John McCain's Real Plan for Iraq
I talked with John McCain Sunday morning in the green room just before “This Week.” I asked him why he continued to call for more troops for Iraq when he must know it's a political non-starter. He said he thought it important for the morale of the troops.
McCain gives every impression of meaning what he says, which is one of his greatest assets. But I simply can’t believe this one. What’s most important for the morale of the troops is knowing they’ll be coming home soon, not hearing some politician say we need more troops when there’s no possible chance of that happening.
I think McCain knows Iraq is out of our hands – it’s disintegrating into civil war, and by 2008 will be a bloodbath. He also knows American troops will be withdrawn. The most important political fact he knows is he has to keep a big distance between himself and Bush in order to avoid being tainted by this horrifying failure. Arguing that we need more troops effectively covers his ass. It will allow him to say, “if the President did what I urged him to do, none of this would have happened.”
McCain is smarter on this score than Dems who intend to engage in post-Baker Commission “what we must do now” bipartisanship. It may make Dems feel relevant and important, but it will also make them complicit in the impending failure. Come 2008, they will share the responsibility for the horror of Iraq. HRC will be drawn in, as will Barak Obama and all other Dem notables who will feel it necessary to participate in a “plan.”
In the end, McCain alone will be able to escape blame. At least, that’s what I think he’s thinking.
McCain gives every impression of meaning what he says, which is one of his greatest assets. But I simply can’t believe this one. What’s most important for the morale of the troops is knowing they’ll be coming home soon, not hearing some politician say we need more troops when there’s no possible chance of that happening.
I think McCain knows Iraq is out of our hands – it’s disintegrating into civil war, and by 2008 will be a bloodbath. He also knows American troops will be withdrawn. The most important political fact he knows is he has to keep a big distance between himself and Bush in order to avoid being tainted by this horrifying failure. Arguing that we need more troops effectively covers his ass. It will allow him to say, “if the President did what I urged him to do, none of this would have happened.”
McCain is smarter on this score than Dems who intend to engage in post-Baker Commission “what we must do now” bipartisanship. It may make Dems feel relevant and important, but it will also make them complicit in the impending failure. Come 2008, they will share the responsibility for the horror of Iraq. HRC will be drawn in, as will Barak Obama and all other Dem notables who will feel it necessary to participate in a “plan.”
In the end, McCain alone will be able to escape blame. At least, that’s what I think he’s thinking.
posted by Robert Reich | 10:01 PM
82 Comments:
Presidential calculations certainly play a part, but I suspect that McCain's desire to keep as many troops in Iraq as possible also reflects his hawkishness on Iran. Maintaining high troop levels 1) Discourages the perception that we will back away from a fight, and 2) Keeps our forces in a position to threaten Iran specifically. The Iran situation is likely to come to a head either during the 2008 campaign or early in the administration of the winner, and McCain wants to be prepared either way.
I agree completely that the Democrats can't allow themselves to share the blame with Bush. But avoiding that will be difficult especially since the Democrats are in power again.
McCain is right in asking for more troops, but more troops are not really the answer unless we change their mission, tactics and training. The reason we have not won the peace, is that we were never prepared to do so. Winning the second half of the conflict in IRAQ requires a different set of capabilities from winning the war. We won the war in a few weeks, but winning the peace requires a new mind set as well as more personnel.
For a good discussion of this see Dr. Tom Barnett’s take on Sys Admin versus the Leviathan. PS: If you are not familiar with Dr. Barnett’s work I suggest you visit his web site, www.thomaspmbarnett.com. His second book, Blueprint for Action, has a good summary of his first book, the Pentagon’s New Map, in the early chapters.
The myth that John McCain is independent, a maverick, or highly principled needs to be shot down.
I hate to think how many will die to he can boost the morale of our troops. Why doesn't he go to the White House and urge some integrity from those guys?
So, what will cover McCain's ass now that the administration is considering adding 20,000 troops?
Be careful what you ask for, senator. You just might get it.
"I talked with John McCain Sunday morning in the green room just before “This Week.” I asked him why he continued to call for more troops for Iraq when he must know it's a political non-starter. He said he thought it important for the morale of the troops."
As Atrios said, you just "broke the rules."
Thank you.
Isn't this excuse the evuivalent logic of "misery loves company"?
I mean that is basically what he is saying. He believes that troop moral is low, not because of a pointless war and not because they are fighting without any plan or management or goals...but because there aren't enough people there to get the job done.
Fair enough, but what JOB is there to be done and how do we do it? Simply throwing more people at a problem, without first defining what your purpose or goal is is no different than throwing money at a problem without any idea on how to fix it.
Therein lies the faulty logic. Misery may love company but it doesn't mean it get less miserable. It only means there are more people miserable than before.
Putting more troops into Iraq to threaten Iran is like climbing into the La Brea tar pits to threaten Rancho Cucamonga.
But that's not to say McCain doesn't think it would work.
Would not the "surge" of 20,000 troops in Iraq (without the 100,000 increase in the Army) allow Bush to say "we did what McCain wanted?" He might not get as clear as he might want. And it still looks dumb for the Dem's to play along... again.
Doesn't this imply that we'd be out of Iraq by 2008? Bush is clearly not planning on withdrawal anytime soon, so when Iraq is a bloodbath by the time the next elections roll around, it'll be this election season all over again -- anyone seen as advocating staying put, in the face of clear opposition from a majority of Americans (and Iraqis), will have those deaths hung around their neck.
What on earth could we do about Iran militarily except ignite an even bigger bloodbath? It's time for this region to take care of its own business without the outside meddling of de-facto colonizers. If we get Islamic governments, we have to live with that. Just like the rest of the world has to live with our government. And then, with these governments, we need to work and influence and set an example far superior to that which we have previously. Then, hopefully, over time, we will make a difference BY EXAMPLE and not force.
Look at Vietnam, and imagine how much better off it would've been, how much better for us it would've been had we, rather than going to war, said "Be communist, be what you want, we are here to help and offer assistance and aid and anything we can and help you to an infinitely more prosperous future."
It's about time everyone call McCain what he really is: The Great Ass Coverer.
Your comment is right on target. The Dems are about to drink the proverbial Kool-Aid of "bipartisanship" offered by the Torturer in Chief and his gang of War Crims.
I fail to see how anyone can take Senator McCain seriously now that he has remained virtually silent on the Bush administration's official policy allowing torture and suspension of habeas corpus. That he is in favour of sending 20K more soldiers to Iraq's killing fields is inscrutible, at best, and if you're right, at worst, disingenuous and dangerous (at least for the soldiers if not for McCain's chances in 2008). Having been nearly beatified by BOTH parties in the past, it's difficult to imagine how this is going to help him maintain his saintly aura. What's worse is that he knows, and you and I know, that every soldier who's patrolling or fighting in Iraq now will come home permanently damaged psychologically. It's unconscionable that anyone with his past could imagine that augmenting the fighting force would positively affect morale in the short, medium or long term.
Senator McCain needs to be outed for his transparent pandering to his presumed constituents. Keep on fighting the good fight.
If we had 20,000 diplomats to send over there, it might make a difference...but at this point 20K troops is too little, too late.
I completely agree that the "John McCain is an independant thinker and maverick" myth needs to end. What he is now, and has been for a while, is an aging politician with one last shot at the presidency. Basically, he's Bob Dole.
One point, however: What exactly is the point when "disintegrating into civil war" becomes "civil war." Way too many people suddenly talk about Sectarian violence like it's political manuevering. Seems like it's a nice way to say "civil war."
--WKW
I believe that Sen.McCain was essentially correct in saying nore troops will help morale of those already there.
The reinforcements are coming is a welcome phrase to the troops who are engaged in an steep uphill battle. Why would'nt they want help?
Sen. McCain is supporting what is already in place rather than trying to change it. He tends to be a wind sock on many issues, doing what is politicaly correct vs. taking a stand on major isssues that would involve a change in course.
We need to bring all parties to the table and soon, the death toll keeps climbing and climbing, it really needs to stop, now.
First, I agree with the meat of your post, especially your choice words about McCain's "integrity". However, I must disagree with your criticism of Democrats getting involved with a "plan" (your scare quotes). If you mean by "plan" a simple carte-blanche endorsement to any conclusions by the Baker commission, then I agree with you. However, a "plan" is exactly what we need in Iraq, especially if it's phased, conditional withdrawl. As long as the Democratic leadership holds fast to their plans for redeployment, I think 2008 bodes well for Democrats.
I know you attribute most of your post as what McCain was thinking, but your last paragraph certainly seemed to be your personal assessment of the matter.
Finally, in response to den's endorsement of McCain's view, I leave it to Fareed Zakaria who has said it better than I ever could:
There is no question that if you had more troops and you still can’t go after the militias, can’t offer amnesty to the Sunni insurgents. The core political decisions we have to make do not depend on more troops. They depend on political compromises that this government, this ruling coalition can’t make. Sending more troops and in that context is, is just willing more American deaths.
Realistically, the Republicans are pretty much united in that they don't support any kind of quick (in the next generation) withdrawal from Iraq. They may throw around different solutions for political purposes, but there are certain realities that cannot be denied:
1) The current (post mid-term election and for the next two years, probably) administration is made up of the neocons and Bush 43 retreads led by James Baker. The neocons have as a goal world hegemony, which requires control of the middle east and it's oil to succeed. The Baker wing is also the Carlyle Group faction. Their goal is maximizing war profits since they control as much as 60% of our defense production. The two groups are in perfect synergy for a goal of perpetual war; which we have already been set up for with the phony 'War on Terror' propaganda.
2) Based on the above, the Democrats are faced with the delimma of either supporting one of the myriad Republican plans coming out between now and the next election cycle (all of which will involve 'staying the course' to some degree), or putting forth a plan of their own which may fail or may not meet the expectations of the voters. If they just go along, in a so-called 'Bipartisan' way, they run the risk of being labeled 'flip-floppers' again if the Republican plan fails and the Dems try to make ploitical hay of it. If the Dems come up with a plan that is just 'Republican Lite', they will be portrayed as weak and the Rs will get what they want anyway, which is to stay in Iraq.
So, what to do? I believe the Democrats should do the really difficult thing and propose to get us the hell out of Iraq immediately. That may mean having to redefine the term 'immediately'. It may involve cutting off all funds for combat operations after a certain date and forcing the neocons and Carlylians to accept an Iraq without a US military presence. Whatever, it will not be easy or pretty.
let me say this for the last time:
we are not leaving Iraq as long as W & Cheney are in office. Iraq sits on the world's 2nd or 3rd largest oil reserves, and at a time of when oil production has plateaued and will decline within 10-20 years, there's no way the oil & gas junta will leave those oil fields to the highest bidder (China? India? Europe?)
"no oil well left behind"
I don't think you're giving the Dems enough credit here. Any plan they offer will involve substantial troop withdrawals, most likely starting within the next Friedman Unit.
That's never going to happen with this President, and every one on both sides of the aisle knows it.
So the Dems will be just as free as McCain to say, in 2008, "If only Bush had listened to us, we wouldn't still be in this mess."
On top of that, they'll be able to point to McCain, if he's the nominee, and say "He not only didn't want us out, he wanted us to send *more* kids to die."
Not a bad political position to be in, IMHO.
You might be right that political ass-covering is shrewder than attempting to fix the problem, and thereby getting one's hands dirty, but doesn't this just mean that democracy has failed? If people can't join together to solve problems, if Washington really is all about winning races, and CYA, then let's just shut down congress so the upper class can fight over the presidency without the pretense of the legislative process.
McCain along with the current administration's inellectual dishonesty sickens me. Believing that shifting tactics can make up for a flawed or non-existent strategy is ignorant. Nobody, least of all this administration, has outlined a coherent strategy with realistic goals which can be achieved with the tools we have at hand. The military is one tool of many that should have been leveraged to solve whatever percieved strategic problem our administration conjured up. The problem is, a stratgic goal never was defined and now Iraq is FUBAR.
In case no one has noticed, including you, Mr. Reich, John McCain is completely insane (chemotherapy?) and doesn't stand the chance of an icecube in Hell of being elected. This "war hero" who enthusiastically participated in the illegal terror bombing of North Vietnam, got shot down after he'd dropped his last load of cluster bombs, got busted, and did some time, is demonstrably as big a monster as our own Caligula in the White House.
If we took those 20,000 proposed troops and simply arranged them in a giant circular firing squad we would get the exact same results, more dead and wounded U.S. servicepeople, with the same effect in Iraq, that is to say nothing much.
And we'd be saving all that money on transport and training.
And oh, we should put McCain and the neoconservatives in the middle of it.
So that's why he will win. Oh that McCain is right. We could use a few more troops a couple hundred thousand or so.
The insurgents stated goal is to drive us from Iraq so they can go about giving those who worked with us the old chop chop choppity chop. for those of you who call bush a war criminal I have some real war crimes to show you.
They have already claimed victory because they assume (wrongly I think) that we will abandon the people of Iraq.
The only problem I see with McCain's idea is that increasing troop density might speed up the process but will of course result in more American Deaths.
Hey Robert! I have to endure you on NPR all the time. Sometimes you almost make sense right before you say something silly. Great to find you have a blog where I can say, You suck in a friendly blogger to blogger kind of way.
John McCain lives in the same bubble as president Bush.
Unless, we send in more troops! Then he loses the elections or doesnt run at all
Thank you for your honesty. Some are questioning your breach of "green room etiquette," but I, for one, am glad someone exposed the difference between what a politician thinks and says behind closed doors and what he says and does when the cameras are on. We want straight talk from our politicians, especially from ones who have built their reputations on it, and especially when the stakes in Iraq are so high for our brave soldiers.
I find McCain's statement on troops levels politically disturbing.
First, let's acknowledge that the 20k troops are not forthcoming. It ain't gonna happen. The Pentagon says as much.
Second, let's admit that McCain knows that this is the case.
Why then is McCain making a statement that he knows is unfulfillable?
Because he wants the American public to belive that it is fulfillable and that if it is not fulfilled (as it inevitably will not be) that it is the work of defeatists and traitors that have prevented us from achieving victory in Iraq and undermed America Don't question the Republican administration and thinkers who got us into this quagmire, blame the liberal traitors.
He is setting himself up as a classic Siegfried Hero stabbed in the back on the Iraqi battlefield by liberals and Democrats
The same thing a cetain German corporal did at the end of World War One to give his political ambitions momentum.
It is as dispicable as it is dishonest in the extreme and I pray, I pray that the media see through it and expose it as the lie that it is.
With the internet there is hope.
Come 2008, they will share the responsibility for the horror of Iraq.
They already share responsibility. Over half the Dem Senators and and over a third of Dem Representatives voted for the war. Almost all of these people are still in office.
I say this is THE major reason Dems don't have a president in the WH and a huge majority in Congress right now. Example: I couldn't bring myself to vote for Harold Ford because of his votes on the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. Voting for either one of those is unforgivable. I'm sure there are throngs of people out there that feel the same way. There was no way I'd vote for John Kerry and that goes for dozens of people I know. They'd love to vote out the prowar crowd, but it's pretty difficult when the only candidates with a chance of winning are/were for the war.
If the Dems want to win the WH in 2008, they need to nominate a candidate that was against the war from the beginning.
In the end, McCain alone will be able to escape blame. At least, that’s what I think he’s thinking.
Nah, he voted for it too. He's supported it from the beginning. He can't escape those facts.
dad;er:
Look at Vietnam, and imagine how much better off it would've been, how much better for us it would've been had we, rather than going to war, said "Be communist, be what you want, we are here to help and offer assistance and aid and anything we can and help you to an infinitely more prosperous future."
You and I both know that $Vietnam$ wasn't about communism and $Iraq$ isn't about WMD or democracy.
What if McCain called for a draft to go along with his call for more troops...? Oh wait, that would never happen!
I agree(d) completely!
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/20/91644/046
Hello Robert,
I agree that the Democrats are between a rock and hard place. But just because the times are tough, and the decisions are difficult, that should not give us an excuse to soften our stance and deviate from the truth. As I have written many times at my site, the truth is often painful; it is painful to admit, and even more painful to execute. The neo-cons know this and they are daring us to admit and pursue the truth. For them, the truth is a weakness and an opening to be exploited. (as I have written here)
If we know that this is their way, and that their genetic make up will make it almost impossible for them to resist pursuing this course of action, then we can either succumb to their typical but effective swiftboating maneuvers, or we can use a technique in martial arts called: "Entering into the eye of the storm". If we decide to fight back knowing what they will do, then the best path is to 'enter into the storm' and face it head on. If we are too worry about our own being rather than our nation's being, then this is not a viable or worthwhile option. But if we are determine to be true to our conscience and if the situation is a no win situation anyways, then the only honorable way out of this quagmire is by sticking with the truth and speaking with our hearts. I firmly believe that the American people that voted so overwhelmingly for change will see it. The American people are smarter that what these pundits and tacticians give them credit for... And even if we are wrong, I think that they will forgive us if they can clearly see that we truly have the lives of our brave men and women and our nation's best interest first.
What they will not forgive however, is us doing a roundabout face, cowering to the neo-cons, and taking a course that caters to the interest of both parties in power. Regardless of the outcome, at this particular moment in time, what the American people hate most, even more than the neo-cons, are politicians that they switch sides to vote for, resorting to the status quo, positioning for power, taking a safe path and refusing to take a stand and making tough choices.
We should resolve to be strong and take a firm stance against these neo-cons, and surprise them with our nerves of steel, staring them down straight in the eye, and unambiguously demand immediate troops withdrawal, now! If nothing else, when the battle is done, the rewards alone will be the look that we caused, on their ashen faces... and when we are alone, by ourselves, in a deep, dark dungeon somewhere, we can always look up at the light, that is shinning in our minds, and softly say to ourselves: 'we were true to our hearts, and lives were saved.'
Take care Robert, and keep up with the good fight.
Anthony, aka zenseeker
No one has described how more troops will win and no one has described why pulling out will have "disastrous consequences." It's infuriating to hear politicians prattle on for years while so many people are dying for - ultimately - no good reason.
McCain was a hero, once upon a time. Not now.
Unlike the time when Reich predicted Kerry would win the election, Reich is actually right (about McCain) this time.
However, the correct course of action for the Democrats to stand up and fight for the real principles of peace and justice and cut off funding immediately, declare that there is currently no state of war between the US and Iraq, recall the Commander in Chief and send the troops home now. This war is not worth another U.S. soldier dying for.
Although the Democrats might be blamed for the civil war, in the long run their simple and strong message of peace and justice and doing what the voters want will make them win in the long run.
Thanks! This is all part of McCain's little dance to suck up to Stay the Coursers (and so appear to be a loyal toady to the White House and his doomed quest to be anointed as the Crown Prince for 2008), while appearing as what passes for an independent voice in the Republican Party. All while moving to suck up to the religious and trad right in the Party on social issues.
"What he is now, and has been for a while, is an aging politician with one last shot at the presidency. Basically, he's Bob Dole."
John "It's My Turn" McCain. Pretty damn pathetic.
Mr. Reich: I just stumbled upon your blog and am very pleased that you're here! You had the graciousness to respond to an email from me a number of months back; that's something a man doesn't forget.
I am very much enjoying your posts. Keep it up!
By the way, you stole my blog design! [g]
http://bimplebean.blogspot.com
John McCain is probably the only person who truly wants things to get worse in Iraq so that he can do just what you said: Run for President on the grounds that if he had been in the White House everything would be fixed by now. I despise him.
Mr. Reich: Since this is a question that might have been answered a zillion times before, I apologize for the redundancy. Can someone explain to me why can't we argue that withdrawing from Iraq now is indeed a victory? Hussein is out of power and heading to the noose. There seems to be a democratic government that is not a threat to its neighbors. There are no weapons of mass destruction pointing our way or pointing towards our allies. Uday and Qusay can't terrorize Iraqis any longer.
Are people defining "victory" as that time when things in Iraq are peaceful? Does 'victory" mean that Sunnis and Shiites will love each other? Etc.? I fail to understand what this prerequisite "victory" is. Henry Kissinger said something, earlier today, or perhaps last night about the impossibility of winning this war. That I don't understand.
Does he mean that soldiers leave without others shooting at them?
Can someone explain to me what victory is?
Thanks.
By the way, I am not a Republican and I am still amused that this President got this far in life (Iam even more impressed at people's surprise at his awful performance).
Thaks for your help. The question is
I do understand the idea that McCain thinks he'll look better if Bush doesn't send more troops but I'm not buying it. Why would McCain suggest we send more personnel when its obvious the American people want a way out of Iraq? Come 2008, are all the independents and democrats who dragged us back to the middle of the road in this past election, largely based on their distaste for the war, going to forget that McCain wanted to send *more* troops? This, along with his recent statements re Roe v Wade, seem to indicate that McCain is self-destructing long before the race even gets started.
McCain is calling for more troops, I heard about 20,000, which is really a drop in the bucket. Right now we have approx. One soldier vs 47 Iraqis (Baghdad)under McCain's plan we would have one vs approx. 41 Iraqis.
Some view also that Iraq will descend into chaos if we exit, that is probably true, they are in civil war now and sectarian violence. Lt. Col. Grunow has said it would take us years to get the Iraqi Army trained enough to even quell some of the violence and maintain some order there. In an example he gave; When a checkpoint is fired upon or attacked the Iraqis stick their weapons up over the barricades and fire blindly, saying if Allah wills it, my bullet will find it's target.
I don't think 20,000 more will get the job done, and no matter when we leave it will descend into chaos, one mistake we made was disbanding the military and now we are basically starting from scratch. Now getting back to McCain, he is simply worrying about old number one here, he is not boosting moral he is prolonging the agony.
I see a pattern that just no longer make any sense. Why stay in Iraq at all? If Vietnam is any indication, there is no real national risk to security after we leave. It is not exactly a money making venture at this point for the nation. It will be a bigger mess if we leave, well Darfur is a mess and we don't care enough to get involved. The conventional wisdom is change something but we need to remain the Iraq, why? What is gained? From simply a self centered point of view I cannot see the advantage. Saving face is not exactly a criteria for national policies. Can someone explain what the point is for extending our presence in this conflict.
McCain is ALWAYS in favor of more ground troops: in Kosovo, in Iraq, and, IIRC, in Afghanistan.
This is an admirable trait, in a way, in a former pilot -- recognizing that grunts, not flyboys, are the ones that really get things done -- but his consistency in prescribing a single solution does not by any means alleviate my doubt about its wisdom or effectiveness in the current quag- er, situation.
Gierbo in Puerto Rico,
There is the small matter of 600,000 dead Iraqis. But I'm sure you won't let that bother you in your rush to declare victory and go home.
Saddam&Co. were (are) monsters. But they did manage to stem the Sunni-Shiite bloodletting In all his years Saddam accounted for roughly half the number of Iraqi deaths as the US invasion and bungled occupation. The American Messiahs have only succeeded in leading Iraqis down the wide path of destruction. A victory for democracy?...I don't think so.wkjbp
It amazes me that no one seems to look at Vietnam today as a vibrant economy devoid of seared flesh and bombed out villages. Nicaragua and El Salvador are no longer (?) funded by (American inspired) right wing murdering death squads. These two countries (now free of Ollie North and our new defence secretary) are looking towards a brighter future. We (Rangers and Delta) went to Somalia to "help with humanitarian aid" (kidnap Aidid) and lost eighteen fine young men while slaughtering 1,500 locals. McCain and the dim wits who support world wide Amerivangelism, at the point of a gun and the drop of a bomb, will forever be putting our youth in harms way. America voted to rethink the failed leadership of boobs like McCain. Let's get down to business.
>He said he thought it important for the morale of the troops.
Bartkid sez,
Not the morale of the 20,000 troops he's sending over.
bartkid
>He said he thought it important for the morale of the troops.
Bartkid sez,
Isn't morale what that yellow ribbon sticker on the back of all them SUV's is supposed be?
bartkid
>He said he thought it important for the morale of the troops.
Bartkid sez,
Why not send the 20,000 newly-unemployed Republican staffers to spell off 20,000 troops who are in Iraq now; I am positive that would have twice the positive effect on troop morale.
bartkid |
Can someone explain what the point is for extending our presence in this conflict.
Oil and military bases. Oh, and of course, demonstration of the prinicple of US (and, specifically, Executive Branch) freedom to act militarily at will, without oversight from the UN or even US Congress.
The Democrats need to call for a withdrawal by a date certain. Must be within 12 months. Then if Bush wants to continue the war he does it on his own. Its a Republican War - can the Dems really be dumb enought to adopt it? Sadly I think they might.
RR: HRC will be drawn in, as will Barak Obama and all other Dem notables who will feel it necessary to participate in a “plan.”
Is it moral to refuse to participate in a plan because to do so would "draw you in" to a potentially awkward political position?
I sure hope that's not what you're suggesting.
No one gets out of Iraq clean.
No one.
The repubs probably can't wait for the demos to look bad for having done whatever they're going do.
Pull out, the situation degenerates. Stay, the situation degenerates.
Bush and Co. (read PNAC) have created the perfect FUBAR situation. It's time to acknowledge that. The question then becomes, what part we play in trying to contain the meltdown after the troops are out.
McCain's is saying send more troops now ,2o,ooo that won't make a dent in what we really need over their now. When the whole thing fail's he'll say you should have listen to me in o'6. the sad thing is we wouldn't be in this problem in the 1st place, if we weren't lie to. When it started to go south we should have sent in another 100,000 troops for a year , then left. Now all we can do is watch our troops get picked off untill we bring them home. All McCain is doing is, I told you so, which is A lie from the stright talk express. Look how he's changing his positions on Roe and Fallwel its sicken . I liked McCain untill he started to kiss the right wing crazzies butt. He's to old to run now and he's losing all the moderates that supported him before his right turn.
I've said it before and I'll say it again that the Democrats don't need to set a date for withdrawal from Iraq. Most of the remaining Republicans in Congress will do that. This war is politically unsustainable for them. I believe we will be pulling out of Iraq in 6 months if there isn't a significant improvement in the situation there. The Dems just have to watch the Republicans rip themselves apart on this issue. It will always be remembered as Bush's war. Therefore it will go into the history books as Bush's defeat.
This is not our action item.
The Democrats are not obligated to submit "their plan."
Instead, they should carp, criticize, blame, and find fault with Bush and McCain.
If morale is low--and frankly I think our forces are still fighting bravely and well--it is because they were sent to die for no reason.
This was their idea. Let them submit an alternative to their current failed policy.
For the first three years after the invasion, whenever someone raised an objection that perhaps it was not entirely moral, they were attacked back with "would you really want Saddam back in power?"
I said at the time the the reality had not shaken out, and the day might come when even the Neocons would answer yes to that.
We will not lose in Iraq, we lost the moment the tanks crossed the border, it is only a question of how many more Americans die in the process.
Iraq will not dissolve into chaos, it did that over a year ago, and will continue to get worse now no matter what Americans do, unless they can provoke the Kurds into making a three way nightmare, making it worse yet.
We will not yield Iraq to the terrorists, we did that by invading as well, worse, as troops only hold a few fortresses and the Emerald City, only sortieing out to lose a few more hearts and minds, so now have given the terrorists nearly free reign everywhere else.
Fortunately for us the Sunnis and Shiites are far more intent on killing each other than coming to the US to attack us, but those who wanted that all along are in Pakistan, and no less virulent than before, and our continued stupidity in the Muslim world only makes them stronger.
Unfortunately the MSM has kept all this hidden from most of the people of the US. Extended hearings will help set out the facts, but if the media ignores them (as they have in the past) it will take years to accomplish what must be done eventually.
I can only hope that the Democrats will have the brains and fire in the belly to do the job right. Our civilization and perhaps our species hangs in the balance.
Anonymous was right in saying that oil is the real flypaper that holds us in Iraq, but the neocon "grand strategy" stuff is as much window dressing as their talk of spreading democracy or claim that Saddam could have blackmailed the world with a handful of nukes, ignoring our massive retaliatory capability with our 10,000 nukes.
No, if we were really concerned about access to Saddam's oil, we could have gotten it the way China has from Iran, Venezuela, and Canada: with long term contracts.
Instead of "strategery" the Iraq War fits the more mundane but persistent habit of the Bushies: cronyism.
Iraq's oil concessions are worth tens of TRILLIONS of dollars.
Third gade math on value of Iraq's oil
Before the current war, those were mostly in the hands of foreign companies from Russia, France, and the like. The one document released from Cheney's 2001 energy task force was a map of Iraq with a list of foreign suitors for their oil. After we invaded, Bush cancelled those contracts, gave the bulk of them to American corporations instead, and restructured Iraq's constitution and oil laws to the oil companies liking.
As a secondary favor to the oil industry, Bush wanted to make sure Saddam didn't start pumping a lot of oil when sanctions came off which would have driven prices down and made oil companies work more to make the same profits. The Downing Street Minutes seemed to confirm this when Bush sent assurances to Putin before the war that the invasion would NOT be used to drive oil prices down.
This is all well documented but little discussed in the mainstream and even most of the alternative press.
iraq oil war resources
Instead, they discuss religion, spreading democracy, and concern for training Iraq's army and police (the last as if Iraqis are apes who just descended from the trees and never had either before).
Until the oil piece of the puzzle becomes as central to the public debate as it is in reality, we will not be pulling out of Iraq, and I fear that even Democrats don't want to as long as they talk about the war in the fairy tale terms dictated by the Bush administration.
Let US just LEAVE. So we can be LEFT in PEACE!
I can't understand it. Despite the fact that the US pours billions into Iraq, the PM of that country gets most of his political support from a Shia cleric hostile to the US. That cleric also controls his own army which is busy killing Sunnis and, (when they can get around to it), US troops. Not only that, the Iraq PM is going to Iran (at one time part of the 'axis of evil' and now supplying arms and men to kill US troops) for talks aimed at nobody knows what.
The current administration, by supporting the current Iraqi government is complicit (to a certain degree) in the increasing US casualty count. The Iraq PM won’t control the Shia gunmen and is beholden to a terrorist. The president doesn’t have the nerve to tell the Iraqis where to get off, or even to take decisive
Action himself to rid Baghdad of the Mahdi army. Mr Bush doesn’t have the will to put more US troops in Iraq and won’t commit to any sort of plan to get the US out. Instead he waits around for something called the Iraq Study Group to tell him what to do.
All of which means the US will continue to suffer KIAs and wounded for at least the next two years.
Are you serious? Every potential presidential contender, not just Senator McCain, is dancing around the elephant in the room. The differences in their dance steps are attributable to their different constituencies, not their personal beliefs.
As revealed by the polls, 63% of the American voters now oppose the Iraq war, 60% want to withdraw some or all American troops, 61% think the U.S. is losing the war, and while 56% think the U.S. will lose the war, 54% think the war is winnable. To win the democratic nomination, a candidate must assure the primary voters that he or she will definitely extract the U.S. military from Iraq within a reasonably short time period. To be nominated, therefore, democratic contenders must admit that winnable or not, the war will end with the next administration.
Unlike democrats, however, Senator McCain cannot be nominated by admitting that defeat is around the corner. He must garner the votes of the 33% who favor the war because they are largely the hard core republicans. So regardless of his personal beliefs, Senator McCain cannot be nominated unless he promises the hope of a victory to his constituency. This may change if his constituents come to terms with reality. But as of today, Senator McCain must support a continuation of the war until a "victory" is achieved. With Senator McCain's unrealistic position, we are simply witnessing democracy in action.
By the way, even if Senator McCain should be elected president, the U.S. military will not continue to fight indefinitely because the American people do not see military victory as essential to protecting national security. I suspect the next president will re-position the American troops away from the fight in Iraq to protect the Iraqi borders from Iran and Syria, while attempting to negotiate a political settlement. I also think that is the best political position to take to be elected U.S. president in 2008.
It is with queaziness that I have watched John McCain begin his awkward dance toward the White House, beginning in 2004. His buddying up to GWB, now Bush 41.2, in the presidential re-election campaign had even his interviewers asking if holding his nose would become a sort of salute. But this recent call for more troops has baffled me. It isn't the Straight Talk Express I was starting to buy. It's pandering and no doubt tactical, but it spoils my hopes that he was going to be the real thing. Too clever by half, I'm afraid. Iraq was a colosal blunder. A bigger version of a colosal blunder begs for a modifying superlative that's AWOL. Will that be a McCaineral blunder then?
I was kind of shocked (maybe I'm just out of the loop on this one) to learn that John McCain is either a neocon himself and/or is in bed with them. Shocked! SHOCKED I am!
http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?p=592
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15790605/site/newsweek/
Do you think ANY neocon candidate has a chance of winning the GOP primary, the White house?
Unfortunately I feel that Mr. McCain is still fighting the war in Vietnam. He has a soldiers mentality which is good if you aspire to be a General but not so good if you aspire to be a Statesman.
Be careful what you wish for! The BBC is reporting that President Bush intends to announce next week that he will implement a "surge" in troops, sending 20,000 more young Americans into harm's way. All in support of a failed war, fought for the wrong reasons, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
I urge you to use your stature to speak out against this political folly, which borders on criminal behavior, and try to help the 2/3rds of Americans who think the answer is to start withdrawing troops from Iraq stop this arrogant President and his war- profiteering cronies from prefailing in this blatantly politically-motivated sacrifice of yet more young Americans.
McCain has ambitions alright... It's a bit unfortunate that this is a war of minds, and is an unconventional of a "war" as one might imagine. From all angles, it's being lost rapidly. McCain is being fed by the AEI (American Enterprise Institute), and this train of thought and rhetoric will certainly fail. It is time America turned its attention to the enemy within not the external ones/threats whom they often have distorted the magnitude of for political gain. The trade deficit, national debt, personal debt, etc. are more of a threat than these bogey men out there. Who thinks among other things that we can control technology that is over 60 years old? We have alot of hawks beating their chests hard and watching the "Longest Day" and "Patton". In reality, we haven't help win a land war since WWII. God bless us, we need it more every day.
McCain has ambitions alright... It's a bit unfortunate that this is a war of minds, and is an unconventional of a "war" as one might imagine. From all angles, it's being lost rapidly. McCain is being fed by the AEI (American Enterprise Institute), and this train of thought and rhetoric will certainly fail. It is time America turned its attention to the enemy within not the external ones/threats whom they often have distorted the magnitude of for political gain. The trade deficit, national debt, personal debt, etc. are more of a threat than these bogey men out there. Who thinks among other things that we can control technology that is over 60 years old? We have alot of hawks beating their chests hard and watching the "Longest Day" and "Patton". In reality, we haven't help win a land war since WWII. God bless us, we need it more every day.
One cartoonist's view on the Iraq plan from Egypt.
http://cairofreeze.blogspot.com/2007/01/cairo-freeze_12.html
Can you tell me what National Deficit is? i would really appreciate i need to a report on it that is due on Monday the 11th so if you get this after then thanx anyways :)
Desiree
Gee, let's only blame politicians
for being politicians when it is
expedient for us.
Yes there is surely politics in this as there is in RR statements.
My own belief is that President Bush put his faith in his in-group way past the point where they were paralyzed with group-think. That they did nothing for years while we all waited is sheer incompetance, and the it doesn't shed a good light on anyone else, except maybe McCain, that no one pointed this out effectively and got any traction on it.
I agree with McCain in the sense that as long as we are changing strategies and trying new things we need to hang in. We need to learn how to fight these kinds of wars. Besides the situation with Iran is not resolved and now we have Iran directly in the middle of our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I really respect RR's point of view, I read Reason and hope he wins this race ,but this is not one of his better thoughts.
-Bruce
By the way, why are all the pictures broken on this web site?
runescape money runescape gold runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape gold runescape money runescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money lotro gold buy lotro gold Tabula Rasa Credit Tabula Rasa Credits Hellgate gold Hellgate London gold dofus kamas buy dofus kamas wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling World of Warcraft Power Leveling runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling eve isk eve online isk eve isk eve online isk 血管瘤 肝血管瘤 音乐剧 北京富码电视 富码电视 富码电视台 7天酒店 7天连锁酒店 7天连锁 自清洗过滤器 过滤器 压力开关 压力传感器 流量开关 流量计 液位计 液位开关 温湿度记录仪 风速仪 可燃气体检测仪 宿县最帅的胖子
latina sex latin sex sex movies sex videos sex clips sex sites reality sex reality sex sites xxx sex fat sex gay sex gay teen sex gay anal sex gay oral sex gay group sex