|
08-01-2008, 03:07 PM | #1 | ||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Is the Iraq debate coming to an end?
Of course there will continue for a long time to be debate between many Republicans and Democrats about whether or not the Iraq War should have been fought in the first place, but there seems to be a growing consensus over the future of Iraq policy.
Presidential candidates McCain and Obama are making increasingly similar statements about how Iraq should be handled from now on. Quote:
There are of course crazy hardliners in the Democratic Party that insist on instantaneous complete withdrawal, but the dominant perspective in the Democratic Party is far saner. It also seems that because of the success of the Bush Administration's Surge policy (I'll add to the BBC article I just cited that the violence was lower last month than in any other month since the war began, according to the Washington Post article "U.S. Deaths In Iraq fall To Lowest Of the War"), Republicans, including President Bush, are ready to increase troop withdrawals. Quote:
I personally feel as though, while this won't end debates over whether we should have entered Iraq in the first place, our debate over current foreign policy on the Iraq War may be fading. What do the rest of you think? EDIT: I know there's already an Iraq War thread, but the subject of this thread is the debate, not the war, so I thought it might be all right to make another thread. If mods disagree, obviously feel free to merge this with the other thread. It doesn't matter much to me.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." Last edited by Lief Erikson : 08-01-2008 at 03:12 PM. |
||
08-01-2008, 04:45 PM | #2 |
Cardboard Harp of Gondor Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: IM IN UR POSTZ, EDITIN' UR WURDZ
Posts: 6,433
|
I'm okay with this thread so long as the old one doesn't start popping up and living at the top of the list again. If that happens I'll probably merge them, but so long as we only have one at a time at the top, it's fine.
|
08-01-2008, 10:01 PM | #3 |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 102
|
Hi Lief,
I don't think it is fading, actually. It's true that both Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain both would like to plan on our leaving Iraq within 16 months of their taking office, and while both of them agree that it would be under certain conditions that we would withdraw using that timeline, both Senators disagree on what those conditions should be. And they disagree a great deal. To Sen. McCain those conditions are basically our winning the war on terror in Iraq. While for Sen. Obama those conditions are based on how fast the military commanders advising him say they can withdraw the troops in an intelligent and safe way. Also, I don't see how they've entered a "middle ground" on the issue when Sen. Obama hasn't changed is stance on Iraq a single bit, despite what the media has been saying. He has always said it would be under certain conditions, even going so far as to say in one of the early debates that he wouldn't swear we would be out of Iraq by a certain date if he were elected, because he didn't want to withdraw from Iraq as blindly as we gotten in. Most of our journalists just don't pay enough attention to remember that, apparently.
__________________
Every blade in the field, Every leaf in the forest, Lays down its life in its season, As beautifully as it was taken up. Thoreau. Last edited by D.Sullivan : 08-01-2008 at 10:02 PM. |
08-01-2008, 11:50 PM | #4 | ||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
Also, to McCain, conditions for withdrawal are also "based on how fast the military commanders advising him say they can withdraw the troops in an intelligent and safe way." He's said as much himself, which is why the Washington Post said their positions on the matter are extremely similar. He doesn't want Iraq to erupt because he pulls out too many troops too quickly. So if he can prevent an internal collapse and violent spiral while removing troops, he'll remove troops. If removing the troops would damage Iraq's security significantly, though, he wouldn't withdraw them. That actually is the same position Bush has held about withdrawing troops, which is why Bush has just said he'll start post-surge troop withdrawals soon. He said he'd start those withdrawals soon because General Petraeus has said the situation is secure enough now that they can do that. It is a misunderstanding of McCain's position to say he's waiting for zero violence before beginning troop withdrawals. Obama said that that's what McCain wants, but he misrepresented McCain's position completely when he said that. McCain wants victory, but McCain has also said that he considers Iraq to already be pretty much a victory, and he has said he'd be willing to pull out a lot of troops soon as well. So Obama misrepresented him. McCain has misrepresented Obama's position too, saying Obama was planning to ignore the advice of commanders in the field, when Obama explicitly said he wasn't planning to do that. They're both misrepresenting one another to score political points. But the differences between their positions, when put under a microscope, seem to be very small indeed. Quote:
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." Last edited by Lief Erikson : 08-02-2008 at 12:02 AM. |
||
08-02-2008, 12:13 AM | #5 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Here's a quote from John McCain's support website:
"When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home." Here's a quote from him, about his goal in Iraq. Note that he never says zero terrorism. Instead, he emphasizes an Iraq that can manage its own problems by itself without collapsing. John McCain: “I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there. Our goal is an Iraq that can stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighborhood. Our goal is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops. And I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine. But I do not believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for President that they cannot keep if elected. To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility. It is a failure of leadership. “ Those goals he stated there, I hope, are not too far different from Obama's. If Obama is willing to pull out while leaving behind an Iraq that cannot "stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighborhood," there is cause to be concerned about his policy. I think that like McCain, Obama wants an Iraq, "That no longer needs American troops." McCain has not said he won't start withdrawals until there is no terrorism. His statements about victory in Iraq indicate he has a very different perspective, and is focusing, like Bush, more on Israel as a goal for Iraq, rather than the United States.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." Last edited by Lief Erikson : 08-02-2008 at 12:18 AM. |
08-02-2008, 02:10 AM | #6 | ||
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 102
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Every blade in the field, Every leaf in the forest, Lays down its life in its season, As beautifully as it was taken up. Thoreau. |
||
08-02-2008, 06:55 PM | #7 | |||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
Quote:
I still think Obama might very well be a disaster on foreign policy for other reasons, but on Iraq, it looks to me as though Republican and Democrat views on the way forward are really merging. That said, McCain does have some substantive reasons for being concerned about Obama's plan. It's not all mere rhetoric. One is that he doesn't use an expressly stated timetable like Obama does. A timetable sets the US up to look bad, because if insurgents can force us to delay a declared timetable, that makes them look much more viable and impressive to people around them. A lot of American civilians really want a timetable, but it doesn't help the military at all. Quite the reverse. Also, a timetable could give hope to the insurgents, giving them the idea that all they have to do is hide their heads and wait the US out. That would give them strength. So timetables don't really help anybody strategically except the enemy. That's why McCain objects to them, or at least it's a good part of the reason why. He might have more reasons than those I've stated. One can disagree with the above strategic points, obviously. Obama also said that he'd listen to the advising generals in the field but would himself make the final decision on what US policy would be. McCain said, like Bush, that he would let the commanders in the field make the decision about when they could afford to send troops go back home. Therefore McCain has latched onto Obama's words and said that Obama isn't planning to listen to the generals, which isn't correct. Though one might certainly argue that McCain's position is more strategy based and success-in-Iraq focused than Obama's, based on the different statements they made. Yet the forementioned visible differences between their positions aren't really that big. Obama said 16 months, and while McCain doesn't like any timetable being expressed publicly, he has said that 16 months is a pretty good timetable to focus on. And they're both making withdrawal subject to shifting circumstances on the ground. Both have also said some residual US force would be left behind, though neither has said how many or where. On major points, their positions are very, very similar. Only on less serious points to they seem to differ. Of course, the senators' positions do strongly differ on many other major issues, but Iraq doesn't seem to be one of them so much anymore. Quote:
It's necessary when listening to their speeches to sort between hard policy and rhetoric. There's a lot of rhetoric out there, and the campaigns also are misrepresenting one another to score political points. Underneath all that are the hard policy statements that both men have released. I think the Washington Post did a very good job in sorting between rhetoric and policy, in their article where they said the two men's positions are extremely similar. Words like, "we'll win a victory," or "his plan would be catastrophic," or, "he's planning to keep us in Iraq forever," are all just hot words designed to stir people up and cause people to come over to your side. That's rhetoric, not policy. Their rhetoric is quite antagonistic- especially McCain's, lately. If one listened to that rhetoric, one would feel that their positions have got to be miles distant from one another. But in reality, that's all just posturing in order to get people to join your side or turn away from the other guy. Lying way below the words is actual policy, and that's what the Washington Post was honing in on.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
|||
08-12-2008, 04:05 PM | #8 |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Scunthorpe, UK
Posts: 166
|
Hmm let me get this right, it's election time and the main candidates are essentially saying the same thing in different words, capitulating to public opinion that they shouldn't be there any more (leaving aside arguements over the source and the start), but couching it in sufficient terms that they can re-interpret them later, thereby "proving" themselves as the best thing to replace the current decision-makers. Am I a cynic? Or is it just the usual political spin? Let me guess, they both have something to say on spiralling food prices. Or does that not affect enough voters.
__________________
Frodo Lives! |
08-12-2008, 04:43 PM | #9 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
08-17-2008, 06:13 PM | #10 |
Fenway Ranger, Lord of Red Sox Nation
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: College!
Posts: 1,976
|
Lief, that's some insightful thoughts on the subject. I hadn't thought about it that much, and didn't really realize McCain was so realistic on the subject, which is a good thing.
And in this instance, I'd much rather entrust military commanders with whether or not withdrawal would be a realistic option. It's a nice shift from what the current administration has been allegedly doing. And regardless of whether that charge is true, it's a good move.
__________________
Adventure...betrayal...heroism... Atharon: where heroes are born. My wife once said to me—when I'd been writing for ten or fifteen years—that I could always go back to being a nuclear engineer. And I said to her, 'Harriet, would you let someone who quit his job to go write fantasy anywhere near your nuclear reactor? I wouldn't!' (Robert Jordan) |
08-18-2008, 02:53 AM | #11 |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere not of this world
Posts: 402
|
In McCain's position, the level of victory in Iraq is even debatable. How much of a victory is it and can the nation survive its own continuing fighting against terrorism? How sustainable is their government and will this only mean trouble 10, 20, 30, 50, or 100 years down the road? I think it's likely that it's not a matter of if but a matter of when, until any major power let alone Iraq ends up faltering to terrorism. But it is best that if, at least for now, the battle is won, to lower the amount of potential loss that can be taken, for the forces of the Iraqis and the forces of the United States. I just hope that the forces can be sent home, and not have to be transferred to yet another battlefield in this War-Hopping that seems to be going on. First Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Iran, then who knows? Russia has interests with Iran, and this may make Israel and America enemies of Russia, if not already they are. A purely frightening situation it is. I've been giving this whole conflict one title - "Earth in Chaos", because I'm afraid that's what it will end up being. Most of us will survive it though, and I can only hope that this can all end peaceful without even one more loss. I don't think the world is mad enough to allow nuclear weapons to come into play.
__________________
I'm back. Everyone fear for their lives. Arrggghhh! Get to the choppa, it's Godzilla, fighting Indiana Jones, Copyright, uh-oh! |
08-18-2008, 03:31 AM | #12 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In me taters
Posts: 3,288
|
Well, it's all swinging round in a new direction really (or rather, an old one). The Russian Bear has woken up again, seeing that the US and Nato are bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan (which must be a sweet irony as they spent the 80s in a similar situation). We've got a nice "Cuban Missile Crisis" de nos jours brewing with Poland's hosting of the missile defence shield. China has increasing economic clout, recession is biting in the US and Europe.
I think the military commanders are going to have a shed load of other pressures, which have been more or less absent for the past 18 years. "The Death of History" my arse. |
08-24-2008, 08:23 AM | #13 | |
Entmoot Minister of Foreign Affairs
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 2,145
|
Quote:
But China and Russia aren't promoting a new ideological replacement to democracy and the market-economy, and that was Fukuyama's point.
__________________
"Well, thief! I smell you and I feel your air. I hear your breath. Come along! Help yourself again, there is plenty and to spare." Last edited by Coffeehouse : 08-24-2008 at 02:30 PM. Reason: Fukuyama, not Fukyama |
|
08-25-2008, 05:44 AM | #14 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In me taters
Posts: 3,288
|
|
08-24-2008, 11:51 AM | #15 | |||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong here.
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
08-24-2008, 02:32 PM | #16 |
Entmoot Minister of Foreign Affairs
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 2,145
|
I don't know what McCain has said on the latest events, but he has said that he supports fully the Bush Administration's current strategy, and that then would include the new USA-out-of-Iraq-by-2010/11-scenario. It's been signed and stamped by both the administration and the Iraqis now. Seems like a timetable to me.
__________________
"Well, thief! I smell you and I feel your air. I hear your breath. Come along! Help yourself again, there is plenty and to spare." |
08-26-2008, 04:46 AM | #17 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In me taters
Posts: 3,288
|
Don't forget the North Pole! Our 0.4 of a Trident sub could plant the flag. Should we let the Swedes and Danes in?
|
08-26-2008, 05:23 AM | #18 | |
Entmoot Minister of Foreign Affairs
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 2,145
|
Quote:
Hey what does '0.4 of a Trident sub' mean? Btw so we don't seem way off topic.. Iraq.
__________________
"Well, thief! I smell you and I feel your air. I hear your breath. Come along! Help yourself again, there is plenty and to spare." Last edited by Coffeehouse : 08-26-2008 at 05:24 AM. |
|
08-26-2008, 06:09 AM | #19 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In me taters
Posts: 3,288
|
Oops. Looks like our Grand Alliance is sunk before it got out the harbour.
I think the UK has 4 Trident submarines, Scotland has about 10% of the UK population, therefore we'd get 4/10ths of a sub. A bit like in a divorce where your wife cuts all your clothes in half. Yeah, Iraq. Instead of thinking about it in terms of polling points in the US presidential election, I'd like to think about what would be best for the Iraqi people. Then we should do that. |
08-26-2008, 08:07 AM | #20 | ||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ilha Formosa
Posts: 2,068
|
Quote:
Quote:
The only way Maliki can get this through the Iraqi Parliament is with a definite timetable, so US withdrawal is going to happen whether McCain likes it or not.
__________________
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them? "I like pigs. Dogs look up to us, cats look down on us, but pigs treat us as equals."- Winston Churchill |
||
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Global Warming Debate | hectorberlioz | General Messages | 560 | 01-06-2014 02:38 PM |
UK Politics | Last Child of Ungoliant | General Messages | 658 | 09-30-2008 08:51 AM |
Book V; ch IX and X. The Last Debate and The Black Gate Opens | crickhollow | LOTR Discussion Project | 33 | 02-29-2008 10:28 AM |
Insidious, Lief and R*an debate all things great and small. | Lief Erikson | General Messages | 139 | 09-12-2004 01:36 AM |
The X-Wings are coming!! The X-Wings are coming!! | easterlinge | The Star Wars Saga | 9 | 06-08-2001 11:10 AM |