[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
Calm down. The intended irony of the joke is that McCain did actually see service and great personal hazard in a combat zone, but the Democratic complement of “Swift Boat Veterans For Truth[sic]” would claim that McCain was cowardly avoiding combat, et cetera. Perhaps it is not in especially good taste, but neither is McCain’s support for torture and cognitive dissonance over the conduct and success of the Iraq effort to date.
Regardless, having served in a war–even as a staff level commanding officer–is no guarantee of being a good chief executive, either in peacetime or wartime. We’ve had Presidents with no military service preside over successful wars (with advice from experienced and trusted Cabinet members) and people with direct combat experience preside over disastrous war efforts like Korea. That McCain has fought in a war, displaying heroism and suffering grave injury, does not by default make him the best selection for President, even in a wartime environment. What would make him a good President in this regard is having a decisive and well-conceived plan for resolving the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately, from everything I’ve seen from him, he does not; his plan is to keep doing more of the same until it starts working, even as military planners are having difficulty maintaining existing staffing levels. On that basis alone I’d support Obama over McCain.
Stranger
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think that’s a fair description of McCain’s position. Have you forgotten that McCain was the darrling of the left a few years ago, because he was one of the first Republicans to break ranks and criticize Bush for his handling of the war? A more accurate statement of McCain’s position is that he was an early proponent of sacking Rumsfeld and shifting to a proper COIN strategy. Since the strategy he pushed for showed positive results almost immediately, it’s unfair to accuse him of blindly sticking to ‘more of the same’.
I also think his advocacy of what was ultimately a winning strategy in Iraq gives him some Bona fides to say he knows how to win a war.
[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
Since you’re using a time machine to post from the future, would you mind PMing me a few stock tips?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, calling the surge a success is a bit premature. Violence is down, but it’s still very high. Political gains have been weak, and who knows what things are going to look like a year from now.
My questions are: Just how many different wars can we expect John McCain to attempt to win during his presidency? We’ve already had 8 years of “The War President” in GWB. Do we need another? Can we get off this track yet?
[QUOTE=John Mace] Yeah, calling the surge a success is a bit premature. Violence is down, but it’s still very high. Political gains have been weak, and who knows what things are going to look like a year from now.
[/QUOTE]
the real test is 'what happens when our troop aren’t there.
[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
using a time machine to post from the future…
[/QUOTE]
No he’s not. Apparently the time has come for Republicans to take credit for actually winning the war in Iraq.
Regardless of whether it was worth fighting in the first place, the Republicans have now won their war, and should a Democrat succeed to the white house, all responsibility for anything less than perfection in Baghdad will rest solely with the Democrats.
Any scenario other than this would involve the GOP taking responsibility for their own fuckups, and we all know that’s never going to happen.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Obama is going to leave troops in Iraq. He’s said so.
[/quote]
And I disagree with him on that, but you take what you can get.
I thought it should have been handled as a law enforcement issue. Afghanistan didn’t attack us. But I was not, and am not rigid about it. It’s certainly much more justifiable than Iraq ever was. If we’re going to insist on this fool’s errand of trying to fight a “war on terror,” we might as well go where the terrorists are. Iraq can go whistle for a taxi as far as I’m concerned.
[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
I am no historian, so correct me if I am wrong, but here is a what I see based upon a skimming of Wiki…
[/QUOTE]
I’d give Truman at least a “decent”. As I recall, he motivated his artillery unit in WW1 by cursing at them elaborately and extensively. Surely that came in handy as Prez.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I thought it should have been handled as a law enforcement issue. Afghanistan didn’t attack us. But I was not, and am not rigid about it. It’s certainly much more justifiable than Iraq ever was. If we’re going to insist on this fool’s errand of trying to fight a “war on terror,” we might as well go where the terrorists are. Iraq can go whistle for a taxi as far as I’m concerned.
[/QUOTE]
The terrorists are in Pakistan.
But we have an interest in making sure neither Afghanistan nor Iraq becomes a failed state.
[QUOTE=monavis]
I do not think that Roosevelt fought in any wars.
[/QUOTE]
I assume this statement is about FDR, because TR certainly did fight in some wars. However, FDR was Assistant Secretary of the Navy during 1913-1920, i.e., the whole of World War 1, and so had some experience at the executive level in winning a war – probably more valuable experience in many ways than being an officer in the front line, in part because it overlapped Winston Churchill’s term as First Lord of the Admiralty, which meant that in the next war the two leaders had previously worked together on military matters.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I didn’t hear that interview, but Obama isn’t making much sense in that he claims that we can’t know whether the surge in Iraq was responsible for quelling the violence there, but he wants to surge troops into Afghanistan to… quell the violence there.
[/quote]
That was one of the McCain campaign’s talking points on Friday. The reason it didn’t get much traction among the talking heads is because it is idiotic. The media have gone out of their way to keep from embarrassing McCain, and ignoring that argument was one more act of mercy on their part. Like all Republican talking points this year, it was designed to appeal to the most uninformed and mentally dull voters — i.e., the Republican base. The reason it’s stupid is because the resemblance Iraq bears to Afghanistan is like the resemblance checkers bears to chess. The commonalities are like those between a tennis ball and the sun. Iraq was fighting a civil war at the time McCain was suggesting the surge, with Sunnis and Shias and Kurds and Iranians and a smidgeon of al-Qaeda.
There were risks that an escalation in US troop levels would only exacerbate violence, just as when you butt in to a family feud. They all join forces and turn against you. The reason the escalation qulled violence, as Obama has pointed out, is because other factors were already underway that, as far as anyone knows, might likely have worked with or without an escalation of US troops.
Afghanistan is a completely different strategic task. There, fighting is between Afghans and al-Qaeda / Taliban insurgents, who infiltrate the country through the porous border with Pakistan. More troops are needed to seal that border, and to attack al-Qaeda inside Pakistan. But Obama isn’t proposing just more troops, but rather more aid in general, aimed at freeing Afghan farmers from dependence on poppy crops in favor of crops like wheat, which will grow well there. It needs help with infrastructure so that its people can rebuild a society that they all seek to improve.
Another McCain talking point, and even more retarded. As Jon Stewart lampooned the notion, McCain wants the surge to be a floor cleaner and breath freshener all in one. The “change in strategy” was exactly what Obama advocated, and involved pursuing diplomatic channels with Sunni and Shia leaders to incorporate them both into the political process. That’s what the Sunni Awakening was all about, and it had nothing more to do with the surge than Iraq had to do with 9/11. And it is the people who believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 who are the ones for whom the talking point is targeted.
You often demand cites, but seldom provide them. What makes you think that about the Afghan population? And what do you think the international troops are doing exactly that in some way contradicts what their leaders and Obama have said?
Yeah, calling the surge a success is a bit premature. Violence is down, but it’s still very high. Political gains have been weak, and who knows what things are going to look like a year from now.