I had a moment of serious doubt re: Obama

[MikeWaters]

I was listening to a report on him, his remarks yesterday about Iraq, and the surge, and the success (or lack thereof).

For him, victory in Iraq was not important, getting out was. There has been little meaningful success, although violence was down. The actions of Bush/McCain had nothing to do with the violence being down. He has been displaying true leadership, with a plan for the past two years to get the troops out. etc, etc.

I was listening to this, and thought, there is no way that this kind of posturing is going to inspire ANY confidence in independents who care about the military standing of the USA.

Obama has trapped himself into the position that everything in Iraq has been a failure, and it sounds increasingly false as we move forward.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

When you talk about little meaningful success, you need to distinguish between political success and military success. Obama openly acknowledges that the military aspect has been a success, but the only value the US derives in the long term from military success is if it translates into political success.

but it still rings false. The political situation is much better than it was a year ago.

If Obama had been in charge, he would have ensured that there was no chance for military or political success. He needs to make the argument why no success is better than some success (saved lives and money, more important than success in Iraq).

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

When you talk about little meaningful success, you need to distinguish between political success and military success. Obama openly acknowledges that the military aspect has been a success, but the only value the US derives in the long term from military success is if it translates into political success.

You are buying the democratic and press talking points hook, line and sinker. Most of the American public care about body count and the cost of the war, not political progress in Iraq.

We don't even have political progress in this country. This was supposed to be a clean campaign between two "not your typical" politicians.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by BYU71

We don't even have political progress in this country. This was supposed to be a clean campaign between two "not your typical" politicians.

Excellent point. This thing fell apart pretty quickly, and it appears will become the dirtiest campaign in recent memory.

On topic, Mike is correct. In the eyes of most Americans, things are working out very well in Iraq. Obama is now left with screaming for a timetable for withdrawal (rather irrelevent now) and crying that we aren't getting out quickly enough. How is that better than being measured in our approach? It's as if he wants to retreat just as the enemy is defeated. Pacification of the violence has made him seem increasingly out of touch. His only hope is for increased insurgent activity resulting in U.S. casualties.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

When you talk about little meaningful success, you need to distinguish between political success and military success. Obama openly acknowledges that the military aspect has been a success, but the only value the US derives in the long term from military success is if it translates into political success.

in that situation, you HAVE to have military success before any political success can take place.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Excellent point. This thing fell apart pretty quickly, and it appears will become the dirtiest campaign in recent memory.

On topic, Mike is correct. In the eyes of most Americans, things are working out very well in Iraq. Obama is now left with screaming for a timetable for withdrawal (rather irrelevent now) and crying that we aren't getting out quickly enough. How is that better than being measured in our approach? It's as if he wants to retreat just as the enemy is defeated. Pacification of the violence has made him seem increasingly out of touch. His only hope is for increased insurgent activity resulting in U.S. casualties.

when he said once in office he would listen to the military on the ground and determine how quickly we got out. In other words, he could easily say, once in office, that the situation on the ground is 'different' now and we must remain there a little longer than anticipated. Part of his double speak.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If we are fighting to merely have a lower body count than Iraqis, or to have an absolute low body count, then we really will be there for 100 years or more. That just doesn't make any sense at all.

In either event, most everyone seems to agree that withdrawal is the best option, and it should happen quickly. Obama's position seems to have carried the day, including among the Iraqis.

Of course, the whole Obama and Ilk's objection wasn't due to the body count, it was due to their skepticism about being able to effect political change.

[8ballrollin]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

When you talk about little meaningful success, you need to distinguish between political success and military success. Obama openly acknowledges that the military aspect has been a success, but the only value the US derives in the long term from military success is if it translates into political success.

Dems like to drag out the "political success" measures when talking about the surge not being a complete success. I think this is a mistake. Americans don't care about internal Iraqi politics. Not even a little. Americans care about US solders not dying; that's success to them. Other measures are way down the ladder.

(i didn't read 71's post before posting my reply. sorry for being redundant)

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by 8ballrollin

Dems like to drag out the "political success" measures when talking about the surge not being a complete success. I think this is a mistake. Americans don't care about internal Iraqi politics. Not even a little. Americans care about US solders not dying; that's success to them. Other measures are way down the ladder.

(i didn't read 71's post before posting my reply. sorry for being redundant)

It's more complicated than that. Americans aren't happy if few Americans are dying, but they are reading about 100s being killed by bombs every few days, and women killed on the streets, young children dragged away and found mutilated in ditches. Things like that.

It's the OVERALL reduction in violence that is making it feel like a success.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It's more complicated than that. Americans aren't happy if few Americans are dying, but they are reading about 100s being killed by bombs every few days, and women killed on the streets, young children dragged away and found mutilated in ditches. Things like that.

It's the OVERALL reduction in violence that is making it feel like a success.

It's the fact that they've contained the violence to all out urban warfare in one city, so on a map the affected area is shrinking; and that we've hired soldiers from contractors to do a lot of the nasty stuff. The increased reliance on contractors makes for fewer casualties reported in the official DoD reports.