It depends. If you do a parachute in thing like bush did when he brought in the turkey then no. On the other hand, maybe we’d have never gone to war had bush gone to Iraq first and talked face to face with Saddam. But we all know that Bush is too big of a pussy to do that.
Ideally, it would be great to have the best information. That might not only be possible in Iraq, but I can guarantee you that the people with the best advice to give about Iraq are probably Iraqis themselves.
Does McCain’s visit count? I don’t know. He had a brigade surrounding him with choppers overhead and wore a flak jacket. He then returned to say that things were fine. That’s not the case, I’m afraid. So apparently his visit didn’t do anything good for him.
But Obama ought to go and seek out the clearest picture of the way things are. If he goes after he is President it will be more difficult to get a clear picture.
I think McCain’s being a hypocrite though. According to McCain you have to go there in order to make a good judgement. It’s just bullshit. He’s going anyway.
It seems to be a weird situation in Iraq right now. As much as Obama ran on an anti-war stance, Iraq is actually getting better now. I think that’s pretty clear. So he’ll have to re-evaluate. Obama’s stand made more sense a year ago, honestly. The second thing is that it appears that the Iraqis are taking a lot more initiative. This could be because they realize that under an Obama administration, they might have to take care of themselves sooner than they had hoped for. Thirdly it also appears that the Iraqis are going to ask us to leave pretty soon. It could be that our withdrawal timeline would end up being the same under McCain or Obama due to the Iraqis insistence that we leave.
Not necessary, no. As has been said, all he’ll get if he goes there is a dog and pony show. How useful is that?
I never brought up the question of whether McCain is being hypocritical here. The point is that McCain’s early and enthusiastic support of the invasion is logically inconsistent with his current position regarding what someone ‘must do’ to formulate acceptable policy.
It’s absurd to say the generals will just give him a dog and pony show. They have a vested interest in making sure the guy who is very likely to be their CiC in a few months has the info he needs to make the right decision. If Obama wants to know what they think, I see no reason to believe they won’t tell him. They’ be fools not to.
No, it’s not. One doesn’t just pop in to visit one’s enemies to check out the situation before invading. That’s an absurd comparison.
They are probably Bush toadies, or they wouldn’t be in a position of authority. They’ll tell Obama what Bush wants Obama to be told. And, they likely ARE fools, or else they wouldn’t be allowed in positions of authority under Bush.
One does do due diligence though, apparently except if it’s Iraq we’re talking about. I like the idea of having our leaders know what they are getting into before they make big decisions. I’m not willing to cut McCain, or anyone else, slack on the invasion just because doing it right would have been hard.
The general’s who owe their position to Bush? Heaven forfend that they would ever politicize their dealings with Obama in order to aid Bush’s heir apparent. Why the whole conduct of the war has, to this point, been a shining example bipartisan propriety, and putting the good of the nation above the ambitions of a particular group or party.
AFAIK, Obama’s never been to Afghanistan, McCain went in 2006.
How is it that Obama’s approach now seems the correct one to McCain, if you have to go there to formulate an effective policy?
The fact is, personal, on the ground experience of these places is neither necessary or sufficient for the generation of good policy
Well, we’re talking about Obama, here, not McCain.
No. The generals who will owe their positions to Obama. Bush just isn’t a factor anymore. He won’t even have any way of knowing who said what to Obama.
I don’t see how visiting Iraq is of any consequence whatever. Talking to the military leadership to formulate strategy is obviously paramount, but it isn’t necessary to vist Iraq to do that. McCain is tryinbg to argue that Obama shouldn’t make the decision to end the occupation without going back to Iraq, which is retarded. There is no reason to be there and that’s the end of it. There’s nothing to see there which will change that. The escalation may or may not have temporarily tamped down some violence, but so what? How does that justify our presence there?
Obama is right that Iraq is not and never has been any kind of front in the so-called “war on terror.” There’s nothing to “win” there. We’re not defending ourselves from anything by remaining there and there’s nothing to learn by going there.
I think the real dirty secret is what’s going on in Pakistan.
Yes John, that’s right. Obama is a retard.
He’s fallen for McCain’s latest incarnation of gas-tax-holiday-like arguments and will end up crucifying himself when he meets up with the cold hard facts on the ground of Iraq.
OTOH, maybe a significant subsection of voters think that it might be a good idea for Obama to visit Iraq. It might not be all that good an idea, but if the voters want it, why not? Obama’s sharp enough that he can probably avoid any traps set by Bush’s operatives.
Context, mi amigo, context. I was responding to this:
And yet Obama is going over there. Now, I don’t think he’s retarded for doing so, but apparently **DtC **does. Or maybe DtC’s argument falls apart, since wyou and I both think Obama isn’t “retarded”.
Because the OP is asking us if we think it’s a good idea or not. I think it’s a very good idea, for the reasons I outlined above. But if you’ve already made up your mind what course you want to take, then going over there will be a waste of time. Obama apparently doesn’t think it’s a waste of time.
Perhaps he’s going merely because it’s politically expedient to do so, not that it’s in any way “necessary” or “important” to do so (in a militarily strategic context).
He’s not going over there to make a determination about whether to pull out troops, though. He’s already decided that. McCain is whinging that Obama shouldn’t have made that determination without going to Iraq first. That, I’m sure you will agree, is retarded.
In that case, then perhaps all his talk about “change” is just bullshit.
Me, I go with the simplest explanation. He needs to start formulating an exit strategy that has more substance to it than “remove all combat troops within 16 months”. One key ingredient will be to meet with many people whom he can most effectively meet with in Iraq. He hasn’t been over there in a long time, and I would expect him, as CiC, to visit there many times during his tenure. Might as well start now, so he can better hit the ground running.
Going there to start tactical dicussions about how to get out is not the same as going there to decide if we should get out. I still don’t even think the former is particularly necessary. Let’s face it. He’s going there because he’s running for President. But the idea that anything occurring on the ground in Iraq has any relevance to whether we should continue the occupation is just silly.
Yup. What with the intensely secretive nature of the current administration, it’s impossible to put together the nuts and bolts of the best withdrawal strategy without first taking over the white house, and subsequently getting a look at all the super-dooper top-secret stuff about the situation over there that Bush has been witholding. Maybe if Obama takes a trip to Iraq now, Maliki, or one of the generals will speak some interesting cold, hard facts. I’m not holding my breath for it, but I suppose there are some who may be. Let them hope. Let others hope the trip’ll cause scales to fall from Obama’s eyes. I expect those later people will end up disillusioned, but that’s OK too. When people get silly ideas in their head, they need to be disillusioned of them.
