in any realistic timeframe?  I don't know how either would answer those questions other than to say that we would be happy with having a reliable ally and not a potential enemy in Iraq.  

    And what does withdrawal from Iraq mean?  Or to put it another way, what constitutes a permanent base?

    If one thinks of a spectrum of possibilities with total withdrawal at one end and maintenance of the existing force levels for the near term and for a more long term, then I suspect that the answers from McCain and Obama would be fairly similar:  In the short term we defer to what the generals are saying and our long term goal is to have a force level consistent with our national interests and the force level will adjust based on our national interests at the time.  

    My support for Obama over McCain on the issue of Iraq is baed on the notion that Obama will have the luxury of being the new man in charge and will thus be able to try new strategies and tactics that may work.  McCain may be too married to the old.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#108)
    by ccpup on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:23:28 PM EST
    and am hearing the same thing with people I know.  

    Knowing so little about Obama other than the fact that he's "new", "inexperienced" and a "first term Senator" (words I often hear in reference to him), many believe he won't know what to do once in Office, will change his mind once there or is being insincere about what he actually wants to do should he be elected and is saying what he thinks we want to hear in order to get elected.

    What it comes down to is familiarity (with McCain) breeding a certain amount of trust.  And I'm not finding too many people who trust Obama right now or who can really get a handle on who, exactly, he is ... this week (as a friend of mine put it).

    Parent

    Ah yes (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:00:39 PM EST
    Europe understands the importance of a stable Iraq, which is why they have been falling over themselves to pull their own troops out over the last several years.

    Glory be, I sure hope Iran doesn't take over Iraq and get their hands on all those aluminum tubes and mobile bioweapons labs.  Then we'll really be screwed.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:11:19 PM EST
    "Iran is a sweet regime that is misunderstood"?  If you want to argue with strawmen rather than real people, don't bother taking up space with your comments.

    Parent
    Please let this be the Republican Strategy (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:04:06 PM EST
    I mean, it worked so well in 2006!

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:27:07 PM EST
    that you are spouting the same nonsense I have heard about Iraq and Iran for years without even the slightest hint of irony.

    clueless.

    Parent

    I'm glad I saw this. (none / 0) (#75)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:37:19 PM EST
    I was just about to say the same thing.

    This all reminds me of the arguments on the blogs in the run-up to the Iraq invasion.

    Who was right then?

    Parent

    It is inevitable (none / 0) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:18:25 PM EST
    Whether we leave now or pretend to win in 5 years.

    We LOST the Iraq War a long time ago.

    As I said, I am not going to repeat my thousands of post on this subject now.

    I find the ideas being spouted by some on this thread to be just laughable and ill informed and a fairy tale for the most part.

    Parent

    And here we are: (none / 0) (#112)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:30:39 PM EST
    ...and a fairy tale for the most part.

    Parent
    I see... (none / 0) (#132)
    by ribbon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:06:15 PM EST
    ...BTD is vested in the ney-sayer's position.

    Parent
    Hm (none / 0) (#95)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:23:13 PM EST
    Kinda odd that the Sunni, who everyone knows will be slaughtered in a civil war just as soon as we leave and will be so desperate that they will turn to terrorist groups for protection just to survive, want the US to leave Iraq by overwhelming margins.  Upwards of 90% any time a public opinion survey is taken.  If only they knew as much as a bunch of random blog commentors know...

    Parent
    are you kdding me? (none / 0) (#140)
    by ribbon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:08:49 PM EST
    The Sunni will not be "slughtered in a civil war just as soon as we leave"...

    The Sunni militias have been disbanding - why would they do this if they forsee their own 'slaughter'?

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#141)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:16:04 PM EST
    I'm happy that you agree with me, kinda!

    Parent
    Hope..I agree (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:12:57 PM EST
    I just posted below that we will not leave.  Neither one, McCain nor Obama will leave.  Oh, they may tweak a few plans here and there and beg Europe for help, but they will not pull out.

    Parent
    Now that Iraq is a bit more (none / 0) (#68)
    by JohnS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:32:30 PM EST
    stable, it's the ideal time to begin an orderly withdrawl and leave the Iraqis to solve their own problems. Albeit problems that we helped create. We will just have to learn to live with the consequences.

    Parent
    Um... (none / 0) (#70)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:34:45 PM EST
    It would also be stupid, since the surge seems to be working.

    You know this, how?

    Parent

    I heard that Obama took (4.00 / 1) (#118)
    by zfran on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:07:42 PM EST
    the part about the "surge cannot work" off his website today. I don't know when today he did it, but I heard the report after McCain's Iraq response to Obamas.

    Parent
    seeing as (none / 0) (#136)
    by ribbon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:14:17 PM EST
    the Iraqi government is making money faster than they can spend it, I'd say that's a pretty good sign that their economy has been growing and will continue to grow. Are you denying that the surge has not facilitated this?

    Diversify your sources for information - the world will start to seem less gloomy and your outlook more optimistic.

    Parent

    So the iraq war is a glorious success? (none / 0) (#96)
    by MarkL on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:27:18 PM EST
    I don't mind plodding stupidity, but when it costs hundreds of thousands of lives, and a trillion dollars, I do like to see some benefit.

    Parent
    everyone who was supposed to (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:30:11 PM EST
    get rich, got rich.  and continues to get rich.
    you got success.


    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#114)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:37:59 PM EST


    Parent
    "leaving" not a strategy without aid (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by aquarian on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:21:06 PM EST
    I hope both candidates spend their time thinking hard about the intractible problems we face in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Even if the public wants to hear that we should leave Iraq, and "solve" Afghanistan, this is nothing but a pipe dream.  

    Yes, we broke Iraq and we now owe it to the Iraqi people to fix the infrastructure, provide humanitarian relief, and security.  Now is the time to stop talking about "the war on terror," and coordinate international relief efforts.  It would be immoral to leave Iraq as a ripe plum for Iran's plucking.  That road leads to sectarian violence, mass exodus of those who do not share Iran's religion, and terrible suffering (think India and Pakistan).  

    I actually don't care about the politics, whether the Sunnis or Shiites should win, or whether our involvement is "good for America."  They need food, clean water, electricity, jobs and education.  The lack of fundamental necessities leads to terrorism.  Fix the one and the other is partially beaten.

    When some my friends talk about "getting out" and "ending the war," it shocks me that they have no regard to what happens when we leave.  Now is the time for nuanced thinking and a solid understanding of the geopolitics of Iraq and the whole middle east.  I pray that our next President actually understands this.  

    Parent

    I hope the next president (none / 0) (#60)
    by RalphB on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:27:09 PM EST
    understands that fundamental truth, but I don't hold out much hope right now.  War on a tactic is a certain loser.  Oh well, better luck next time.


    Parent
    The problems in Iraq and Afghanistan are only (none / 0) (#62)
    by JohnS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:29:09 PM EST
    "intractable" as long as we remain an occupying army in both countries.

    Parent
    agreed (none / 0) (#72)
    by aquarian on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:36:12 PM EST
    but perhaps you would agree that withdrawing without more does not turn an intractable problem into a problem fixed.

    Parent
    There would have to be a concurrent major (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by JohnS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:51:08 PM EST
    diplomatic initiative involving the major powers and ALL of the regional players affected (most definitely including Iran and Syria).

    Parent
    It is already in Iran's lap (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:26:07 PM EST
    My gad, the ignorance is stunning about ho the Iraqi government is.

    Parent
    George Bush handed Iraq to Iran (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:29:43 PM EST
    I don't know why more Democrats are unwilling to say this.

    Parent
    George Bush handed Iraq to Iran, (none / 0) (#84)
    by JohnS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:07:10 PM EST
    but once we're gone, I would expect that Iraq will want to be free of the Iranians, too. How quickly we forget! Remember the Iran-Iraq War?

    Parent
    because if they did (none / 0) (#137)
    by ribbon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:17:41 PM EST
    then there'd be sufficient grounds to commit them to an asylum as paranoid delusionals.

    Parent
    "Handed"? (none / 0) (#147)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:39:44 AM EST
    More like did their god damndest to make sure Iran was pulled into the conflict.

    Or dosnt anyone remember original "regime change in the M.E" Iraq-Iran-Syria plan pushed by embedded neocons who have been jumping ship in drag these last few years?

    Parent

    "Cut and run," (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:31:10 PM EST
     "retreat and defeat," "surrender." Your record is broken.

    Parent
    "Declare victory and come home" (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by RalphB on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:36:27 PM EST
    That's the advice Johnson should have followed on Vietnam.  I'd take it now and turn our war on terror into a large humanitarian effort.  That might actually work.


    Parent
    Well, this is (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:10:13 PM EST
    something new.  We seem to be having an influx of McCain sweeties for a change.

    Parent
    Ho (none / 0) (#64)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:29:34 PM EST
    powerless?

    :)

    We have the religious leaders and the Americans.  The gov is a distant third, I imagine.

    Parent

    I think your keyboard is broken (none / 0) (#76)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:39:13 PM EST
    when you typed www.redstate.com it somehow came out www.talkleft.com.

    Cutting and running?  Gee why not ask whether we think unconditional surrender would be good?

    Parent

    Robust (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:51:00 PM EST
    YOu are not being robust, you are just mouthing BushCO talking points. Nothing robust about that.

    Parent
    Robustly stupid (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:59:08 PM EST
    is very Republican.

    Sorry, your comments are like flashbacks to 2004 and 2005.

    I am not going to repeat my thousands of DKos posts on this subject here.

    I assume you are a solid McCain supporter and think Lieberman is one of the great men of our time.

    Parent

    that's awesome (none / 0) (#138)
    by ribbon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:36:44 PM EST
    I was laughing out loud at "I am not going to repeat my thousands of DKos posts on this subject here"

    and

    "I assume you are a solid McCain supporter and think Lieberman is one of the great men of our time."

    priceless.

    Didn't the DKos forge the birth certificate posted on DKos and Fight the Smears?  That one seems to be in the bag compliments of Jay McKinnon.

    Parent

    It's a shock that you can even spell (none / 0) (#98)
    by MarkL on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:28:30 PM EST
    "robust"---your thinking is anything but.

    Parent
    I have no idea what (none / 0) (#126)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:48:00 PM EST
    robust on international security means.  

    You are called a Republican when you use Republicans catchphrases such as cut and run.  Cut and run means absolutely nothing from a public policy point of view.  It is a pejorative term intended to belittle others into agreeing with you.

    If you are a Republican that's fine.  Just don't pretend to be something else.

    Parent

    No, you're not being saracastic, you're (none / 0) (#94)
    by MarkL on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:21:16 PM EST
    being stupid. "Cutting and running" is  a phrase intended to cut off thought. Is "Staying and getting slaughtered" any better an option?
    When you're serious about discussing Iraq, you'll ask serious questions.. if you're able.

    Parent
    So who gets the blame for that? (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:48:33 PM EST
    Bush, I say. Though the Republicans are going to try and pin in on President Obama.

    Parent
    Maybe President Obama. . . (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:57:41 PM EST
    could reach across the aisle and agree with the Republicans -- that it's all Clinton's fault.

    Parent
    that is the one thing (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:04:15 PM EST
    I am absolutely confident that "President Obama" would do.
    IF he gets the chance.

    Parent
    hehehe (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:02:55 PM EST


    Parent
    Ya know what's pathetic? (none / 0) (#91)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:17:13 PM EST
    McCain's "I know how to win wars. I know how to win wars"

    Just hearing him reminds me of:

    It ain't the way I wanted it! I can handle things! I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb... I'm smart and I want respect!


    Parent
    Thanks for The Fredo (none / 0) (#146)
    by daring grace on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:53:38 AM EST
    flashback.

    That was such a poignant scene.

    Parent

    Oh, wow. (none / 0) (#50)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:18:55 PM EST
    Setting expectations for Obama supporters.

    As I said, justifications will abound.

    And here's "Hope" to prove the point.

    Well done.

    Parent

    Just Like Viet-Nam (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:32:20 PM EST
    Your cut and run talking point is a GOP special. The Iraqis can take care of themselves. They are very nationalistic and want their own country back. Iran is now an ally of theirs and will exert its influence. Iran is not their enemy who wants to take over, like the US.

    BushCo F'ed it up, President Obama has a chance to win them over again, but only if we fully withdraw and wait for their invite as a friend, not an occupier.

    Parent

    exactly! Obama is all over the place (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by Josey on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:58:10 PM EST
    Now Obama is suddenly concerned about Afghanistan, but iirc Obama is Chairman of a sub-committee that oversees Afghanistan stuff and he's never convened a meeting or hearing. Supposedly, too busy campaigning.

    Parent
    You sound just like (none / 0) (#119)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:08:26 PM EST
    Lindsey Graham with that Faux talking point:

    SEN. GRAHAM:  ...Senator Obama's on the Foreign Relations Committee, the subcommittee dealing with oversight of NATO.  He has never held one hearing about Afghanistan...

    SEN. BIDEN:  ...First of all, the reason Obama didn't hold a hearing on NATO, I chair the committee. Every one of those committee hearings are held at full committee,



    Parent
    then this needs to be corrected - (none / 0) (#123)
    by Josey on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:36:16 PM EST
    United States Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs

    The committee is chaired by Democrat Barack Obama of Illinois, and the Ranking Minority member is Republican Jim DeMint of South Carolina. The committee has not met since the appointment of Obama as Chairman in 2007.[1]

    Wikipedia -
    http://tinyurl.com/5vkrvx

    Parent

    No doubt it should (none / 0) (#129)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:50:53 PM EST
    Biden's statement today:

    Senator Joe Biden's office released the following statement:

    "The reason Senator Obama didn't chair a NATO and Afghanistan subcommittee hearing is because I did, as Chairman of the Committee. Sen. DeMint should know that when it comes to the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq, we hold those hearings at the full committee level," said Senator Joe Biden.



    Parent
    You can't be serious (none / 0) (#142)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:49:55 PM EST
    The committee hearings are ongoing and are chaired by Biden. Subcommittee events related to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are carried out under the aegis of the main committee and aren't chaired separately.

    You didn't really not understand that, did you?

    Parent

    Ah (none / 0) (#148)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:44:16 PM EST
    I get you now. You think Obama should be holding separate subcommittee meetings just so he can hand-wave about his own importance as chairman the way John McCain would, even though the work of that subcommittee is already being properly done within the framework of the full committee which deals with matters of war.

    Parent
    Take it up with the (none / 0) (#150)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 08:05:22 PM EST
    committee chairman. Biden seems satisfied that whatever work needs to be done is being done at the full committee level.

    Which makes nonsense of the Republican talking points you were trying to push - that because of empty suit Obama and his lazy ways there'd been "no hearings" at all.

    Parent

    You claimed (none / 0) (#153)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:08:39 AM EST
    because of Obama there'd been no hearings. You were wrong. Nuff said.

    Parent
    Hmmmm... Hookey? Nah (none / 0) (#152)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:17:33 PM EST
    Let's see here. What is more important:  Defeating BushCo in Nov O8, or slacking on his subcommittee work because he was campaigning.

    Parent
    I think I agree (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:23:08 PM EST
    The message posted above is pretty clear.

    He doesn't want people to focus on how to deal with the consequences of Iraq.

    He wants people to dwell on those consequences  so he can get some political benefit out of them without actually having to propose a solution to them problems as they exist at this point and time.

    There are people, I think, activists who want people to dwell on the consequences of the Iraq war so that America will think twice about it in the future, but I don't count Obama among those people.

    Parent

    I've been wondering about McCain's (none / 0) (#144)
    by JoeA on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:51:30 AM EST
    plans to "balance the budget" from savings from "winning" in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I was always under the impression that the spending in Iraq and Afghanistan was outside the budget and handled through supplemental spending bills.  If that's the case then it's "extra" deficit spending and stopping it is hardly a saving?  Maybe I'm missing something.

    Parent
    Dick Morris (who I can't stand) (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Grace on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:40:42 PM EST
    just brought up an interesting point:  If the US withdraws from Iraq and Iran moves in, we're going to have to invade Iraq again for the third time.  That would be a disaster.  

    What was McCain's strategy for Afghanistan before?  Was he planning to leave there?  

    Not sure. . . (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:56:54 PM EST
    If the US withdraws from Iraq and Iran moves in, we're going to have to invade Iraq again for the third time.

    Why that follows.  It isn't particularly desirable to have Iran controlling Iraq, I suppose, but why not let them snuggle up against Saudi Arabia and let them work it out?

    Parent

    Iran is already in (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:24:37 PM EST
    Morris is an idiot.

    Parent
    Iran need not formally invade (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:27:36 PM EST
    but will influence Iraq.

    The Shia will control Iraq and ally it with Iran.  

    Parent

    Why would we leave Iraq? (none / 0) (#12)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:44:56 PM EST
    What about the oil and the billions of dollars in bases spent on bases?

    I don't believe Obama will leave either.

    Parent

    Obama could replace troops in Iraq (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:52:12 PM EST
    with private contractors. He has floated that and not backed away from using private contractors, afaik. There's also "expanding and strengthening our military" . . .

    Neither inspires my confidence when it comes to leaving Iraq.

    Parent

    That's a lot of (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:54:52 PM EST
    private contractors who getpaid moretha the military and don't operate under the same rules (heck, even the military has broken the rules and gotten away with it).

    Parent
    Wouldn't have to be all contractors (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:57:19 PM EST
    could be a mix. We're leaving someone there, imo.

    Parent
    Obama: (4.00 / 1) (#32)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:00:51 PM EST
    This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century.

    How is staying in Iraq, paying private contractors, and increasing troop numbers in Afghanistan confronting the challenges of the 21st century?

    Parent

    We'd be better off paying the Afghanis directly (none / 0) (#56)
    by JohnS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:25:17 PM EST
    instead of wasting our money paying contractors. Bush's original Afghanistan tactic (pay off tribal leaders to do their own fighting) was the right idea. Our continued military occupation is futile. Just ask the former Soviets. Afghanistan is a big reason why it's the former Soviet Union.

    We should be talking about how to best withdraw from BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Parent

    Obama is planning on doing that... (none / 0) (#109)
    by santarita on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:25:38 PM EST
    He said today he'd give them $2 billion a year for reconstruction and another $2 billion to convince the opium farmers not to grow poppies.  

    But he also said he increase our troop strength there.

    Parent

    Not my idea. (none / 0) (#53)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:21:46 PM EST
    Just something he "wouldn't rule out" or "is on the table". I don't think the contractors themselves make thousands a day (still do quite well), but I have no problem believing they "lose" that amount per day. Now, where didn't we put that last billion . . .

    Parent
    but as I said earlier (none / 0) (#21)
    by Nettle on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:53:00 PM EST
    There's a mint to be made by contractors in Afghanistan for the darned pipeline.  And if Obama doesn't know about all that and is just selling us more War on Terror crap he should be called on it.  Everyone in the State Dept. has been working on the pipeline deals forever and they are going to be constructed guess where - in Easter Afghanistan and western Pakistan right thru the tribal areas.  So.  War on terror or war for pipeline and energy games?  Truly, Obama just said, in agreement with Lugar and the wacky right that energy is being used as a weapon against us, opening the door wider for the next rationale for invading other countries.  Keep an eye out.  There's more in those rugged areas of Afghanistan and threats to invade Pakistan than is meeting the eye.  Or the media.

    Parent
    oh dear (none / 0) (#23)
    by Nettle on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:56:48 PM EST
    Easter Afghanistan.  Put an 'n' on there.

    Parent
    I can see it now. (none / 0) (#28)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:58:03 PM EST
    We need to do this because of the oil and with gas prices where they are, people will lap it up.  Justifications will abound.

    Here we go again.  

    Parent

    Obam's is going to give $$$ to (none / 0) (#110)
    by santarita on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:27:35 PM EST
    Pakistan.  And this time it won't go to the buy off the military.

    Parent
    yes, indeed, money to Afghanistan but it wasn't (none / 0) (#122)
    by Nettle on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:24:36 PM EST
    Obama's idea if he's thinking of claiming the new Reconstruction Opportunity Zone headed for the tribal area (where the pipeline comes in from Afghanistan, remember that?)

    For its part, always the cheerleader, coach and referee for market interests, the US Congress now has bills in both the Houseand Senate (each introduced by Dems though bipartisan legislation) to construct so-called Reconstruction Opportunity Zones in the FATA region of Pakistan.  

    The $750 million ROZ project purports to be the solution to "extremist" violence in the area, offering reductions in US tariffs for products made within its confines (originally ttextiles but expanded to include about anything) but requiring huge market concessions overall for Pakistan, all of Pakistan.  

    To give you some idea of how great a deal it is for workers, Bush applauded the bills but said he's not sure the labor portions (which are slight anyway) are practical or respectful of Pakistan's "democratically elected government".  You read that right.  So don't expect any labor protections out of these deals and don't even look for "environment" despite the clear proximity of the ROZ to the coming TAPI pipeline and likelihood of many events of sabotage and spills.  

    So now we have Democrats providing cover for the sweetheart deals wanted by the WTO - though the DLC, through its ill-named Progressive Policy Institute, has long proposed such market interferences in the interests of "national security".

    Through its main market man, Edward Gresser, the DLC has already testified on behalf of the ROZ and other similar market measures around the world to, as Donald Rumsfeld put it, "drain the swamp" of Muslim extremists and create worker bees of those surviving the military onslaughts; all in keeping with market restructuring.  Missing in the two Congressional bills is the requirement first put forth by Gresser that in addition to market reforms signatories must cooperate with Israel, as was required in the tariff-trade agreements with Egypt and Jordan.  But if employment and capital are the solutions to extremisms one has to wonder why the State Dept. still refuses to open Iraqi factories, claiming there is no link to vast unemployment and insurgencies and besides, they won't do a damned thing until Iraq agrees to privatize every last lick of its industry.  

    Parent

    money money everywhere (none / 0) (#125)
    by Nettle on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:41:20 PM EST
    I meant to say Pakistan, there's money going to Pakistan for the ROZ, if the bills pass.  I hope they are scrutinized to death.  

    Parent
    Glib about the $$$ (none / 0) (#127)
    by santarita on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:48:11 PM EST
    My first reaction to the money to Pakistan part of Obama's plan was more along the lines of wondering where he thinks he'll find the $$$ - although I guess the answer is self-evident - the taxpayers and China.

    My second reaction was that all he's doing is changing the bribing partners.  

    I keep waiting for the bold and daring new plan. But it sounds like the Dems and Republicans are fighting over principal and not principle.

    Parent

    I doubt the iraqis will stand for (none / 0) (#81)
    by JohnS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:55:55 PM EST
    Iran 'moving in." Remember the bloody 8 year Iran-Iraq war? They would not currently be so lovey-dovey if we hadn't driven them into each other's arms. We need to pull out before the Bush-created Middle East mess can be straightened out.

    Parent
    Morris's is a dopey point. (none / 0) (#88)
    by JohnS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:12:34 PM EST
    Their current marriage is only one of convenience. Look for a long, nasty divorce once we're outta there. I'll remind everyone again that these two countries fought a drawn out, bloody war from 1980-1988 and the last POWs weren't exchanged until 2003.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#97)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:27:34 PM EST
    The Iran-Iraq war was mostly a Saddam production.  Saddam, of course, was Sunni and the present Shia-dominated government is much friendlier towards Iran.

    Parent
    Nonsense. (none / 0) (#100)
    by JohnS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:34:22 PM EST
    Shia fought Shia in that conflict. The Iraqis are nationalists -- they no more want the Iranians running their country than they want us running it.

    The Iranians will try to use their influence behind the scenes, as will all other actors in the region, probably even the Israelis, who are obsessed with checking Iranian power.

    Parent

    It's nonsense (none / 0) (#89)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:13:33 PM EST
    Iran isn't going to invade Iraq.  That's not how they do things and that's not what they want.  They already have partial control politically.  They will simply consolidate it.  They're doing it right under our noses as an occupying force and the U.S. can't do a thing to stop it.

    Parent
    The race to the mushy middle (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by dk on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:51:15 PM EST
    on the war on terrah is definitely in overdrive.

    I suppose the question of who wins that race could matter a bit on the margins of the election, but given that the US electorate, on the whole, doesn't vote on the basis of foreign policy, I just don't see how much of an effect the spinning will have on the outcome.

    Both candidates appear to have it wrong on (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by JohnS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:02:48 PM EST
    Afghanistan, if you believe Juan Cole. Cole thinks that the growing insurgency in Afghanistan is nationalist in nature, and opposed to the occupation. He thinks we are committing the same mistakes in Afghanistan --overreliance on military solutions -- that we did in Iraq. So that sending in more troops is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing, which is restoring infrastructure and paying the Karzai gov't bribe money to hand out to the various tribal leaders. Which, by the way, was more or less the initial successful Bush tactic...

    But They Both Agree (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by BDB on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:15:25 PM EST
    to continue the unending War on Terror (as well as the unending War on Drugs), right?  Because that's the important part to Wall Street.  Which is not to say that Obama is not better than McCain on Iraq, he's much better.  But, setting aside the election stuff, I worry about a country that declares wars on tactics (terror) and inanimate objects (drugs) so as to obfuscate what the true costs are in lives and liberties.  

    This is so complicated. How can any (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:40:22 PM EST
    Presidential candidate who has never been President decide in July what to do about Iraq, Afganistan, Bin Laden, Pakistan, or, for that matter, Saudi Arabia [homeland of the Sept. 11 attackers]?  What a mess.

    There's only one solution (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:52:14 PM EST
    Jimmy Carter is still eligible for a second term!

    Parent
    Smart a$$. (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:05:29 PM EST


    Parent
    One of the news stations (none / 0) (#13)
    by Grace on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:45:01 PM EST
    interviewed a General regarding Afghanistan yesterday.  He said he couldn't use most of the troops that are in Iraq because he only needs certain ones who have specialized skills.  (I'm not sure what he was talking about because he wasn't specific.)  

    this will decide the election (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:51:32 PM EST
    events on the ground, I mean.
    and I think most of it is beyond anyones control but I am sure McCain is hoping to use whatever fear can be whipped up to his advantage.
    I think (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:58:25 PM EST
    the GOP is not content to trust in events on the ground, and they are aggressively trying to create their own reality, just as they have been for the last 5 years of war.

    It's "we're winning," brought to you by the same guys who have been claiming that all along, only this time they really mean it.  And of course, the media is just playing the "he said, she said" game.

    Parent

    That is definitely true, (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by dk on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:04:40 PM EST
    but Obama is not being so forthright either.  With residual troops, listening to the commanders on the ground, the option of sticking around to "train" Iraqi forces...this is not the same as ending a war that we cannot win.  Yes, it sounds like a plan to downscale, and yes, there is more realism in that plan based on the resources we have, but it's hard to trust him either when his policy says "downscale" while his rhetoric says "end."

    In other words, they both have credibility problems on this issue.

    Parent

    dont disagree (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:00:30 PM EST
    and they are pretty good at it.  they should be after all the practice they have had over the years.
    I would not discount an october surprise either.

    Parent
    The Bush administration (none / 0) (#36)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:03:38 PM EST
    still controls the discourse on Iraq and Afghanistan.  

    I wouldn't put anything past them.

    Parent

    not just the discourse (none / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:05:20 PM EST
    whatever control can be had over events they have as well.


    Parent
    Oh, I agree. (none / 0) (#44)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:10:47 PM EST
    I was in a local store yesterday.  A wman was telling the owner that her Ranger son is heading back, to Afghanistan this time (although she admitted he can't really say too much) for the fourth time.  They were sure he wouldn't have to go back, but off he goes.  Another's son is headed back to Fallujah this time.  Both, obviously, want a new president.  I hope they're not disappointed.

    Ugh.

    Parent

    As Colin Powell said (none / 0) (#40)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:04:57 PM EST
    "you broke it, you own it." We own that war forever and ever. We are responsible for Iraq now...period.

    Afghanistan, should it be abandoned one more time, the Taliban return with vengeance.

    No American politician will leave Iraq or Afghanistan.

    I was actually very happy (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:08:02 PM EST
    the see the Taliban get their butts kicked and was very supportive of that action.
    and probably would be again.  we can not, or at the very least certainly SHOULD not, give those maniacs one more square mile of the earth.
    IMO only of course.


    Parent
    It might be helpful to know (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by JohnS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:19:37 PM EST
    who exactly we are fighting in Afghanistan right now. It appears that not all these insurgents are Taliban, some are Afghan/pakistani border tribes that have been left off the US/Karzai $$$ gravytrain, others have lost family or tribemembers to air attacks, etc.

    As Juan Cole says:

    Afghan tribes are fractious. They feud. Their territory is vast and rugged, and they know it like the back of their hands. Afghans are Jeffersonians in the sense that they want a light touch from the central government, and heavy handedness drives them into rebellion. Stand up Karzai's army and air force and give him some billions to bribe the tribal chiefs, and let him apply carrot and stick himself. We need to get out of there. "Al-Qaeda" was always Bin Laden's hype. He wanted to get us on the ground there so that the Mujahideen could bleed us the way they did the Soviets. It is a trap.


    Parent
    I Couldn't Agree More (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:36:03 PM EST
    It is time for diplomacy and cash distribution, and not cash distribution to Haliburton and Blackwater.

    The WOT is a fake, just like the War on Drugs. It is all about redistributing taxpayers $$$ to GOP cronies.

    No MOre WOT.

    Parent

    A little bit scary... (none / 0) (#87)
    by lentinel on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:12:01 PM EST
    What troubles me about Obama is that he won't address the morality, or lack of it, with respect to the war in Iraq. He will only refer to it as a strategic blunder.

    Obama goes on to say, as quoted in the link above, that the U.S. must end the war in Iraq and that Afghanistan, by contrast, is "a war that we have to win."

    Why?

    Isn't this another quagmire?
    We overthrew the Taliban, and what did it get us? What did it do for the people of Afghanistan? Now they're "insurgents". Sound familiar?

    What would constitute a "win" for Obama?
    Whom are we fighting?

    I think that in all of these cases we kill a lot of innocent people. We call them collateral damage and send our apologies. But this hardly endears us to anyone. This hardly makes us safer.

    I think there is some ulterior motive in pushing the war in Afghanistan. What is it? Oil? Poppys?

    How about (none / 0) (#90)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:14:48 PM EST
    the military industrial complex?

    :)

    Parent

    Of course. (none / 0) (#92)
    by lentinel on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:17:44 PM EST
    Of course the military-industrial complex is behind it.
    But for what specific reason?
    And why is Obama so gung ho?

    Parent
    For the same reason as ever (none / 0) (#111)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:28:59 PM EST
    which is for the military to perpetuate itself and preferably grow itself, requiring more funding from us, which makes them bigger dogs in D.C.

    Parent
    And... (none / 0) (#130)
    by lentinel on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:59:17 PM EST
    Why is Obama so gung ho?

    Parent
    Correct me if I'm wrong (none / 0) (#101)
    by cmugirl on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:34:34 PM EST
    But didn't Obama, in his "greatest speech on foreign policy ever" today also say that we need to move two brigades to Afghanistan - the same military he says he knows are tired and worn out?  How's that going to work?

    Larry Johnson has an interesting perspective here. I know people don't like his site, and he's obviously not wild about Obama, and the commenters get absolutely crazy, but the man was a CIA operative and is an expert in terrorism / counter terrorism.  You can believe what he wrote or not, but I found it to be an interesting analysis and I learned some things about how Afghanistan is currently being run.

    Isn't Johnson the fellow who wrote (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:38:20 PM EST
    endlessly about a video of Michelle Obama?

    Parent
    He did (none / 0) (#104)
    by cmugirl on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:47:34 PM EST
    But his contention is that it does exist, but it is being held until after the nomination (which he has always said).

    I don't know if that's true or not, but he seems to know what he's talking about with regards to intelligence and Middle East policy. He's even given the Democratic Radio address in 2005, so they liked him at one point. And his site is (or at least was) a favorite here on TL, as it is listed as such.

    I said you didn't have to believe him - just that it was an interesting perspective.

    Parent

    Obama is wrong (none / 0) (#115)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:49:33 PM EST
    Dems have been talking about the consequences of Bush's war for a long time now.

    I'm not ready to embrace the "I told you so"-ness of Barack Obama.

    It actually turns me off the issue.

    Rubbish (none / 0) (#120)
    by ribbon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:18:54 PM EST
    "McCain is moving towards the longstanding Obama position on Iraq and Afghanistan"

    You have totally lost it on Iraq BTD. Honestly now.

    McCain supported the surge in '07 and had pushed for one earlier still. Obama, on the other hand, asserted on CBS last year that the surge could not possibly succeed.  He's on flippen video poo-pooing the surge 1 1/2 years ago!

    "Obama position"!?  What does that even mean?

    Obama has the superior judgment!?

    You have a lot of nerve flaunting an absolute lie to your readers.  Disgusting.

    But hey now, you can rejoice because Obama's revisionist internet police are already busy at work attemping to alter history: they've recently removed the "surge bashing" content from his official site.

    Bill Richardson's now flaunting this Obama-spoon fed lie that McCain is "wrong" on Iraq.  He's now talking about how Obama's official site removing their surge bashing articles is nothing more than "updating".  Yeah, I'm sure that's what Stalin used to call it.

    "tweaking", "updating", "refining" bla bla bla flip-flopping hackery.

    Heh (none / 0) (#139)
    by RalphB on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:37:21 PM EST
    If anything this is backward ...

    "McCain is moving towards the longstanding Obama position on Iraq and Afghanistan"

    All part of the evolution of Obama.

    Parent

    Why is Afghanistan so important? (none / 0) (#124)
    by Emma on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:39:54 PM EST
    Can anybody explain to me why Afghanistan is so much more necessary to "winning" the "war on terror" than Iraq?  Why is it necessary or desireable to pull troops out of Iraq only to put them into Afghanistan?

    Excellent question. (none / 0) (#128)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:48:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama v. McCain on War On Terror | 133 comments (133 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment