McCain predicts Iraq war over by 2013

[Heracles 417]

So bascially the leftist liberals need to put out the fire created by the rightwing conservatives? Keep in mind extreme Islamic fundamentalists were not acting as terrorists or with Al Qaeda support in Iraq before the war

How do they propose to do that?

Sorry I am not some 'Oh hail Obama' kind of guy. I want to know what they propose to do differently. Sudden extraction of trips, like Vietnam, is not an option and would destroy America's reputation abroad.

Edited May 18, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Heracles 417]

Do you even know what you're talking about? Our congress voted almost unanimously to go to war with Iraq. These are our government elected representatives that "We the People of the United States" put into office to represent us. "We the People of the United States" are the government so if there is any failure then it lies with the people. The ultimate failure here is the reflection on the people of the United States who do not politically educate themselves and elect government officials to represent them when they don't know little about politics and the politicians they are voting for political platforms. Politics is war without blood and war is politics with blood. Before you can even get to the kind of multilateral strategy you are talking about you first have to look at the dyadic level of militarized interstate disputes. As Nagi said in her post Obama's plan will never happen and especially not in the first term of office. People that believe that are living a pipe dream. Not only that it is proven that an unseasoned leader is tested more in their first term by world leaders than seasoned leaders. If we put this person in office that you're talking about we're asking for a world wide whoop azz. The consequences would be severe to us but 100,000 worse than if we stayed and rode this out for those generations in the future that you're referring to. I encourage you to beef up on your literature and stop being a lemming man.

It always amazes me at how so many abroad seem to understand the United States three levels of government better than people I chat with who have lived all of their life in the United States. People seriously seem to forget that you guys are a constitutional government. Regardless of the movies, the president alone does not call all, if many, of the shots. So anyone who thinks a president alone has the power and authority to change the country is seriously delusional. It simply does not work that way without congressional approval.

Our congress voted almost unanimously to go to war with Iraq. These are our government elected representatives that "We the People of the United States" put into office to represent us. "We the People of the United States" are the government so if there is any failure then it lies with the people. The ultimate failure here is the reflection on the people of the United States who do not politically educate themselves and elect government officials to represent them when they don't know little about politics and the politicians they are voting for political platforms.

That is actually one of the best things I have ever read posted in OT; with regards to politics / America. I started highlighting the key words but everything written hits the nail on the head.

Edited May 18, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[GaryC 7]

Maybe I missed it but how exactly does McCain substantiate his prediction? Did he just consult some crystal ball?

Dog, do you hold Obama to the same standard? He is making some pretty grandiose promises himself.

He has made a similar prediction? Can you provide some evidence of that?

His stated policy:

# Bring Our Troops Home: Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

# Press Iraq's leaders to reconcile: The best way to press Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq's Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.

# Regional Diplomacy: Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq's neighbors – including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq's borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq's sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq's reconstruction.

Not any substance there, only talk of diplomacy. In fact this sounds very dangerous. Pull out and hope he can talk everyone into playing nice. Pretty naive if you ask me.

I do see a different strategy and policy than the failed one we've pursued the last 5+ years but I don't see any unsubstantiated prediction of the situation in Iraq in 2013 based on nothing but essentially a continuation of the failed policy of the Bush administration.

A different strategy? What strategy? All he is proposing is we pull out wholesale and then talk. Think about it, do you really think we can talk Iran out of training terrorists? If you do I have a bridge for sale.

Well, Gary, you can't seem to see the forest for the trees. The situation cannot be solved militarily but must be resolved politically. On a multilateral basis involving both our allies as well as the representatives of the region. The blockheaded approach that Bush has been pursuing and that McSame wants to continue is a failure. All it yielded was a premature and quite embarrassing photo op, trillions of dollars of cost that my kids and their great-grand children will still be busy paying off and tens of thousands of lives needlessly wasted and hundreds of thousands more destroyed. Bush's strategery won't yield a true "Mission Accomplished" moment. Not in 2013 and not later. McSame doesn't understand that. Which is why there will be President come Jan '09 that will make a clear cut from the failed policies of Bush & Co.

Really? Just how do you know that? Now your making assumptions that you can't prove. There is no way diplomacy will work here because we are dealing with people that don't have any reason to negotiate. Military action is the only solution to the terrorist problem. Anything else is foolish and naive. That describes Obama, foolish and naive.

Edited May 18, 2008 by GaryC

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I wonder if anyone has seen how many different competing political groups there are in Iraq?

As I've said before - the US military can only provide for the security situation, it can't craft a representative government out of all the different political factions.

[Heracles 417]

Really? Just how do you know that? Now your making assumptions that you can't prove. There is no way diplomacy will work here because we are dealing with people that don't have any reason to negotiate. Military action is the only solution to the terrorist problem. Anything else is foolish and naive. That describes Obama, foolish and naive.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Really? Just how do you know that? Now your making assumptions that you can't prove. There is no way diplomacy will work here because we are dealing with people that don't have any reason to negotiate. Military action is the only solution to the terrorist problem. Anything else is foolish and naive. That describes Obama, foolish and naive.

A rose-tinted view if ever there was one.

[Heracles 417]

A rose-tinted view if ever there was one.

Unlike your 'open-minded' views right?

Edited May 18, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A rose-tinted view if ever there was one.

Unlike your 'open-minded' views right?

I make my own points without recourse to trite cartoons.

[Heracles 417]

I make my own points without recourse to trite cartoons.

Edited May 18, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Do you even know what you're talking about? Our congress voted almost unanimously to go to war with Iraq.

Perhaps, you need to do some reading. I suggest the joint resolution you seem to cite here and the accompanying debate in Congress. Then compare that resolution to what actually happened. Also consider who gave the marching orders and who botched the execution of this illegal act of aggression against Iraq. It sure wasn't Congress.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Maybe I missed it but how exactly does McCain substantiate his prediction? Did he just consult some crystal ball?

Dog, do you hold Obama to the same standard? He is making some pretty grandiose promises himself.

He has made a similar prediction? Can you provide some evidence of that?

His stated policy:

# Bring Our Troops Home: Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

# Press Iraq's leaders to reconcile: The best way to press Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq's Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.

# Regional Diplomacy: Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq's neighbors – including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq's borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq's sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq's reconstruction.

Not any substance there, only talk of diplomacy. In fact this sounds very dangerous. Pull out and hope he can talk everyone into playing nice. Pretty naive if you ask me.

I do see a different strategy and policy than the failed one we've pursued the last 5+ years but I don't see any unsubstantiated prediction of the situation in Iraq in 2013 based on nothing but essentially a continuation of the failed policy of the Bush administration.

A different strategy? What strategy? All he is proposing is we pull out wholesale and then talk. Think about it, do you really think we can talk Iran out of training terrorists? If you do I have a bridge for sale.

Well, Gary, you can't seem to see the forest for the trees. The situation cannot be solved militarily but must be resolved politically. On a multilateral basis involving both our allies as well as the representatives of the region. The blockheaded approach that Bush has been pursuing and that McSame wants to continue is a failure. All it yielded was a premature and quite embarrassing photo op, trillions of dollars of cost that my kids and their great-grand children will still be busy paying off and tens of thousands of lives needlessly wasted and hundreds of thousands more destroyed. Bush's strategery won't yield a true "Mission Accomplished" moment. Not in 2013 and not later. McSame doesn't understand that. Which is why there will be President come Jan '09 that will make a clear cut from the failed policies of Bush & Co.

Really? Just how do you know that? Now your making assumptions that you can't prove. There is no way diplomacy will work here because we are dealing with people that don't have any reason to negotiate. Military action is the only solution to the terrorist problem. Anything else is foolish and naive. That describes Obama, foolish and naive.

Well, Gary, this misguided adventure is in it's 6th year without being anywhere near a successful completion. What exactly makes you think that continuing on this clearly unsuccessful path is going to somehow magically make it all fall into place?

[GaryC 7]

Well, Gary, this misguided adventure is in it's 6th year without being anywhere near a successful completion. What exactly makes you think that continuing on this clearly unsuccessful path is going to somehow magically make it all fall into place?

Clearly Bush made mistakes for which I have criticized him for. Not reconstituting the Iraq army, not putting enough troops in there to keep the insurgency down and not working with the various factions are just a few. Those problems have been addressed in the last year and progress has clearly been made. In essence Bush wasted 4 years. McCain has said that he will not make those same mistakes. You keep saying that we are continuing on an unsuccessful path without acknowledging that we did indeed change the path last year. Obama's idea of just pulling out will be an even worse path that will make things worse. It seems that you see things as an either we pull out or we don't choice and that just isn't true.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well, Gary, this misguided adventure is in it's 6th year without being anywhere near a successful completion. What exactly makes you think that continuing on this clearly unsuccessful path is going to somehow magically make it all fall into place?

Clearly Bush made mistakes for which I have criticized him for. Not reconstituting the Iraq army, not putting enough troops in there to keep the insurgency down and not working with the various factions are just a few. Those problems have been addressed in the last year and progress has clearly been made. In essence Bush wasted 4 years. McCain has said that he will not make those same mistakes. You keep saying that we are continuing on an unsuccessful path without acknowledging that we did indeed change the path last year. Obama's idea of just pulling out will be an even worse path that will make things worse. It seems that you see things as an either we pull out or we don't choice and that just isn't true.

What political progress was made, specifically? We managed to buy a temporary improvement in the security situation but no political gain has come from that. Without that, no military engagement will help in the long haul. The political progress is lacking and I don't see where Bush and Co. have changed course on that end. That, however, is where change is needed the most if this is ever going to turn out right.

[GaryC 7]

Well, Gary, this misguided adventure is in it's 6th year without being anywhere near a successful completion. What exactly makes you think that continuing on this clearly unsuccessful path is going to somehow magically make it all fall into place?

Clearly Bush made mistakes for which I have criticized him for. Not reconstituting the Iraq army, not putting enough troops in there to keep the insurgency down and not working with the various factions are just a few. Those problems have been addressed in the last year and progress has clearly been made. In essence Bush wasted 4 years. McCain has said that he will not make those same mistakes. You keep saying that we are continuing on an unsuccessful path without acknowledging that we did indeed change the path last year. Obama's idea of just pulling out will be an even worse path that will make things worse. It seems that you see things as an either we pull out or we don't choice and that just isn't true.

What political progress was made, specifically? We managed to buy a temporary improvement in the security situation but no political gain has come from that. Without that, no military engagement will help in the long haul. The political progress is lacking and I don't see where Bush and Co. have changed course on that end. That, however, is where change is needed the most if this is ever going to turn out right.

And pulling out and leaving them to deal with even more helps how? Change like that isn't better than what we have now.

There has been progress politicly, it's just your side does not want to recognize it because it takes one of your political talking points away.

Iraq’s Unheralded Political Progress

By Jason Gluck

Page 1 of 1

Posted March 2008

We’ve been hearing for months that the U.S. troop surge has been a security success and a political failure. But with little media fanfare, Iraqis may have just found the key to resolving their differences: old-fashioned politics.

Mahmoud Raouf Mahmoud-Pool/Getty Images

Family feud: The Shiite-Kurdish alliance that has dominated Iraqi politics may be breaking down—and that’s good news for Iraq.

Five years into the Iraq war, the original goal of standing up a stable liberal democracy in the Arab world seems as distant as ever. There’s no question U.S. troop deaths are down and Iraqi civilian casualties have dropped precipitously. Yet, as many observers have noted, it’s hard to find measures of success that don’t have “Petraeus” written all over them. The violence may have lessened, but what about national reconciliation?

Amid the recriminations for the lack of political progress, few seem to have noticed what may have been a watershed moment for Iraqi democracy. Indeed, February 13, 2008, might someday be remembered as the day Iraq’s political class finally showed itself capable of compromise and accommodation.

On February 13 the Iraqi parliament simultaneously passed three new laws: one that sets the relationship between the central and provincial governments, a second giving amnesty to thousands of detainees, and a third setting the 2008 national budget. Each piece of legislation is important in its own right, but how the overall compromise came about may prove even more significant than the laws themselves.

First, Iraqi lawmakers deployed a technique familiar to anyone who lives in a developed democracy: logrolling, the essence of political compromise. Iraqis bundled together three laws that each constituency—Shia, Sunnis, and Kurds—prioritized differently. By treating the three issues as one legislative package, each group could make trade-offs to get what it wanted most. Kurds supported the amnesty and provincial-powers laws in exchange for a budget law that included a 17 percent allocation for the Kurdistan region. Arab lawmakers had been arguing for 13 percent, but Sunnis supported the higher figure in exchange for the amnesty and provincial-powers laws. And most of the major Shiite players—the Sadrist, Fadhila, and Dawa parties–supported the 17 percent figure in exchange for Kurdish support for their top priority, the provincial-powers law. Everyone, in short, could return to their constituents declaring victory.

For Iraq, this was a radical departure from the issue-by-issue approach that failed so spectacularly in 2007. Last year, Iraqis failed to achieve consensus over such critical, contentious matters as the hydrocarbon legislation, the constitutional review, and resolution of the disputed territories. Like the laws passed on February 13, these issues are connected in a way that could lead to a larger compromise. For example, Iraqi Arabs might find the Kurds’ annexation of Kirkuk more palatable if the Kurds agree to let the central government manage natural resources and give it more leeway to coordinate national legislation. In this way, the February 13 compromise could serve as a road map for resolving other deadlocked disputes and moving forward on national reconciliation.

Second, the maneuvering of the participants themselves is also encouraging. Iraqis are beginning to sort themselves based on ideas and interests rather than on simply their ethnic or sectarian identities. A year ago, Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army was being accused of sectarian cleansing of Sunnis. But on February 13, the Sunni coalition and Sadrist party stood side-by-side to push for a stronger amnesty law. In the debate over provincial powers, Sunni, secularist, and Shiite parties (including the Sadrists) came together to form a powerful “centrist” political bloc advocating greater centralized control over the provinces. The largest Shiite party, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, and the Kurds maintained a “federalist” coalition calling for greater provincial autonomy. Iraqi politics to date have been dominated by a Shiite-Kurdish alliance that has been accused of marginalizing Sunni interests and ignoring their concerns. But the fact that several Shiite parties defected away from the Supreme Council, choosing ideology over sect, suggests that new intersectarian political coalitions may be emerging that could make national reconciliation easier.

Finally, the process that led to the February 13 compromise suggests a growing respect for the rule of law, and not just the rule of men. Throughout the debate, “centrists” and “federalists” alike went to great lengths to frame their positions on the basis of popularly agreed-upon constitutional principles. When a constitutional dispute stalled the provincial-powers bill in the summer of 2007, for instance, lawmakers looked to the Federal Supreme Court for guidance. The Supreme Council framed its objections to the law in terms of “contradiction with the Constitution,” while its proposed amendments were designed to “ensure the constitutionality of the law.” Of course these positions were based on political agendas, and one should therefore be cautious not to draw too far-reaching a conclusion from one parliamentary debate. But in a nation with scant experience with liberal democratic governance, Iraq’s newfound reliance on the Constitution and independent judicial institutions should provide some hope that a new political culture is beginning to take root.

It’s too early to tell just how much, if at all, the February 13 compromise will transform Iraqi politics. Anything could happen on the security front. One well-timed bomb could easily undermine whatever political progress has been made. Formidable economic challenges remain as well. But something very encouraging just took place, and if Iraqis can build upon the February 13 compromise, someone other than General Petraeus may claim a success.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4236

Edited May 18, 2008 by GaryC