I wanted to share this article with you guys....it discuss the war in Iraq and more specifically the hearings that took place on Capital Hill.
Hillary Clinton and John McCain sit on the the Armed Services Committee while Barack Obama sits on the Foreign Relations Committee. Clinton took the stand you would expect...the policy is failed and must be reversed. McCain took the stand you would expect...we are succeeding and must stay the course. General Petraeus and the administration are more in tuned with McCain for sure and are able to easily ignore the attacks that Hillary made.
Barack took a different approach. It was a bit more calculated and seem to almost be in sync with the current secretary of defense's goal (which is in contrary to the Administrations). Time.com says it best here: Time.com
Friday, April 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Obama made a great argument. A great point. A great reflection. Whatever people will choose to define his concerns as.
It kills me to see the United States act like The Iraqi War is not another Vietnam.
So, the crux of your argument holds that the basis of someone's argument on strategy in Iraq is dependent upon which committee they are residing on? That's a lazy argument, especially considering that when either candidate becomes President, they'll have a execute a unified strategy which involves coordinating both the Defense and State Departments. I don't sit on either committee yet, I feel I have a enough information to make an informed decision about how to think here.
It is frustrating that Obama refuses to clearly outline his position on what to do in Iraq other than speak in vague terms which pander to the hard left (immediate pull out now) and the skeptics in the middle who aren't for immediately pulling out, but find frustration towards not being able to get it over with quicker. The key questions in the debate on Iraq are really, really simple and no amount of rhetorical bluster can change the fact. These simple questions are:
1) Do you want to win the war (which in spite all the frustration about the actual decision to go to war 5 years ago, we are still in one)?
2) If not, what do you think the consequences of a pull out will be and how do you intend on managing them so that our allies in Iraq are still secure and our strategic position is not reduced?
3) If yes, what is the best strategy for winning the war?
Your argument about McCain being a "stay the course" guy is misleading and false. He was a vocal opponent of the strategy the Bush Administration was executing under Rumsfeld and supported a counter-insurgency centered strategy. When Gates came in and promoted Petraeus, he (Petraeus) executed a brilliant counter-insurgency strategy which was part kinetic (what is referred to as the "Surge"), political (working with the local sheiks and leaders in a bottom-up strategy versus top-down) and humanitarian (restoring services, providing security and building things). The results of executing this strategy turned our fortunes around dramatically and McCain has been a supporter of the recent strategic change the last year. There is a lot of work left to do under this particular strategy, but it has produced some stunning results.
So, do we win the war or pull out? If yes or no, what do we do to do that the best?
This "third way" idea isn't a strategy position, it is campaign rhetoric without any real thought towards what really needs to be done over there other than blaming George Bush. It might get him nominated, but it isn't going to play very well in the general election (just ask John Kerry).
I agree with a lot of Doug's points, but I don't think it's as simple as his 3 questions. I think the problem we're running into is with question 1. How do we define winning the war?
I think McCain would view this as having a U.S. friendly government established with no major insurgency left in the country. I'm not sure what standards Obama would say are a "win", but I would guess having a government in Iraq that is not openly hostile towards the U.S. is all he would need to pull out and feel it's a victory.
They sound similar, but definitely will be determining the amount of work it's going to take to achieve victory. How much work are we going to put into getting rid of the al Sadr opposition to the government? What about Iran?
We could leave Iraq and have these play a major influence in the future, or could stay longer and make sure Iraq has it's own voice (realistically, as long as it's a voice that backs us).
I'm not sure exactly on what I think we should be expected to do. I personally think that leaving the country vulnerable to fundamental extremists is going to bite us in the ass long term. My solution would be a more global response where countries from all over the world are involved in rebuilding the country on a bigger scale than they are currently doing. Unfortunately it doesn't look like this is an option.
Don, Doug, Scott -
Thanks for your comments...all add value to the discussion. Let me clear up a few things:
1 - the committee that the Senators sit on is irrelevant...I was just sharing information as they did not meet with Petraeus together. I do NOT think the committee matters.
2 - I said BOTH Hillary and McCain took stances you would expect. Hillary says get out NOW / McCain says lets continue on the present course (stay the course). Thats just a fact.
3 - Barack was approaching it in a way that seemed to make some sense. He tried to nail down Petraeus to color what victory looks like and what goals we were aiming for. He also suggested an approach that he thought made sense to achieve Petraeus's goals.
Please just read the time article that I linked to in the original post...you will see there that he what Barack was attempting to say and how he saw victory.
Jon,
Your response to my comment totally mischaracterize my argument and, let me be frank, I think you mischaracterize the stance that each candidate is taking on Iraq. I read the Time article and "more information" isn't changing the nature of my argument. That is clear dodge of my orginal point that states that Obama is sidestepping what his true strategy is in Iraq, and instead, has offered only criticism of the current plan as a matter of policy. That may score you points in a primary, but it isn't really a "third way." It is "no way."
Any false premise taken to be axiomatically true can be used to justify anything. In this case, the narrative that Obama and many critics of current strategy in Iraq have been pushing is that the current leadership in Iraq is pursuing, indefintely, a kinetic based strategy designed to hunt and kill Sunni (al-Qaeda) and Shiite extremists. Of course, if you characterize the position this way, it looks like indefinite short-sighted strategy--but that is a false premise.
Petraeus has clearly outlined what victory would look like in Iraq and Obama was utterly clueless in his questioning and responses towards 21st Century Warfare. The Generals plan is multifacited: it has 1) Kinetics (which includes combat); 2) Politics (which includes countering ethno-sectarian pressures and Iraqi political reconciliation); 3) Intelligence (operations from air recon to intel assessment); 4) Detainee Ops (which includes counter-insurgency in detention facilities); 5) Non-Kinetics (education, jobs programs); and 6) Interagency.
Also, Joe Klien's Time article is specularly wrong in that it makes the assumption that the Iraqi Army failed in Basra. What? Initially there was a Division that had been rushed right out of training and had some desertions in the initial phases of operations, but currently, the Iraqi Army has cleared and is holding many neighborhood strongholds that were previously held by the Mahdi Army (http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/04/iraqi_troops_advance.php).
Sadr is on the run and Shiite Grand Ayatolla Sistani has denounced him and his militia, saying the only legitimate security force in the country is that of the National Army. The Mahdi Army is being routed as we speak.
That's the strategy: marginalize the extremists, through the 6 methods listed above, and strengthen the ties between those committed to holding and supporting the current government. It doesn't matter if it is al-Qaeda or the Mahdi Army.
Kliens premise is false, therefore, his entire argument that the US strategy has met its match in Iraq collapses under the reality of what is actually happening.
Your right: Obama does offer a third way and that way is to wander in the desert under false presuppositions furthered by terrible and deliberately misleading analysis such as the one that Joe Klien pushes here.
He has made his bet that we have already failed and I think that is a shortsighted and extremely dangerous.
Post a Comment