Hi Jgg1000a You do lay out a good argument but are basing it on your own preconceptions as much as you have taken my argument to be based on what you see my preconceptions to be. The problem is that no one is tackling the whole story and while your points about Sunni and Shia blood fueds are undoubtably true the same is true that many Iraqi's are fighting what they see as an invading force, the Coalition troops. I agree that the surge has worked for now and that can only be a good thing but the long term affects are yet to be seen as the troops have to leave at some point and what will happen when they do? Obama's plan, while possibly over optimistic, searches to heal the diplomatic elements, place the power and incentive for peace back in the hands of the Iraqi's and remove the other contentious elements in Iraq which is the presence of foriegn soldiers on their streets. Your point about him leaving the Iraqi's in the middle of an "unreferred blood fued" ignores the part of his plan that involves intensifying the training of Iraqi forces before the troops leave to build up a local force to keep order. I would concede that the timescale he puts forward for this is far too optimistic though and would go as far as to say a timescale at all leaves the risk of leaving the country without the job being done.
All that said, the true outcome of the invasion will not be known until all the coalition forces have left the country and it is back in the hands of the Iraqi people, the surge has further intrenched the troops in the country and the question is that when the withdrawl finally comes what will happen if none of the diplomatic ground work has been laid? I believe that this is the area which Obama is focussing on more then McCain and this is the area that will give long term results for the country. On 28 Oct, 20:08, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Obama said a little more in 2007 then he would pull troopps out no matter > >>> what. He laid out a plan to to move the conflict from military to > >>> political realms by redeploying most of the troops but not all. It is a > >>> perfectly valid view that by removing the main target of aggression you > >>> can reduce the violence. > > Several problems here > > 1) Obama refused to or could not understand that the Surge was > required to provide for a atmosphere for a civil political culture > BECAUSE it was required to kill or remove the influence the Sunni and > Shia crazies (AQ and Sadr are just two)... > > 2) Obama premised his plan on the assumption that the US troops were > the main target of aggression... THE MAIN TARGET WAS THE EMERGENCE OF > A CIVIL POLITICAL SOCIETY IN IRAQ.... This is why killing civilians > was the norm for 3-4 years... To understand this, you must reject the > notion the the cause of the near civil war was NOT the presence of > American troops but the main cause was the political culture of "Blood > feud" -- which Saddam used to killing effect... > > >>> This did not happen and the surge which was not having much effect in > >>> 2007 has been shown to have been more effective then previously expected. > > The Surge started in 2006 for your information... And it did have > drastic effect in 2007... > >>> Did you watch the Obama interview on Bill O'Reilly's show? He accepted > >>> that Petraous had done an outstanding job and that he had been shown to > >>> be wrong in hisbelief that the surge wouldn't work. Humility is a good > >>> trait and with no leader being a soothsayer or mystic with knowledge of > >>> the future > > except the evidence of success was clear to all without ideological > blinders 8 months before Obama said what he did... During those 6 > months he repeated the "The Surge failed" over and over for political > gain during the campaign... Obama either lied during the campaign or > was willfully blind... > > >>> there is no way of saying that Obama's plan wouldn't have worked just as > >>> well or even better. We will never know. It is however good that the > >>> surge has had results. > > Obama's plan was to remove the sole armed force NOT seeking a section > "Blood Feud" solution... To suggest one can not predict with some > accuracy the results of a non refereed "Blood Feud" is silly... The > most predictable result was and is a full scale civil war that would > draw in Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others... To suggest > otherwise is either dishonest or naive... > > On Oct 28, 2:20 pm, Weebop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Obama said a little more in 2007 then he would pull troopps out no > > matter what. He laid out a plan to to move the conflict from military > > to political realms by redeploying most of the troops but not all. It > > is a perfectly valid view that by removing the main target of > > aggression you can reduce the violence. This did not happen and the > > surge which was not having much effect in 2007 has been shown to have > > been more effective then previously expected. Did you watch the Obama > > interview on Bill O'Reilly's show? He accepted that Petraous had done > > an outstanding job and that he had been shown to be wrong in his > > belief that the surge wouldn't work. Humility is a good trait and with > > no leader being a soothsayer or mystic with knowledge of the future > > there is no way of saying that Obama's plan wouldn't have worked just > > as well or even better. We will never know. It is however good that > > the surge has had results. > > > On 28 Oct, 17:53, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > One does not need to speculate... He stated often his plan in 2007 - > > > withdrawal reguardless of the situation on the ground within 16 > > > months... This strategy would have of course insured the continuation > > > of "blood feud" model... Iran and the crazies would win by just > > > waiting the 16 months and the attack... > > > > As it was they attacked were defeated on the battlefield AND defeated > > > in their loss of support from and by the Iraq people... This defeat > > > is a win for the IRAQI people and for civil society inside Iraq (and > > > by extension the entire ME)... It is a shame that Obama and friends > > > are unable to comprehend the scope nor significance of this... > > > > Obama may be "smart" but his is ignorant of the meaning of this > > > historical development... And it is his arrogance which denies him > > > the desire to say "I was wrong"... > > > > On Oct 28, 1:43 pm, Weebop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > It is good news that people are looking to the future and finding > > > > solutions based on what works now and not what has gone before. > > > > However, I fail to see how speculating about what Obama would have > > > > done had he been in power does to help the situation as nobody knows > > > > if the war would have even been fought, let alone how it would have > > > > been if Obama had been in power. On one hand you talk of looking > > > > forward and on the other oyu look back at a past that never > > > > existed...confusing. > > > > > On 28 Oct, 16:08, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Iraq was won and it did make a huge difference... Had Obama been > > > > > president, Iraq would now be the cause of turmoil rather than a > > > > > cure... Solution by political warfare rather than physical warfare is > > > > > taking hold in Iraq... Instead of the rule of elites, the voice of > > > > > ordinary Iraqis are voices to dictate to the elites... That my > > > > > friends is a change we can believe in -- hope rather the a cycle of > > > > > revenge in the ME... And that is Bush's gift to the world, which is > > > > > currently under appreciated, except by most Iraqis... > > > > > >http://outsidethewire.com/blog/war/jam-boss-reinvented.html > > > > > > > Breaking that cycle of revenge is what reduced the sectarian > > > > > > violence in late 2007 and early 2008. The blood debt cycle has > > > > > > been reduced so much that LTC Matt Elledge of the 1-22 Inf. had to > > > > > > think about the last time there was a sectarian assassination in > > > > > > West Rashid. He said there was one 3 or 4 months > > >> bama said a little more in 2007 then he would pull troopps out no matter > > >> what. He laid out a plan to to move the conflict from military > > to political realms by redeploying most of the troops but not all. > Itis a perfectly valid view that by removing the main target of > aggression you can reduce the violence. This did not happen and the > surge which was not having much effect in 2007 has been shown to have > been more effective then previously expected. Did you watch the Obama > interview on Bill O'Reilly's show? He accepted that Petraous had done > an outstanding job and that he had been shown to be wrong in his > belief that the surge wouldn't work. Humility is a good trait and with > no leader being a soothsayer or mystic with knowledge of the future > there is no way of saying that Obama's plan wouldn't have worked just > as well or even better. We will never know. It is however good that > the surge has had results. > > > > > > I too have to move beyond the past. Soldiers I have spent time with > > > > > have been killed and maimed by the EFPs JAM and Special Groups > > > > > specialized in. > > > > > > My first instinct was to recoil that an acknowledged JAM Boss could be > > > > > put in such a position. > > > > > > But one cannot have hope for the future if he lives in the past. > > > > > > The West Rashid I lived in during the Spring/Summer of 2007 no longer > > > > > exists. > > > > > > A shadow of evil had fell upon Baghdad in late 2005 and slowly the > > > > > light of hope--the belief in an anticipated good outcome -- is taking > > > >>>> > hold. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
