Check this article: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/02/foreman.raw.politics/index.html
The Iraq War has been touted as McCain's achilles' heel, but as the numbers come out of Iraq there is some hope that something can be salvaged from this painstaking and draining war. Now, that is not to say that things aren't still grim, but I am interested in seeing these exchanges as we head into the general election season between McCain and Obama/Clinton. As the article notes, if McCain can even slightly alter the opinion of the 2/3 of the country that disapprove of the war, then it may be a tight race. If he can underscore the significant strides made since the surge last year, then perhaps the general public will not completely vilify him when it comes to Iraq. Remember, this is the man that has always supported the war, but the man that has also consistently stated that it was mismanaged and executed poorly by the Bush administration. This is not a slam dunk issue for the Democrats as was previously thought (at least by me). They will have to explain what their course of action is after we withdraw all troops, as they have both stated they want to do very quickly into their first term. We know what McCain's course of action is, he has clearly told the American people from the start.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
As it becomes increasingly apparent that Obama will win the democratic nomination, so slips the advantage of the Iraq issue into the hands of the republicans. I am stealing much of my argument from an article Mike gave me but allow me to elaborate:
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/why-mccain-would-vote-for-obama/index.html
It is evident that Obama has NO experience with foreign diplomacy OR military matters. As Commander-in-Chief it would be preferable to have someone with that kind of knowledge no matter how small it is. McCain is a unique figure with regards to the Iraq war as he has always supported it but has consistently been at odds with the disastrous policy implemented by the Bush administration. When it comes to a direct comparison of foreign diplomacy, McCain will emerge the victor and Obama will be sitting there wishing his opposition was more like Hillary. McCain is coming to the general election with supporters who, for the most part, agree with the war. Add to that a successful military track record and the recent success of the surge and McCain looks like the right answer. Obama has given us no clear plan as to what he wants to accomplish in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter and he certainly has no history to pull examples from. People say withdraw troops and it is clear that both sides wish to do this as soon as possible. It comes down to the issue of defining "as soon as possible". With McCain we know what this means and we can see the history that supports his decisions. This is a slam-dunk for the republicans in my eyes.
Unfortunately McCain wants us to "spend another 100 years in Iraq." It's obvious that he will decrease the amount of troops in the region with him, but still keep a strong force there in general. The point that I'm trying to make is, that although we have subdued and reduced the number and organization of Al Queda in Iraq we have done something terribly wrong. First off, if you support moving into Iraq for the suspicion of Weapons of Mass Destruction which was wrong to begin with, then why not attack other countries who could supposedly have them as well (North Korea which we just found out that they had an far outdated nuclear plant)? The point is, now that we are in Iraq, spending $200 million (American dollars) a day, we have centralized all of our forces in that specific country. Al Queda is a developed organization who are moving outward from Iraq into other Middle Eastern countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan. What ever happened to Osama Bin Laden. Obama is going to reduce troops dramatically in Iraq but also move smaller forces into other regions to deplete Al Queda and other terrorist groups organization. Maybe we could spend some of that $1 trillion that have used in Iraq in our economy which is in a recession. Look at the housing market which I was in. It's plummeted with 1.5 million loans (40%) increasing to higher rates which would make some families pay $1500 more a day.
I meant $1500 per month
First, it is unfair to use this "100 years" comment against McCain as most of his Democratic opponents have done thus far. There is nothing wrong with him saying this. He said we will have a military presence in Iraq for up to 100 years, which is not a far-fetched notion when it is well-known that we have troops stationed in almost every country in the world, especially regions where we have engaged in declared conflict (i.e., Korea, Vietnam, etc.) Second, no matter which course of action you support in fighting Al Qaeda, American dollars are going to largely be focused on one specific region or country, whether that be Afghanistan or Iraq. In many ways, I believe that Iraq serves as the key theater in the war on Al Qaeda and terror right now, but one of many theaters. This war on terror, which was declared on us by Al Qaeda in 1998, will go on for a while. My question is what will Obama do after he decides to just pull out all these troops by 2009? What is left of Iraq and its people? We just abandon them? It is obvious that the area will turn into chaos after we leave with warring factions killing each other without mercy. It will be a power vacuum with no stability, with Al Qaeda and the ever-dangerous Iran vying to become a potential regional hegemon. This is what historically has happened in such situations. See Eastern Europe post WWII and the current disarray in war-torn Somalia.
I understand that we have troops all over the world. I'm unclear as to what extent McCain would formulate military presence in Iraq specifically. Considering you disagree with Barack's approach on Iraq, and recognizing that this would be detrimental to the Middle East. What do you suggest we do since we are all supporting him? A complete withdraw might be a poor move, but do you want to continue to have all of our military forces in that region indefinitely. Our economy would continue to sink, it would also make it difficult to maintain national health care with its costs.
Well first off, your comment assumes that we are all supporting Obama, which is definitely not the case. I am a Clinton supporter. I believe in her experience and believe she makes the more realistic commander-in-chief, and not one that thinks we can reverse foreign policy on a dime and start having sit-downs with petty dictators.
When it comes to foreign policy and Iraq, I tend to be drawn closer to McCain on the issue, which is about the only issue that I sway towards the Republican camp. I believe that if this war had been managed correctly from the start, we would see a different Iraq today. And I believe that McCain is the most qualified to become commander-in-cheif and manage this war on terror correctly. He understands that positives have come out of this surge tactic, but the end goal has still escaped us. If we can monitor the situation for another year at these troop levels, and fervently press the Iraqi government and military to begin to shoulder more of the load, I remain optimistic that the war can be salvaged.
We need to be looking forward on not backwards on this debate -- we are in Iraq, let's not squabble over who supported it and who did not. We need a clear plan of action, and I believe McCain is the only one who has given one. Now if I could only get him to support universal health care, abortion rights and less tax cuts for corporations, he might be my candidate!
john mccain has a super hot wife and t-rex arms....how does that happen?
Post a Comment