On Sep 8, 2008, at 6:29 AM, Charles Bennett wrote: >> It's an absolute brian fart. He might have well have said 'I'm a >> fool. >> Vote for McCain'. > > You point being? :-)
Obama is by nature a consensus builder and it works against him at this stage of the campaign. Obama, his supporters and probably a majority of the American people know the Iraq war is lost. By lost I don't mean that things are as bad as they once were. I simply mean that when you go to war to bring about regime change then 'winning' is getting a new regime more favorable to your national interests than the one that you replace. This was the commonly accepted war goal that was promoted by the neocons before we engaged. The Maliki regime is is clearly more closely aligned with Iran and less of a bulwark and both Sunni and Shia extremism than Saddam was. That's not winning, my friend. Now I understand that many Americans simply can't accept that there is no way for us to win in Iraq. It's especially hard for those who have lost close friends or family members. And it's very easy for people who can't accept that the war is lost to see those who say it is as somehow denigrating the troops or being glad that their sacrifice was in vain. Obama thinks it's wise to avoid taking the issue head on. I think he's wrong. He does manage to sound insincere and trip all over himself when he talks about the war. If he would simply come out and say 'We can't win but there are degrees of losing and we need to avoid a big loss', he would do much better. > > A Soldier/Physician friend of mine just got back from his third tour. > > He summed it up this way. A KFC just opened in the middle of > downtown Fallujah. > > They walk, not in patrol formation but just as pedestrians to and > from it to grab lunch and there are long lines of people > waiting to by their bucket of chicken. > > A year or so ago you would have been crazy to do that. Nobody denies that violence is down. By your argument the Bay of Pigs was a success because people can queue up for fast food in Havana. > > Route Irish (the main road between the airport and the green zone ) > is controlled by Iraqi forces now. > There were NO shootings while he was there. > > Anbar province was just turned over to the Iraqi forces. Anbar!! The Iraqi forces have already stated arresting our awakening allies. > > That absolutely would qualify as "beyond wildest dreams" and it > happened only because of the surge gave the locals confidence to > have their "awakening" This is factually wrong. The awakening and the decline in violence in Anbar both predated the surge. You are repeating a McCain argument that has been widely debunked. > > Obama may have been right about not going into Iraq but he got the > surge wrong. No one denies that violence has greatly declined. No one denies that the decline surprised a lot of people. According to Patraeus's own staff in their interview on Bill Moyer's TV show the causes were. 1) A change in US tactics; 2) The 'Sunni awakening'; 3) The installation of blast walls around the few remaining Sunni enclaves in Baghdad; 4) The Imams in Iran cracking down on Shia against Shia violence and 5) The addition of 5 more brigades plus extending the deployment of some marines in Anbar. Was 5) by itself sufficient to cause the reduction in violence? Even McCain says no. Was 5) necessary for the reduction in violence? We will never know for sure. I think the fact that violence peaked before the surge troops actually arrived is some evidence that it wasn't. Some argue that Iraqi casualties would have been even lower if we had simply bugged out. I tend to doubt that but you can't prove it either way. American casualties would have been zero under that scenario. One thing is clear. You would never accept a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument if you weren't emotionally committed to the idea of American victory. I haven't met McCain face to face in years but I am still pretty close to a couple of people who are close to him. I know he genuinely hates the Sarah Palin social conservatives and I don't blame him. When I ask people who should know why he is willing to kiss the butts of the Palin folks, they say that he is convinced Obama would end the war and he is convinced that it is still winnable. He'll do anything rather than see America lose another war. And this is what I don't get. McCain's position that the social conservatives suck but anything is better than cutting our losses in Iraq seems to be exactly the same as yours. Why isn't he your hero? You've been asked this before but always replied with a joke. Please answer seriously. -- For blocks are better cleft with wedges, Than tools of sharp or subtle edges, And dullest nonsense has been found By some to be the most profound. -Samuel Butler, _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
