RRC Archives

You don't seem like a bad guy - do you really believe the drivel you spew?

From your post just now, I have to conclude that you do believe it, but you know it's simply wrong and you justify it to yourself by cooking up this "yanking your chain" thing.

Something to chew on: The right wing is wrong on the "war on drugs" right? Well, they apply the same messed up thinking to their foreign policy - they fucked up by going into Iraq in the way they did and for the reasons they did, right? They're wrong on current foreign policy and they're just as wrong, for many of the same questions, on the economy.

Here's what passes for "foreign policy expertise" among Republicans:

There's not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiahs. So I think they can probably get along. [MSNBC Hardball, 4/23/03]

Guess who said that? Yep, John McCain.

Yep, John McCain is a "foreign policy expert" and Sarah Palin knows, uh, something or other about foreign policy because she was governor of a state near Russia. In an interview today, McCain's top foreign policy advisor, lobbyist Randy Scheunemann tried that 'claim'. Ted Koppel asked him if that meant that in interviews, we could expect Palin to be able to field in-depth questions on Russia policy. Scheunemann dodged that question like a fistfull of shit set on fire was heading his way.

So:
- invading Iraq was a huge fuck-up
- we've been ignoring Afghanistan which is full of heroin and people who want to attack America
- the Republican presidential candidate can't keep track of a minor issue like Sunni/Shia sectarian conflict (but he's hot to attack Iran...)
- the Republican VP candidate is hyped for her "executive experience" and foreign policy knowledge of Russia, but probably won't actually answer any real questions on the subject
- the Republican ticket's main foreign policy advisor is a neo-con associate who takes cash from foreign countries to influence US policy (presumably to something other than what is in our best interest.) Guess who is Scheunemann's biggest foreign employer? Georgia. Good thing nothing important to the US is happening there... Nope, confused old McCain is getting great advice!

Ok, let's get back to how Obama won't admit that he was partially wrong about "the Surge"....

wow, even to a closest neocon like me, you definitely are buying the bait tom.....let it rest, and take a deep breath. seriously. in some polls McCain is ahead by as much as 10 points, so just rest easy knowing that all the ignorant red necks are voting for him, and you can keep your elite society to yerself (that is the same as "yourself" to a northerner, btw)..

btw, if the libs lose this election, they will go down in history as the most incompetent party of all time. the neo cons handed it to you, and you dropped the ball...you dropped the freaking ball tom!!!

Do you really think that little of the people of America?

I'd rather not keep my "elite society" to myself - one could make the argument that Americans are too stupid to understand what's going on in Iraq, that they tried the "let the dumb/ignorant guy run things" plan for 8 years and it sucked, thus you should all just shut up let the smart guy make all the decisions.

I don't buy that - Americans can understand that the current situation in Iraq is caused by the complex interactions between the ethnic cleansing that has been going on over the last few years, the realization among Iraqi Sunnis that AIQ had to go, that militias like Sadr's have decided to deescalate (for the time being), and yes, changes in US troop levels (which were significantly off set by changes in troop deployments by other coalition members...) You know, all the things that Obama used to try to explain in longer format interviews like this one:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... he-su.html

I think that Americans are capable of understanding that while McCain is currently running around claiming that he was so "right" on the surge, at the time, he actually wasn't quite sure it would work:

I am concerned about it, whether it is sufficient numbers or not. ... I think this is our last chance. Will it succeed? I can’t guarantee that. ... I think we’re send—I think we’ve convinced Prime Minister Maliki then, as the situation continues to deteriorate, that we need to do that. I am very, very—one of my very serious concerns, and I think many others’ concerns is whether Prime Minister Maliki will be steadfast in this effort.

That was McCain on Meet the Press, Jan. 21, 2007 At the time, he knew that it was a crapshoot and was concerned that the number of added troops wouldn't really make that much of a difference.

With what we know now about the trends in Iraq, it's entirely possible that Iraq would be in about the situation it is now without the added US troops. We could probably better characterize Obama's recent statements as "succeeded in ways that none of those fucking morons anticipated". Basically, McCain got lucky that a lot of good and bad things went along with the troop increase, and he has tried to take credit for all that.

Obama's whole point is that we would be better off if we had sent those troops to Afghanistan, were we now know that over the last year or so, the Taliban and core al Qaeda (you know, the guys who actually attacked us on 9/11) have been gaining in strength. They've gone from attacking western units with bands of 10 or so fighters and running away, to attacking with 100+ troop units in coordinated, sustained attacks.

On the whole, Obama was right to say, back in January 2007, that the best use of our limited resources would be to send them to Afghanistan, rather than Iraq. He may be oversimplifying his answers for the BillO show audience and overplaying the "success", but was still right both about the war as a whole and how to allocate our military resources to increase the security of our nation. Sounds like a damn good president to me. Or is that "elitist"?

anyone watch 60 minutes last night?

Man, I just read a tiny excerpt from Woodward's new book - in just a few lines, it brings up a whole bunch of issues with "the Surge":

Several of the chiefs noted that the five brigades were effectively the strategic reserve of the U.S. military, the forces on hand in case of flare-ups elsewhere in the world. Surprise was a way of international life, the chiefs were saying. For years, Bush had been making the point that it was a dangerous world. Did he want to leave the United States in the position of not being able to deal with the next manifestation of that danger?

Bush told the chiefs that they had to win the war at hand. He turned again to Schoomaker. "Pete, you don't agree with me, do you?"

"No," Schoomaker said. "I just don't see it. I just don't."

This was a Dec. 2006 meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Quickly - 3 points:

1. Bush was a fucking lying hypocrite (yeah, I know, big surprise) when he was spouting about "I'm going to listen to the generals..." - here he was pushing a military plan from the cookoo fringe American Enterprise Institute down the throats of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

2. The AEI/McCain/Bush "Surge" was one hell of a gamble given that it took up the entire strategic reserve of the US military. Looks like McCain got a lot more lucky than any of us realized.

3. The JCS was trying to cut Iraq tours from 12 months to 9 months, the implementation of "the Surge" required that tours be extended to 15 months. "Support the Troops" my ass.

It's a bigger discussion, but part of what the JCS was trying to get through to Bush was that doing this sort of thing could seriously damage the US military for years to come. There's a serious problem retaining people around the rank of Capitan/Lieutenant in the Army, and totally unqualified people are being "automatically" promoted to Sergeant. Bush and McCain may have a degree of "success" from "the Surge" and the political gains that it brings them (or not), but the military is facing serious problems as a result.

On Point 1 above - from Woodward's new book:

The president announced the surge decision Jan. 10, 2007. Five more brigades would go to Baghdad; 4,000 Marines would head to Anbar province.

The next morning, he went to Fort Benning, Ga., to address military personnel and their families. His decision had been opposed by Casey and Abizaid, his military commanders in Iraq. Pace and the Joint Chiefs, his top military advisers, had suggested a smaller increase, if any at all. Schoomaker, the Army chief, had made it clear that the five brigades didn't really exist under the Army's current policy of 12-month rotations. But on this morning, the president delivered his own version of history.

"The commanders on the ground in Iraq, people who I listen to -- by the way, that's what you want your commander-in-chief to do. You don't want decisions being made based upon politics or focus groups or political polls. You want your military decisions being made by military experts. They analyzed the plan, and they said to me and to the Iraqi government: 'This won't work unless we help them. There needs to be a bigger presence.' "

Bush went on, "And so our commanders looked at the plan and said, 'Mr. President, it's not going to work until -- unless we support -- provide more troops.' "

That's "honesty" in Larry's world.

So, let me get this straight. Did Tom finally start arguing with himself?

Awesome!

yup. i tried charlie.I swear, I tried.

and,um, tom, so you are saying that when McCain wins this election, America is smart? Or is that only IF Obama wins then America is smart? I want to make sure I get your waffling correct (for the record only, of course.)

Seriously - where do you see me arguing with myself? Is it just that I'm breaking things up into a series of posts instead of big, long, hard to read posts?

I'm saying that Americans are capable of learning some of the details and trade-offs behind policy instead of just writing things off to "follow the leader" - and that goes for both Obama and McCain. If people understand his worldview and think that America is best off with a slightly senile guy who wants to re-fight (and achieve VICTORY! at last!) the Vietnam war, as long as that's an informed decision, fine. That also goes for people who just wave Obama banners.

If anything, I'm not that wild about certain aspects of Obama's approach, but it's so wildly better than McCain's approach of "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" "100 years in Iraq" "I detest war, but I've never met a war I didn't like" "Hey, why don't I hire lobbyists as my foreign policy advisors, that won't fuck thing up, right!?!" Check out McCain's 1974 War College thesis:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/p ... McCain.pdf

It's pretty complicated in light of today's situations. On the topic of educating both the public and the troops about US foreign policy - "old" McCain talks about how that's a good idea, but recognizes that it could fall into a form of "propaganda". It's too bad that McCain of today takes a "skim the surface and lie when needed" approach.

Back in '74, McCain viewed "anti-war groups" as tools of "communist propaganda". (That's a bit of an over simplification) It's a big concern that he would view today's anti-war groups in some similar manner - he would not be able to clearly assess the trade-offs between "winning for the sake of winning" and the baseline interests of the nation.