Brilliant political move yesterday by Romney

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Incidentally, turns out my mom was a Romney supporter. She was very very disappointed. Not a McCain fan, I guess.

There's a little bit of Mormon in everyone

[Cali Coug]

Myboynoah, I do appreciate you taking the time to respond. As you can see, not many others are even willing to try that, despite the fact that the questions are ridiculously obvious and necessary.

I will try to give a response to your main points, as an attempt to respond to every point will turn this into the longest thread that nobody will ever read.

With Spain, I don't see your point. I am aware of the reason that Spain withdrew from Iraq. You seem to offer it as support that withdrawing from Iraq doesn't keep us any safer (because it didn't keep them safer, as you demonstrated by the renewed effort to bomb them that was thwarted recently). But how is that helpful? We know for a fact that they want to bomb us in the US right now while we are in Iraq. Bush has announced that several terrorist attacks on US soil have been thwarted (and, for the sake of argument here, I assume we can take him at his word). If we withdraw from Iraq, they will still want to bomb us (as evidenced by your example in Spain). So whether we are in Iraq or not, they want to bomb us. So how does that help support your position that we need to remain in Iraq? Either way, their desire to bomb us remains the same. Right?

As for Pakistan, I am hardly saying that Pakistan is the only base for terrorism. I am saying it appears to be the biggest base for terrorism right now, and appeared to be the one of the biggest bases right after 9/11 (along with Afghanistan). Instead, we went to Iraq, which had no connection to 9/11 (we can agree on that, can't we?). Ergo, Iraq was a distraction from the actual purpose of our efforts (eradication of terrorists who would destroy us). Given that Afghanistan and Pakistan are still the primary bases of terrorism (a point bolstered by your example of the Spanish terrorists), it is safe to conclude Iraq remains a distraction. We have far fewer troops in Afghanistan than Iraq, and yet the intelligence points to far more terrorists in Afghanistan than Iraq.

Despite your claims about "working with NATO," I think most will agree that NATO isn't going to get the job done in Afghanistan. The point of me linking to that article wasn't to show you the opinion of the author for fixing Afghanistan, it was to show you the verifiable fact that Afghanistan is in turmoil right now, and worsening. Working with NATO isn't improving the situation there, and we can't dedicate full attention to the matter (distracted).

As for your statement that "finishing the job" means ensuring that Iraq has internal security, how is it possible to ever know that when they rely on the US as a crutch for internal security? We aren't even remotely close to internal security in Iraq. In fact, one could certainly argue that Iraq is no closer to internal security today on its own than it was 3 years ago. Recently, there have been serious calls for the Iraqi police to be completely disbanded once again due to the tremendous corruption that has infiltrated the police ranks.

If getting closer to our goal of internal security (which is more your goal than any sort of actual policy position of the US right now) is evidenced by spending less money, then what is evidenced by spending more money? The war is as expensive as it ever was.

We have the additional problem of the fact that our presence in Iraq appears to be benefiting the Shia and hurting the Sunni, despite the fact that the Shia are much more openly hostile to the US. This is also a problem for attaining internal security in Iraq.

There are, as you mentioned, almost unlimited variables in Iraq right now. To categorically say, as Mitt Romney and other Republicans have said, that withdrawing from Iraq means the terrorists win is baseless and unknowable. Even worse, it isn't meant as a statement of fact as much as it is meant as a tool of fear-mongering to bolster a party's power that otherwise might be crushed in the upcoming election.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I don't know that I'd go so far as to classify it as brilliant, but the best possible move, yes.

Brilliant may have overstated the matter, but it was a smarter move than staying in. Thanks for your comments.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Myboynoah, I do appreciate you taking the time to respond. As you can see, not many others are even willing to try that, despite the fact that the questions are ridiculously obvious and necessary.

I admire his stamina. He obviously hasn't had many discussions with you before.

Iraq is a complex situation and determine what constitutes victory and defeat can be complicated. But I can't see how precipitous withdraw can constitute anything but a defeat.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Incidentally, turns out my mom was a Romney supporter. She was very very disappointed. Not a McCain fan, I guess.

Your mother is wise. You'd do well to listern to her.

[myboynoah]

On Spain, there is an argument, made by some on the Left, that our involvement in Iraq is creating anti-U.S. terrorists, in effect increasing the threat. Hence, if we pull out, the threat decreases significantly. My point in raising Spain is obvious in this regard and thought it made sense in our conversation, but perhaps it doesn't. I'm not willing to go back and check; but it seems irrelevent since we appear to agree on this point.

On Iraq/Afghanistan, I don't buy the "distraction" argument as being that significant. Given Iraq's stategic importance in world affairs, our priority should be on preventing chaos there versus Afghanistan. Besides, it appears that anything we would do in Afghanistan would need to involve Pakistan. As I noted, right now this appears to need more of a diplomatic/intelligence solution versus a military one. And NATO is there. Are you suggesting that we ask NATO to stand aside? What happened to multilateral solutions? Or are we just going to use NATO as a front for our unilateral activities?

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

There are, as you mentioned, almost unlimited variables in Iraq right now. To categorically say, as Mitt Romney and other Republicans have said, that withdrawing from Iraq means the terrorists win is baseless and unknowable.

Actually I think it is the only known variable should we pull out. The last time we "lost" to the terrorists was in Somalia. Osama used that as evidence that Americans are soft and a ripe target. 9/11 came next. We leave Iraq before estalishing internal security and it will be seen as another Somalia, America capitulates to terrorists. That seems fairly obvious.

So, questions for you, Cali.

What is your view of an end game in Iraq?
Will we withdraw all of our troops? If not, what will be left? Where? Why?
How long will this all take?
How do you plan to deal with the fallout of leaving an unstable regime in the region? What will you tell our friends there, especially Arabs who will see Persian dominance of a fellow Arab state?
How will you protect our Kurdish friends in the north from reprisals/dominance from Iraqis, Iranians, and Turks?
How will you prevent a civil war and what are the contingencies should one break out?
How will you deal with those Iraqis who worked with us and will certainly face reprisals at the face of those we are fighting? For example, what about the tribal chieftans in Anbar province?
How will you secure our diplomatic facilities and diplomats in country, or is the plan to significantly reduce that presence as well?
What is your vision of Iraq ten years on? What is the plan?

I'm sure there are more, but I'll stop there. Time to come out of the tall grass.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

On Spain, there is an argument, made by some on the Left, that our involvement in Iraq is creating anti-U.S. terrorists, in effect increasing the threat. Hence, if we pull out, the threat decreases significantly. My point in raising Spain is obvious in this regard and thought it made sense in our conversation, but perhaps it doesn't. I'm not willing to go back and check; but it seems irrelevent since we appear to agree on this point.

On Iraq/Afghanistan, I don't buy the "distraction" argument as being that significant. Given Iraq's stategic importance in world affairs, our priority should be on preventing chaos there versus Afghanistan. Besides, it appears that anything we would do in Afghanistan would need to involve Pakistan. As I noted, right now this appears to need more of a diplomatic/intelligence solution versus a military one. And NATO is there. Are you suggesting that we ask NATO to stand aside? What happened to multilateral solutions? Or are we just going to use NATO as a front for our unilateral activities?



Actually I think it is the only known variable should we pull out. The last time we "lost" to the terrorists was in Somalia. Osama used that as evidence that Americans are soft and a ripe target. 9/11 came next. We leave Iraq before estalishing internal security and it will be seen as another Somalia, America capitulates to terrorists. That seems fairly obvious.

So, questions for you, Cali.

What is your view of an end game in Iraq?
Will we withdraw all of our troops? If not, what will be left? Where? Why?
How long will this all take?
How do you plan to deal with the fallout of leaving an unstable regime in the region? What will you tell our friends there, especially Arabs who will see Persian dominance of a fellow Arab state?
How will you protect our Kurdish friends in the north from reprisals/dominance from Iraqis, Iranians, and Turks?
How will you prevent a civil war and what are the contingencies should one break out?
How will you deal with those Iraqis who worked with us and will certainly face reprisals at the face of those we are fighting? For example, what about the tribal chieftans in Anbar province?
How will you secure our diplomatic facilities and diplomats in country, or is the plan to significantly reduce that presence as well?
What is your vision of Iraq ten years on? What is the plan?

I'm sure there are more, but I'll stop there. Time to come out of the tall grass.

Everyone with the tall grass thing, huh? There sure are a lot of people here fixated on huge amounts of weed.

To your questions, an end game in Iraq is almost impossible to predict. It depends largely on the ability of Iraqis to stand up and fight for their country, rather than lean on the crutch that has become the US. Ideally, our withdrawal from Iraq prompts the Iraqis to get far more serious about internal progress and they accomplish what you have set up as our goal in Iraq.

Will we withdraw all troops? If Obama or Clinton are elected, that is exactly what they have said will happen. Their timeframe is between 16-24 months. The US will maintain its embassy there.

As for the Kurds, they are likely easier to protect than the Sunnis. Turkey is susceptible to influence, due to their strong desire to be integrated into the EU. The Iraqis have shown, at least of late, a willingness to be more tolerant of the Kurds. The recent oil agreement is an example.

As to how we prevent a civil war and what the contingencies are, those are issues that must be answered whether we are in Iraq or not, likewise with the tribal chieftans.

Best case scenario for Iraq in 10 years is the emergence of a benevolent dictator along the lines of Tito. We give up on the nonsense of attempting to establish democracy in a society that doesn't relate at all to democracy, and we do so in favor of stability with an aim towards education and a gradual understanding of freedom and empowerment (with democracy as a very long-term goal). The benevolent dictator then bears the burden of keeping a fractured country together. Sound tough? It will be. And it speaks to why invading Iraq in the first place was a foolish proposition.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Everyone with the tall grass thing, huh? There sure are a lot of people here fixated on huge amounts of weed.

To your questions, an end game in Iraq is almost impossible to predict. It depends largely on the ability of Iraqis to stand up and fight for their country, rather than lean on the crutch that has become the US. Ideally, our withdrawal from Iraq prompts the Iraqis to get far more serious about internal progress and they accomplish what you have set up as our goal in Iraq.

Will we withdraw all troops? If Obama or Clinton are elected, that is exactly what they have said will happen. Their timeframe is between 16-24 months. The US will maintain its embassy there.

As for the Kurds, they are likely easier to protect than the Sunnis. Turkey is susceptible to influence, due to their strong desire to be integrated into the EU. The Iraqis have shown, at least of late, a willingness to be more tolerant of the Kurds. The recent oil agreement is an example.

As to how we prevent a civil war and what the contingencies are, those are issues that must be answered whether we are in Iraq or not, likewise with the tribal chieftans.

Best case scenario for Iraq in 10 years is the emergence of a benevolent dictator along the lines of Tito. We give up on the nonsense of attempting to establish democracy in a society that doesn't relate at all to democracy, and we do so in favor of stability with an aim towards education and a gradual understanding of freedom and empowerment (with democracy as a very long-term goal). The benevolent dictator then bears the burden of keeping a fractured country together. Sound tough? It will be. And it speaks to why invading Iraq in the first place was a foolish proposition.

That's it? After all the time I spent answering your questions, this is what you offer. We're tired of this, we're out of here, good luck and hopefully the mess we created gets cleaned up.

You did little to address the real probable outcomes of our leaving Iraq lock, stock, and barrel. The idea that we would even maintain an Embassy there afterward is really quite shocking. You might as well shoot those diplomats yourself.

If you are represenative of your fellow Dems, I can see that very few of you have really thought this through. Either that or you are in denial.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

That's it? After all the time I spent answering your questions, this is what you offer. We're tired of this, we're out of here, good luck and hopefully the mess we created gets cleaned up.

You did little to address the real probable outcomes of our leaving Iraq lock, stock, and barrel. The idea that we would even maintain an Embassy there afterward is really quite shocking. You might as well shoot those diplomats yourself.

If you are represenative of your fellow Dems, I can see that very few of you have really thought this through. Either that or you are in denial.

Stop with the drama already. I asked you detailed questions, you responded with short answers. I did the same.

If you are looking for a full treatise on the matter, here is one to start with:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa588.pdf

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Stop with the drama already. I asked you detailed questions, you responded with short answers. I did the same.

If you are looking for a full treatise on the matter, here is one to start with:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa588.pdf

What the hell is cato.org and what would they know about the war in Iraq?

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Stop with the drama already. I asked you detailed questions, you responded with short answers. I did the same.

If you are looking for a full treatise on the matter, here is one to start with:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa588.pdf

I did you the favor of addressing each of your questions after your prodding. You chose to ignore many of mine, then linked to a year old Cato article on Iraq. Not very good form.