The problem with that argument is that the situation in Iraq makes it more likely that Americans will die in Iraq. . If Americans regard the lack of troops dying in Iraq as a temporary condition, Obama’s not going to get much credit for that.
Plus his handling of the ISIS war is judged poorly by the public so far. It’s just not the kind of thing you’d want to draw attention to. Plus it turns an issue the GOP has a big advantage on into a major voting issue. Democrats do better when elections are not about foreign policy. Bush kinda ruined the GOP on that issue but they seem to have gained back their traditional advantage.
There’s a pretty simple answer to this – don’t send troops back to Iraq. ISIS will kill far more American troops if we put them on the ground then they could possibly kill American civilians if we don’t.
Sending troops to Iraq to fight ISIS on the ground will weaken America and result in more dead Americans then not doing so.
Obama has nothing to lose by trying to sway public opinion against war – he’s not running again.
I don’t think the Democrats have even tried. I think my argument above – that sending troops in will result in more American deaths than not doing so – is an effective and simple argument.
How Iraq affects the next election will depend on what happens in the war against ISIS. Obama could win the war and everyone will say how awesome he is. He could lose the war and be the next Jimmy Carter. Or he could muddle through and Republicans can run on doing a better job. We’ll see.
Heh. No more states for Brown. Given how close he came and the fact that he probably lost for no other reason than that he didn’t have ties to the state, maybe he’ll try again in NH in the next good Republican year.
Alternatively, he could show up in a Republican administration.
Because the President said there needs to be a war against ISIS and so we are waging one. And I happen to believe him and found his argument very compelling.
A lot of people, surprisingly, a lot of people on the right, think we should leave this one alone. I think the President has shown great leadership by making the case. Now he has to execute on his policy.
BTW, in regards to the subject of this thread, something that’s obvious but I figure should be pointed out again:
Each individual race that is a toss-up isn’t a coin flip. They all tend to break the same way. It was always more likely that the Democrats or Republicans would win the vast majority of the tossup races, and as in 2006, that’s exactly what happened.
He didn’t use the word “war”, but bombing people is an act of war. And we’re not just doing it as a one-off. It’s a continuing campaign and it may continue through the rest of his Presidency.
Why do you want to get ground troops involved? Do you disagree with my contention that ISIS would do far, far more damage and death to US soldiers on the ground in Iraq then they could ever do to US civilians at home?
That depends. What is the likelihood that they could get some nerve gas and bring it into the country and use it?
Also, what are the consequence for our interests in the Middle East if they control a large swathe of territory, or even more unthinkable, take over an actual country?
the President made the case clearly that our interests are at stake here. I actually support his decision to not use ground troops, for now, because I think Arabs and Kurds need to fight for themselves. We’ll never be out of the Middle East if we keep on having to bail them out. But if we can’t win any other way, we have to do it. And I think we will, because nearly all the military people I’ve heard speak on the issue say it’s the only way.
We are going to “degrade and ultimately destroy” them, bombing the shit out of them on a daily basis, and training ground troops to kill them, but we’re not at war with them?
Probably not good – but I think we’ve demonstrated that troops on the ground doesn’t make the situation better in the long term… perhaps unless we’re willing to stay for decades. And that’s not close to worth the cost.
Only way for what? What’s the goal? Eliminate ISIS? Then what? If we go home, then another ISIS forms. If we stay, then how long? Why would we believe that any of this would lead to a better long-term situation for the region than doing nothing? Aren’t you afraid we’d be throwing away more American lives for nothing?