« Thank God | Main | Hispanics And Pocketbooks » Well Said05 Jul 2008 08:44 am Shawn Brimley on Iraq in the campaign: "Obama wants to leave Iraq and McCain wants to stay. That's all that matters in this debate." Exactly so. There are of course an important array of tactical option any of which could constitute "staying" or "leaving" but there's a fundamental strategic divide between McCain and Obama and there consistently has been. Comments (33)
Within a few months or less, there will be NO difference between the two candidates' approaches (other than the one you want to see). I'll take any bet on it... 
robertl: only if you're stupid enough to listen to McCain when he starts talking like Lieberman circa late 2006 when he was otherwise going to go down in flames in CT.
But Obama wants you to believe that he's no different from McCain. Or maybe that he's slightly different from McCain, but just the prescient "surge" McCain, not the no-different-than Bush McCain. Or... http://www.political-buzz.com/
I don't think that they're that far apart now. One wants to remove all combat troops once it is safe to do so. The other wants to stay as long it takes to secure Iraq. Both support the presence of large contingents of non-combat troops in Iraq for the forseeable future. I agree that one wants to remove invasion and occupation as a tool of future foreign policy, but he is still willing to invade where ever to "protect american interests." That's slicing it pretty thin.
"Within a few months or less, there will be NO difference between the two candidates' approaches (other than the one you want to see). I'll take any bet on it..." That's my take on things too. AIPAC cash, and the looming attack on Iran by Israel, will seal the deal.
"Within a few months or less, there will be NO difference between the two candidates' approaches (other than the one you want to see). I'll take any bet on it..." I'd take that bet if you weren't an anonymous fuck.
I'm not taking any bets, cheap or otherwise, but I am disturbed about the rhetorical tacking Obama has done on this issue. Let's face it, an important reason he's the nominee is the sense that he opposed our disaster in Iraq and the hope that he'd get us out of it. Congressional Dems have talked about doing that the last 2 years without doing anything. Now our nominee is saying that he wants to withdraw, but he'll talk to the generals and start figuring it out once he's in office. And he passed up the chance in a debate during the primaries to predict that we'd be out of Iraq in 4 years, by 2013. I'm not sanguine so far that he's going to do a lot that's different on this issue, especially when the Village (to whose opinions he seems bizarrely sensitive lately) thinks that withdrawal is Not Serious. Color me worried.
There has not been a significant differenc between any of the candidates for decades. American national interests require some kind of a reasonable raison d'etre in the Persian Gulf. Period.
There has not been a significant differenc between any of the candidates for decades. American national interests require some kind of a reasonable raison d'etre in the Persian Gulf. Period.
Sigh...Staying in Iraq will be a disaster, leaving Iraq will be a disaster, and no matter what happens, it will be blamed on Obama. The Right will lead this charge, the Left will eagerly help.
People who suggest that there is no difference between Obama and McCain are willfully misinformed. The following article in Salon does a reasonable --although incomplete --job of deconstructing McCain's views on this war and others. If you think they bear any possible resemblance to Obama's, your perceptions must be substance impaired. I do you all the courtesy of assuming that you are not stupid. http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/07/04/mcain_vietnam/
you're probably not stupid either,Tim. Let's see how it plays out. For my money, there is more pressure on Obama to avoid the appearence of "weakness", and since neither he nor McCain are idiots who would engineer a self-inflicted defeat, it's Obama who's most likely to take the conservative approach.
you're probably not stupid either,Tim. Let's see how it plays out. For my money, there is more pressure on Obama to avoid the appearence of "weakness", and since neither he nor McCain are idiots who would engineer a self-inflicted defeat, it's Obama who's most likely to take the conservative approach.
you're probably not stupid either,Tim. Let's see how it plays out. For my money, there is more pressure on Obama to avoid the appearence of "weakness", and since neither he nor McCain are idiots who would engineer a self-inflicted defeat, it's Obama who's most likely to take the conservative approach.
We will continue to see liar like robert powell attempting to blur the line between "leaving as soon as possible" and "staying for 100 years" because hiding McCain's insane position is the only way he can compete. powell, of course, still hasn't demonstrated that there was any actual reason to invade Iraq in the first place. He relies on the "revenge for people who were killed 15 years ago," "he was a bad man," and "he might have one day become a threat to the United States" excuses - none of which justify the mass slaughter (the third one being total nonsense), and then falls back on some fake "humanitarian" reasons - which is undermined by the humanitarian crisis created by his favored dictatorship.
The fact that there is nearly always more continuity than breaks in major aims of U.S. foreign policy over different Presidencies given the rather stable existence of the U.S. upper-class dominated political system neither demonstrates that (a) the differences which do exist are insignificant; nor that (b) continuity implies correctness. Many of the stupidest, most harmful U.S. policies were maintained for years -- after all, three U.S. Presidents remained committed to the U.S. attack on three nations of Indochina, slaughtering millions in the process, but, by god, they weren't going to be seen as weak for withdrawing, until finally one did.
We who pay lots and lots of attention to the nuances of the candidates' statements are actually a very very very tiny sliver of the public. The campaigns need us for the feedback and I'm glued to the political news as much as anybody. But in a way it's not much different from my buddy who is a fanatic collector of comic books. He obsesses over minutia that is totally invisible to me. In Nov millions of voters will go to the polls with a simple view of their choice. Obama--gets us out of Iraq, changes the gov't. McCain--stays in Iraq, keeps the gov't the same. Intrade investors know this. Yesterday McCain could be bought for $31.60. In Nov that'll pay $100.00. Anyone who thinks the repubs can fool the electorate about which candidate is for 'peace' and 'change' is invited to become rich. But unless you can show me your intrade certificate for McCain do not bother to post about how McCain is going to beat O'Bama. We will know that you are lying thru your teeth.
Hell, compared to Cuba, our involvement in Vietnam was over in an eye-blink. And to what effect? Well, we have helped to impoverish their people and cement the powerbase for the Castros. Not as directly bloody as Vietnam, but just as pointless. Good show!
1) Liberals cannot form a circular firing squad without claiming that both Democrat and Republican candidates are identical. Modus ponens, bitches.
This sounds like an oversimplification to me. Like: "McCain wants to win the war in Iraq; Obama doesn't. That's all that matters in this debate." or "Obama wants to raise your taxes. McCain won't raise your taxes. That's all you need to know." I thought Obama wanted to maintain a strike force in Iraq? Where is that force going to be stationed? For those in favor of bringing the combat troops home from Iraq within 16 months, do you also want to bring the troops home from Kuwait within the same timeframe? If not, for what reasons? How can you have a "strike force" that does not involve combat troops? Thanks.
powell, of course, still hasn't demonstrated that there was any actual reason to invade Iraq in the first place. He relies on the "revenge for people who were killed 15 years ago," "he was a bad man," and "he might have one day become a threat to the United States" excuses He does jabber a lot about that crap, but from time to time he admits that the real reason he wanted the war was to teach the dirty towelheads a lesson.
I'll repeat my prediction. McCain will win the election if Bush starts a war with Iran, because Obama will be unable to differentiate himself on THAT war, just as he is failing to differentiate himself on the Iraq war. All McCain needs at this point - and it will probably be as true in November - is a ten point bounce in the polls to beat Obama. He will get that if an Iran war starts, or even if Bush merely bombs an alleged "insurgent training camp" in Iran and Iran ignores that (overtly). If Israel conducts a raid on Iran, and Iran responds against the US, then both McCain and Obama will support US attacks on Iran - and that means Obama will lose because he isn't the "war hero". And we all know Obama is too gutless to attack McCain on his "war hero" lies. So I repeat: McCain will be the next President, as the Democrats throw one away yet again.
Since the Iraqi elections, the basic weakness in the US position in Iraq has been that the Iraqi government is mostly made up of Iran's BFFs. The Bushies have managed to hide this fact from most Americans. Obama will not continue this fraud. On the contrary, his interest will be in proving to most Americans what they already suspect, that there is no there there. Obama will be helped by the elements in the Iraqi government who have been courting the US up to now. They will be in a big hurry to demonstrate their differences with the US. Think of the biggest ugliest most public divorce you have ever seen. American enthusiasm for arming and training all three sides of Iraq civil war will quickly disappear.
Although I recognize the futility of responding to thugs like "..bloodthirsty/stupid", The Hack, etc. it's probably worth noting a few facts I thought to be relatively well-known: --I've been an Obama supporter and contributer since before Iowa. I voted for Al Gore in 2000, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter (twice each). I like McCain, but he's not going to get my vote this time, and he's going to lose. Neither Obama nor McCain would be likely to accept a self-inflicted defeat in Iraq and neither have ever really indicated support for policies likely to produce it. --I've written hundreds of times that "the actual reason for invading Iraq", as agreed by a huge majority in Congress which also spilled a lake of ink explaining their decision, was primarily that IRAQ STARTED THE WAR! By 2002 invasion was seen, correctly in my view, as the only practical way to depose Saddam Hussein and achieve a reasonable conclusion to the war we had been embroiled in more-or-less continuously since 1991. This "reasonable conclusion" was delayed unconscionably by Bush mistakes, but appears now to be a practical possibility. --Attempting to paint oneself as a "humanitarian" while acting as an apologist for Saddam Hussein and minimizing his crimes is sufficiently bizarre to discredit anyone attempting such contortions. Especially if they are already making a public fool of themselves with a level of boorishness that would embarrass a class of emotionally disturbed adolescents.
Robert Powell: I want you to remember your quote above the next time you fiercely dispute the suggestion that you have called anyone who disputed the invasion / occupation of Iraq as apologists for Saddam and his crimes. You seem to be quite happy to both make the smear and to angrily deny that you'd ever do such a thing. Please try to remember this.
El Cid- That is a point worth making. I am aware of the existence of complexity--in other words, I think there are a number of perfectly worthy people who for one reason or another disagreed with the giant majority in 2002 that saw regime change as the only practical step left to address the long-running Iraq fiasco. A lot of the caveats such folks put forward in 2002 proved completely true, and I don't for a moment suggest that every objection to the invasion was invalid. Given the record of mis-, non-, and malfeasance by the Bush Administration, many of their objections and reservations hold up pretty damned well. But those who ignore or distort the actual record of Ba'athist Iraq, suggest the Iraqis would be better off with Saddam, or that his crimes are analogous to Bush's mistakes, and that the invasion was "illegal" or for some nefarious purposes, are apologists for Saddam's crimes. This is basically the Arab League analysis, adopted uncritically by the Usual Suspects on the left. Those who argue without a shred of evidence that "Bush lies sent us to the worst most illegal and disastrous war in human history" tend to be simply mis-informed and blinkered by partisan bias. They will by and large grow up and recognize the truth. I acknowledge that there are differences here.
Powell: It is not an apology for Saddam's crimes to point out that in empirical, measurable fashions, Iraqis were better off. That is not an endorsement of a murderous tyrant, it is a criticism of ungovernable chaos. Now, it is true that people can choose -- or have chosen for them -- to risk such decreases in survivability or quality of life for other purposes, such as moral goals. Lots of people have chosen or have been thrown into circumstances forcing them to choose to fight a tyrant or a colonizing nation. You're right in that I don't make much hay over whether the invasion was 'legal' or not, because you know as well as I do that what is legal and what is not legal in international relations is a measure of power, not law, and there is no non-power-sunk authority which exists. If tomorrow, China could invade Mexico, kill half its people, and run it as a North American province of the New Chinese Empire, and make the U.S., Russia, and Europe go along with it, well, that would be 'legal' too, just as legal as the U.S. invasion of Iraq. In the end, as you carefully emphasize in citing polls at the launch of the war, it doesn't really matter in the long run whether your preferred policies were 'right' or not -- what truly mattered is that you got the policies you wanted, and for a short time when people largely believed the nonsense, your views were popular. From a policy spouting windbag's point of view, then, there is no way, ever, in which your preferences could ever be proven 'right' or 'wrong' outside the fact that you won -- the policy was morally unfalsifiable. The "point worth making" was that you were a fraudulently moralizing pompous windbag, who apparently has convinced himself he maintains a godlike consistency in his comments while speaking from a heroic well -- perhaps consistent with grand theories of international relations and strategies -- whereas those who watch the nonsense flow from you simply point it out to you every now and then to your great offense. I'll give you a couple of weeks before you are back to angrily insulting anyone who would dare suggest you would be so brutish as to denounce fellow Americans as Saddam apologists simply because they not only opposed the invasion & occupation of Iraq, but point out rather trivial empirical realities in doing so. Another week later, you'll be slandering people as Saddam apologists again. A week after that, well, you know.
From the link provided me above: I think it would be a great idea to become less dependent on Persian Gulf oil. If we get busy now, maybe we will be in another half century. Then we can "get out".And here we see the bloodthirsty thug robert powell's actual reason for slaughtering and displacing millions of Iraqi citizens - he wants their oil. All his bullshit hysteria over Iraqi deaths under the sanctions look to be nothing more than self-serving cover for his desire to loot the nation of Iraq. This also helps explain why he keeps lying about anyone who suggests that the removal of Saddam Hussein was done in such a thuggish manner as to actually create worse conditions for the Iraqi people. Were he to admit that there was a difference between opposition to thuggery like his and support for Saddam Hussein's thuggery it would reveal that the world isn't the black and white cartoon he thinks it is. In the real world the decade of brutal sanctions promoted by thugs like robert powell had already done considerable damage to the people of Iraq. They had also eliminated any possibility that Saddam Hussein could continue any of the 15-year-old crimes powell keeps harping about. Only a complete fucking moron like powell thinks that recognizing that a behavior has stopped is the same as "minimizing, forgiving, or ignoring." A humanitarian war is one undertaken to halt bad activities. Since those activities had ceased a decade before Bush's brutal assault on the Iraqi people, Bush couldn't fucking stop what was already stopped unless he invaded using a god-damned time machine. He did not. What we see with assholes like robert powell who love the deaths of brown people far away - especially when it means he can steal their resources, is that they use this "minimize" attack in an attempt to immunize themselves from criticism that they purposely minimize the damage they have caused. As an example: robert powell imagines that Bush is in no way responsible for Iraqi on Iraqi violence. But one certain way to assess events is to look at two time periods and consider the intervening events. Before Bush decided on his terrorist attack on Baghdad there were no car bombs to speak of in Iraq. Now they are a more than monthly occurrence. This isn't because car-bombing is a new technology. The difference is the lack of security that is the result of destroying the Iraqi infrastructure. This is also why Bush's war led to ethnic cleansing. What dipshits like powell want to do is claim the good (removal of a vile dictator) and push responsibility for the bad (the complete descent into chaos) onto others. But that's because they have the minds of small children. Adults, on the other hand, recognize that one must take responsibility for ones actions. Bush's action was to fill Iraq with bombs and to hell with the poeple. Adults also recognize that wars are dangerous places and are unpredictable. The fact that Iraq has become a worse place to live than under a dictator is largely because our discourse was dominated by children like powell. I do find it interesting that powell claims to know the minds of the Iraqis, but I've never seen him provide even a shred of evidence to support his contention that Iraqis love having a higher violent death rate, ethnic cleansing, less electricity, fewer jobs, and less medical care. Maybe he has some, but I suspect that, if he did, he would have provided it long before now. All he has is childish taunts and an incoherent, mostly conflicting, rationale for supporting the widespread murder of Iraqis. (sorry for the length - robert powell's idiocy is nearly unbounded)
It is simply a BIG LIE to say that "Obama wants to leave Iraq".
It is, as with pretty much everything coming from right-wing fucktards, a big lie to say that McCain's position is anything like Obama's. McCain is a big supporter of the bloodthirsty robert powell school of "we're tired of being jerked around by Arabs" and wants to have occupation forces in Iraq for the next hundred years. Obama recognizes that Bush's massive fuck-up has resulted in a severely damaged Iraq and that we have a responsibility to attempt to fix the damage done by Bush. Will he do the right thing? No. And there are no credible candidates who will - because as fucked as Iraq is owing to the invading military, Americans don't want to admit that this bit of colonialism was wrong from the moment the JaimieT's of the nation started masturbating to the thought of dead brown people. Only idiot McCain supporters are trying to blur the line between McCain and Obama. That's because they know that Americans don't really want their children policing Iraq like McCain does.
Matt When the Atlantic figures out a way to protect the names of its bloggers, I will be back. By hijacking the names, it ruins any level of discourse. What cowards!!!!
El Cid-- In my view nothing but sophistry can make the currently-stabilizing situation in Iraq look worse than life under the Ba'athist permanent state-of-war tyranny. The level of violence over the last few years has been appalling, and largely our responsibility if by ommission. I not only don't deny it, but have consistently criticized the administration for its role in allowing things to deteriorate. It was an avoidable tragedy, but so was the condition of Iraq before the invasion. It's at least disingenuous to except the ongoing wars caused by Iraq's regime in calculating "level of violence". There is simply no denying that for most Iraqis life is now significantly better than under Saddam, not least in terms of hope for the future as expressed in the latest ABC/BBC polling. We know the invasion wasn't launched to rescue the Iraqi people. The behavior of the government of Iraq was a serious assault on the basic post-war international security architecture, and the world economy depends on relatively unrestricted trade in the Persian Gulf that Iraq had consistently disrupted. These are the kinds of things that always have caused wars, and likely always will. Attempting to explain things like this in terms of racism, or "stealing the oil" (at $150/bbl. one may well ask who's stealing from whom) is the sort of foolishness that undermines whatever validity the argument it's meant to support has.
Comments closed July 19, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
My read on the situation is basically this: I have utterly no interest in the specifics of Obama's plan to withdraw troops, or whether he has one other than "tell the Joint Chiefs to tell me how to get out." The critical point is that Obama recognizes a continuation of the occupation of Iraq as fundamentally incompatible with, rather than complementary to, America's overall strategic goals in the world. That is the overarching principle that will guide his individual navigations through issues of troop logistics, regional consequences, etc. That's not a guarantee that troops are going to be on a plane tomorrow, but it's an attitude that I'm more than comfortable with in our next Commander-in-Chief.
McCain, by contrast, has made it pretty clear that he thinks that continuing the occupation is both complementary to our overall strategic interests AND the most important of that set of interests. Basically, leaving is losing. That's the overarching principle that will guide him, and that's scary as fuck.
Posted by Daniel Munz | July 5, 2008 8:56 AM