Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, what do you guys suggest be done about Iraq/Afghanistan/Middle East? Pull out? Stay in?

The issue here is that Iraqis do not view themselves as Iraqis. They for the most part could give a about united country. They are Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds; not Iraqis. If we pull out Iraq disintegrates into absolute chaos. Don't care? You should. Turkey and Iran would certainly move in to get as much oil rich real-estate they can get their hands on. All Israel is doing is waiting. Waiting for Iran to up and then Boom! They'll bomb the out of the Iranians and Palestinians. That's all it will take for a horrible domino effect in the Middle East. And lets not forget there are an unfortunate amount of nuclear powers over there and some of them hate each other.

So should we stay? Tough call too. We've stretched our military to the breaking point. People who have retired or have been discharged from the Army, but are still on the call list are being called back in left and right. If you go into the Army now you WILL go to Iraq and be there for an unfortunate amount of time. We're losing allies and foreign support (honestly, how can you piss off the Canadians??). It's only a matter of time before the British give up on us. There are an ever increasing number of mercenaries running around there that are not held to any nations laws because their contracts with the U.S. government specifically say it. The Iraqi people are growing in resentment for us because companies like Blackwater do whatever they want to whoever they want and nothing can be done about it. Saudi Arabia is pumping in all kinds of radicals that our troops have to deal with. So what do you do to stay?

Just curious what you guys think on it as it is quite literally one of the most important topics of our time.

Grignard wrote:I also think immoral and evil are judgemental terms...I really am not convinced any decision was made out of conscious evil. For that matter, what is meant by evil?

Yes, they most certainly are.

No one* consciously thinks of themselves as evil. But they may consciously choose to do things which they deny to themselves are evil, but which other people can judge. If they fail to assess the (im)morality of their own actions and decisions, it is all the more important that we do so.

http://onelook.com/?w=evil&ls=a

onelook.com wrote:Quick definitions (evil)

• noun: morally objectionable behavior
• noun: the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice (Example: "Attempts to explain the origin of evil in the world")
• noun: that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune (Example: "The evil that men do lives after them")
• adjective: tending to cause great harm

Torture is evil.

Extraordinary rendition for the purpose of torture is evil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition


War is one of the greatest evils known to man. Anyone who’s participated in it knows that. Senator McCain can testify to it, as could both of my grandfathers if they were still alive. War is justified in defense. The doctrine of preemptive war is evil, and thankfully none of our leaders during the Cold War were stupid or suicidal enough to engage in it (though there were people who pushed for it back then).

George McGovern, Harper's Magazine Dec 2002 wrote:One reason I am cautious about sending young men off to war is that I have seen what war does. Half of the bomber crews that I flew with in WWII never made it home again. The images remain with me after fifty-five yearsyoung airmen laughing and talking over breakfast before daylight, and then a few minutes later being blown to bits when their huge, overloaded bomber filled with men, bombs, and high-octane gasoline crashed during takeoff. I see the image of a bomber taking a direct hit over the target, catching fire, exploding, and falling in pieces over hostile enemy territory. I tell you these things because no man who has had these experiences will ever again speak carelessly about war. It is the worst thing that men do to each other. When I listen to the bombastic rhetoric of Messrs. Bush and Cheney and the war cries of Ms. Rice, I know that I'm hearing from people who've never been near a battlefield. The British conservative Edmund Burke put it best: "A conscientious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood."

http://humanities.psydeshow.org/political/mcgovern.htm

*Certain types of psychopaths aside

From the site front page
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/IraqFactSheet.pdf

Obama would immediately begin to pull out troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year.
That’s 6-7 months before full pullout. What happens if violence erupts? Al Qaeda is still there. Per Obama we will be required to immediately re-invade.

He would call for a new constitutional convention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq’s leaders reach a new accord on reconciliation.
*****************************************************************
Ooh this sounds both Orwellian creepy and Naively Wilsonesque.


He would use presidential leadership to surge our diplomacy with all of the nations of
the region on behalf of a new regional security compact.
*****************************************************************
-Political oatmeal. Very touchy feely but nothing to pin him on for not getting results.
-what is a “new regional security compact,” anyway?


And he would take immediate steps to confront the humanitarian disaster in Iraq, and to hold accountable any perpetrators of potential war crimes.
***************************************************************
-Again what is the supposed to mean? Is he going after the US military, Iran for supporting the war, the Sunni and Shiite extremists, or Al Qaeda?

I just don't understand why we didnt start out from the begining by saying we needed to install a government amicable to us in Iraq, for reasons that include securing steady oil imports into the United States. I would have understood that point of view perfectly.

Mannahnin wrote:

But circumstances change. Is it not good for a leader to be able to change his position in light of a changing situation than to cling desperately to a sinking ship for no better reason than momentum?

Absolutely. And if he were still the candidate of the “Straight Talk Express” from 2000, the guy who many of my fellow liberal and centrist friends liked and supported, the guy who got smeared and wrecked by the Rove/Bush campaign machine, he might have stood up and spoken out against it. Instead he acted like a soldier instead of a statesman, backing the immoral decisions of the very people who sabotaged and smeared him in 2000.

I don't like the fact that he had to make peace with those ass-clowns either, but if he wanted the GOP's nomination he had too. If he had changed parties or run as an independent, he would not have any shot at all. And he is far and away a better choice than Huchabee.

Statesman is a title they earn after all of the immoral crap they did to get there.

I dislike the Iraq war, because it pulled valuable resources out of Afghanistan. Which I view as a just war. It sickens me that we may lose that because of Bush's obsession. While McCain has made some mistakes, I still think he is a good man. At least as good as a politician can be. I trust him not to throw the soldier's lives away like Bush has. If the Iraq war can be fixed, I think he can do it.

I also like Hillary & Obama. Like her or not, Hillary is fully capable of being a good President. Same with Obama, he may not have enough experience for some. But for me he brings a fresh start. And after these last 8 years, that's enough. I think we can risk 4 years and see what happens.

Torture is evil.
Extraordinary rendition for the purpose of torture is evil.

Why?

Torturing terrorists to get information that will save the lives of others is not evil.
Don't foist your worldview on me.


To the topic I don't think we can waste 8 more years. Look at what Bush did post Tora Bora? This isn't 1992 when we can bang around, there's serious going down daily and we need people who can deal with that stuff.

You do not defeat evil by becoming it.

I just simply don't care either way about the torture. As it happens, I dont think the ends quite justify the means in this case, but I'm no expert in that matter. What matters to me is how this next presidency is going to affect yours truly.

Grignard wrote:I just don't understand why we didnt start out from the begining by saying we needed to install a government amicable to us in Iraq, for reasons that include securing steady oil imports into the United States. I would have understood that point of view perfectly.

That wouldn't have worked in 2002. If we would have went before the world and said "Hey, uhh, we want to like jump into Iraq and you know... give em democracy and stuff. Don't ask why we didn't do this 11 years ago, but it totally has to be done now." Sorry, not gonna fly.

"Hey, these muthas are packin some serious ! We need to get in there and take these muthas out. This dude Saddam is one evil chump and he's been fundin terrorists and what not. Let's do this" While it's all lies it carried a lot more weight and got a lot of countries to join us.

You also had the concept of a reverse domino effect going down here, with a view that they would go democratic and the other dictatorships would start to go that way as well. Worked for a bit then they messed it up.

War is justified in defense.

But defense of what, Mann? There are reams of data showing that both parties thought that Iraq supported terror throughout the 90's/00's, and had access to weapons capable of killing thousands in one go. The vote to invade Iraq was fairly overwhelming based on that perception. Should there have been a longer debate on the issue? Absolutely. but it would have resulted in the same decision, because 1) that Saddam supported terrorists was a majority opinion, 2) he possessed the ability to hide assets, and 3) he was not being truthful. After 9/11, the calculus changed, and defensive actions could come after a large death toll. The best defense is a good offense, as the football saying goes. I don't buy into that in the real world, but it's an understandable motivator.

So I don't believe you can frame a 2003 decision with moral context from 2008. Well, you can, but your character judgements will be flawed, since you have access to 5 years of history the government did not, McCain included.

And of course war is evil, we've discussed that. That's a simplistic view. That's why I trust McCain on it more than Obama or Clinton.

And Obama is dead wrong, militarily, by recommending a piecemeal reduction in US forces. As the numbers shrink, the remainder are MORE vulnerable. I honestly believe a policy of partial, time-driven (not event driven) withdrawal is dangerous to US forces. I feel bad for the last unit left in Iraq.

I absolutely support Obama's push for diplomacy and a new regional compact, however. Without substantive support from other nations we've maligned over the past few years, Iraq is not going to drag itself out, and we certainly aren't up to the challenge.

Problem is is there are too many countries over there that don't want democracy... lets not lie to ourselves, it's not democracy, it's a republic... Democracy is probably the worst form of government out there. You think the royalty of a country like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait is going to let themselves be voted out of power? Not a chance in hell.

Scratch that, the leaders over there don't want a Republic and they'll slaughter whoever wants to enforce one (their own people) or use guerilla tactics against a foreign power who wants to impose one (Us). The only way those governments will change is if the people rise up and take it back.

Crimson Devil wrote:You do not defeat evil by becoming it.

You have to define "evil" to make that work. And I'm not talking about nor supporting torture.

This is about violence. Violence is evil, but it has been used many times to save lives. Turning the other cheek and relying on man's good nature doesn't save too many lives these days.

We need to evolve beyond basic platitudes and start addressing what the problems are, and what the possible solutions could be. Some of those solutions will probably involve bullets. I admit that is depressing. But were I a Sudanese refugee, I wouldn't care about the West's moral quandary.

"Money talks, bull**** walks". Results speak loudly.

I would take that as a truth now stormtrooper.

And as you noted Iraq is just an absolute Gordion knot. We're going to need someone up to that challenge to improve the situation. Its a all order and I certainly couldn't do it, not with current attitudes and budgets.

dienekes96 wrote:War is justified in defense.

But defense of what, Mann? There are reams of data showing that both parties thought that Iraq supported terror throughout the 90's/00's, and had access to weapons capable of killing thousands in one go. The vote to invade Iraq was fairly overwhelming based on that perception. Should there have been a longer debate on the issue? Absolutely. but it would have resulted in the same decision, because 1) that Saddam supported terrorists was a majority opinion, 2) he possessed the ability to hide assets, and 3) he was not being truthful. After 9/11, the calculus changed, and defensive actions could come after a large death toll. The best defense is a good offense, as the football saying goes. I don't buy into that in the real world, but it's an understandable motivator.

That is why I don't buy the interpretation of our actions as evil. The fact is that the regime at in power in Iraq at the time was perfectly content to use chemical agents on their neighbors in Iran, and the Iraqi people. It turns out he no longer had the capability or desire to do so, but it does mean that at one time he had that ability.

Torture is wrong. Ok, we'll go with that. One thing we did manage to achieve was to remove a governemnt that used torture to compell allegience to the government.

What I think was one of our biggest mistakes, and tell me what you think of my opinion on this, is to allow Saddam to fall into the hands of the people who executed them, and an even worse error to allow it to be filmed. To me, the people who put Saddam to death look like the same guys abducting and killing US citizens, that is, a bunch of guys with black hoods over their head executing somebody. Now, Saddam, a man who was never very religious to start with, has become a martyr, because of a video recorded on a cheap cellular telephone.

jfrazell wrote:I would take that as a truth now stormtrooper.

And as you noted Iraq is just an absolute Gordion knot. We're going to need someone up to that challenge to improve the situation. Its a all order and I certainly couldn't do it, not with current attitudes and budgets.

Where is the next Alexander.....

jfrazell wrote:That’s 6-7 months before full pullout. What happens if violence erupts? Al Qaeda is still there. Per Obama we will be required to immediately re-invade.

No, we would maintain a small residual presence in the area and have a standing agreement with the Iraq government to still fight Al Qaeda (you remember them, our actual enemies) if they did anything in Iraq. I expect said force would also be the first responders in the event of genocidal actions which required the intervention of outside nations (including but not limited to us).

jfrazell wrote:-He would use presidential leadership to surge our diplomacy with all of the nations of the region on behalf of a new regional security compact.
*****************************************************************
-Political oatmeal. Very touchy feely but nothing to pin him on for not getting results.

This is the short form. If Bush was capable of getting even this detailed, it’d be a miracle.

Aren’t you the guy supporting a party which has provided substantially BAD results?

jfrazell wrote:--what is a “new regional security compact,” anyway?

Quick definitions on onelook.com include: “A signed written agreement between two or more parties (nations) to perform some action.” So we sit down with Iraq and the other countries in the region (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Jordan) and agree in writing on terms and responsibilities for establishing and maintaining peace and stability.

jfrazell wrote:-And he would take immediate steps to confront the humanitarian disaster in Iraq, and to hold accountable any perpetrators of potential war crimes.
***************************************************************
-Again what is the supposed to mean? Is he going after the US military, Iran for supporting the war, the Sunni and Shiite extremists, or Al Qaeda?

Confronting the humanitarian disaster means cleanup, food, housing, medical care for the four million Iraqi refugees, and other people who need it. Something like the Marshall Plan, probably, only this time we’re more responsible for the damage we’re fixing.

“Perpetrators of potential war crimes” would most likely be sectarian extremists.

jfrazell wrote:

Torture is evil.
Extraordinary rendition for the purpose of torture is evil.

Why?

Torturing terrorists to get information that will save the lives of others is not evil.
Don't foist your worldview on me.

We had this debate already. Your position lost.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/207403.page

Nope. Just got tired of the argument.

Again, don't foist your views on me, especially in light of the realpolitik now required. Doctrinal views from either the left or right will only get us killed.

That's moral cowardice.

Define "foist your views". I am expressing my opinions and beliefs.

You barely participated in the torture argument. Chuck gave me the motivation to demolish the false premises under which you are supporting the brutal mistreatment of human beings.

Obama all the way. reason and judgment over years of corruption.

Mannahnin wrote:That's moral cowardice.

No it means I just had to get back to work

You're making declarative statements that tortute is evil. That comes from a particular worldview. I am not saying that worldview is incorrect. I agree with it 99.9% of the time and its the Christian thing. But its not everyone's worldview. I just object to the absolutism of the statement. nothing in the world is black and white, even zebras.

Sorry, I meant that in response to your comment:

...in light of the realpolitik now required. Doctrinal views from either the left or right will only get us killed.

Sometimes, with some issues, there really is a right and wrong. Torture is one of them, as I think I amply demonstrated and documented in the previous thread.

I think Iraq is also proving to be a classic example of the folly and immorality of preemptive war.

Mannahnin wrote:Sorry, I meant that in response to your comment:

...in light of the realpolitik now required. Doctrinal views from either the left or right will only get us killed.

Sometimes, with some issues, there really is a right and wrong. Torture is one of them, as I think I amply demonstrated and documented in the previous thread.

I think Iraq is also proving to be a classic example of the folly and immorality of preemptive war.

I think the problem here is that there are some people who have a fundamentally different world view than you. While I'm no fan of torture, some of the positions you hold, I cannot even imagine holding. I'm not trying to insult you, or even your views. I literally cannot put myself in your shoes and look outward. Perhaps it is a failure of empathy, but I just can't do it. Ive never been exactly a tolerant person, and it has been something I've worked on, but it just isn't happening here.

I hear you.

I am occasionally a somewhat judgmental person, and I am using fairly stark language in this discussion.

I often get tired of seeing people on the other side of the ideological divide be the only ones expressing their position in strong terms. Sometimes putting your views forth in a nuanced, nice manner feels and looks like weakness. Especially when the folks I’m opposing are espousing views and positions I find morally repugnant, intellectually bankrupt, and/or grotesquely incompatible with their professed religious beliefs.

Can you tell me which of my views are so incomprehensible?

I am curious as to how your worldview is so fundamentally different than mine.

Again thats your view. I do not submit to that view.

Feel free to respond to my (and Malcolm Nance's, and Col Herrington’s, and Gen. Krulak and Hoar’s, etc.) views in the other thread if you want to reopen that discussion. The evidence and the expert opinion are against torture. When I asked for someone to provide a real-world example of a time when torture actually helped save lives, no one responded.

As for Iraq, going in has clearly harmed everyone involved. Us, them, everyone. Feel free to argue to the contrary, but just saying “I disagree” looks like putting your head in the sand.

dienekes96 wrote:War is justified in defense.

But defense of what, Mann?

In defense against an attack. Iraq didn't attack us. Al Qaeda did. They were supported and sheltered by the then-government of Afghanistan, so going in there made perfect sense.

dienekes96 wrote:There are reams of data showing that both parties thought that Iraq supported terror throughout the 90's/00's, and had access to weapons capable of killing thousands in one go.

What the two major political parties "thought" isn't the key. What the evidence showed and what the intelligence specialists knew or suspected is what matters. And those are the folks who should have been listened to and properly used.

Clarke made clear in Against All Enemies that we KNEW Iraq stopped engaging in any terrorist plots against us after we bombed his intelligence HQ in 1993 in response to the attempt on Bush Sr.’s life.

Hussein did encourage terrorist acts against Israel by financially rewarding the families of suicide bombers, but that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish. Yes, it’s evil, and yes it’s a connection to terrorism. What it is NOT is any threat to us, or any connection/affiliation with Al Qaeda, despite a concerted, deliberate, and successful effort by the Bush administration to deceitfully link them in the minds of Congress and the American people.

dienekes96 wrote:The vote to invade Iraq was fairly overwhelming based on that perception. Should there have been a longer debate on the issue? Absolutely. but it would have resulted in the same decision, because 1) that Saddam supported terrorists was a majority opinion, 2) he possessed the ability to hide assets, and 3) he was not being truthful.

You’re right that it was based on that perception. A mistaken belief deliberately fostered by the administration’s deceptive sales campaign for war.

In fact the intelligence we had at the time did not support going in, as Clarke and others said at the time.

Several representatives did doubt the claims about WMDs and an immediate threat to us, oppose the resolution, and recommend a closer look at the evidence being put forth.

http://www.defazio.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=254&Itemid=28

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ron_Paul%27s_Iraq_Speech

dienekes96 wrote:After 9/11, the calculus changed, and defensive actions could come after a large death toll.

That was, indeed, part of the sales pitch. But our actions in Iraq have misdirected our focus away from our security (port security, securing former Russian nuclear weapons, hunting Al Qaeda personnel), and actually reduced our capacity (in terms of manpower and money) to respond to real threats to us.

dienekes96 wrote:So I don't believe you can frame a 2003 decision with moral context from 2008. Well, you can, but your character judgements will be flawed, since you have access to 5 years of history the government did not, McCain included.

But they did have access to more intelligence data. They did not have to buy the Bush cherry-picked version. Sen. Levin, among others, concluded on investigation that when you actually looked at the whole picture, the rationale just wasn’t there.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7320249

dienekes96 wrote:And Obama is dead wrong, militarily, by recommending a piecemeal reduction in US forces. As the numbers shrink, the remainder are MORE vulnerable. I honestly believe a policy of partial, time-driven (not event driven) withdrawal is dangerous to US forces. I feel bad for the last unit left in Iraq.

One of the specific jobs he puts in his withdrawal strategy for them is protecting themselves. I disagree with your assessment that they are more vulnerable than they are now. Guerillas don’t much care how many of you there are. The army isn’t all in the same market at the same time.

What’s your plan? Obama’s got one, at least.

Event-driven might work. What are your events? Having a certain number of trained Iraqi troops in place? What if they don’t meet the goals? How long are we willing to stay? Iraq has continually missed and failed to meet timeframes and deadlines we’ve given them. Obama thinks a gradual withdrawal will force them to take the action that’s needed. If they want to be secure, they need to defend themselves. We can’t keep doing it for them. It didn’t work in Vietnam either. And yes, Vietnam fell to the North Vietnamese. But you know what? We’re on pretty good terms with Vietnam nowadays. Nixon and Johnson spent a lot of American lives before they finally got us the heck out of there.

dienekes96 wrote:I absolutely support Obama's push for diplomacy and a new regional compact, however. Without substantive support from other nations we've maligned over the past few years, Iraq is not going to drag itself out, and we certainly aren't up to the challenge.

Good man. Electing Obama would clearly communicate to the rest of the world that we are serious about changing our course. It would reinvigorate our diplomatic abilities and put us on much better footing to deal with countries that are currently extremely suspicious of us, and appalled by Bush. Which is most of them. Electing McCain would be saying that we still think we were right all along.

Mannahnin wrote:I think Iraq is also proving to be a classic example of the folly and immorality of preemptive war.

Just as WWII is a real-world example of the folly and immorality of a defensive-only war...with a MUCH, MUCH, MUCH (do I need to go on?) larger butcher's bill. It's not cut and dried at all.

Mannahnin wrote:Chuck gave me the motivation to demolish the false premises under which you are supporting the brutal mistreatment of human beings.

To be fair, I don't think you demolished *my* argument

Mannahnin wrote:Feel free to respond to my (and Malcolm Nance's, and Col Herrington’s, and Gen. Krulak and Hoar’s, etc.) views in the other thread if you want to reopen that discussion. The evidence and the expert opinion are against torture. When I asked for someone to provide a real-world example of a time when torture actually helped save lives, no one responded.

1) Some evidence, SOME experts.
2) As for real world examples, we (and whoever) else, probably doesn't publish such information. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I bet it does.

Mannahnin wrote:As for Iraq, going in has clearly harmed everyone involved. Us, them, everyone. Feel free to argue to the contrary, but just saying “I disagree” looks like putting your head in the sand.

Ask me again in ten years. If we'd handled the war and the peace better, it might have been seen as a prescient move now. It still has not been placed into historical context in the least. I believe you have a rush to judgement. I can say there is one less dictator in the Middle-East. At great cost, but that's something. Watching 70%+ show up to vote in Iraq was pretty special. Omelettes and eggs, and all that.

Mannahnin wrote:What the two major political parties "thought" isn't the key. What the evidence showed and what the intelligence specialists knew or suspected is what matters. And those are the folks who should have been listened to and properly used.

Clarke made clear in Against All Enemies that we KNEW Iraq stopped engaging in any terrorist plots against us after we bombed his intelligence HQ in 1993 in response to the attempt on Bush Sr.’s life.

Clarke made it clear AFTER the fact, after public opinion turned. he said no such thing in 1994 - 2004. Sorry if I question his motives, especially when he is SELLING HIS OWN book.

Mannahnin wrote:Hussein did encourage terrorist acts against Israel by financially rewarding the families of suicide bombers, but that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish. Yes, it’s evil, and yes it’s a connection to terrorism.

It is another kettle of fish, but I do believe our war against terror (which is a terrible term) wasn't just a "war against terror against the US".

Mannahnin wrote:What it is NOT is any threat to us, or any connection/affiliation with Al Qaeda, despite a concerted, deliberate, and successful effort by the Bush administration to deceitfully link them in the minds of Congress and the American people.

Is there proof it was deliberate. There are volumes on it, but I've yet to see a smoking gun. Where you see malice, I see incompetence. Bush can't be an idiot and an evil genius. The liberals have YET to figure that out. He's neither.

Mannahnin wrote:You’re right that it was based on that perception. A mistaken belief deliberately fostered by the administration’s deceptive sales campaign for war.

In fact the intelligence we had at the time did not support going in, as Clarke and others said at the time.

Not publically they didn't. And that is how our government works. Listening to our chicken**** politicians pretend the wool was pulled over their eyes when they failed to do THEIR job in 2003 is near criminal to me.

Mannahnin wrote:Several representatives did doubt the claims about WMDs and an immediate threat to us, oppose the resolution, and recommend a closer look at the evidence being put forth.

But not enough...and we had a vote. That's our government.

Mannahnin wrote:That was, indeed, part of the sales pitch. But our actions in Iraq have misdirected our focus away from our security (port security, securing former Russian nuclear weapons, hunting Al Qaeda personnel), and actually reduced our capacity (in terms of manpower and money) to respond to real threats to us.

This I agree with 100%.

Mannahnin wrote:But they did have access to more intelligence data. They did not have to buy the Bush cherry-picked version. Sen. Levin, among others, concluded on investigation that when you actually looked at the whole picture, the rationale just wasn’t there.

All done after the fact. Again, you see malice where I see incompetence. And incompetence has been proven far more often than malice when it comes to this administration.

Mannahnin wrote:One of the specific jobs he puts in his withdrawal strategy for them is protecting themselves. I disagree with your assessment that they are more vulnerable than they are now. Guerillas don’t much care how many of you there are. The army isn’t all in the same market at the same time.

Guerillas absolutely care. I know the libs hate to talk about this, but the surge accomplished what it was supposed to. In a war, numbers matter. Smaller targets are easier targets, and present greater vulnerability. That's very basic military craft.

Mannahnin wrote:What’s your plan? Obama’s got one, at least.

I haven't seen his. I've seen some basic overlays, with some input from his ONE military advisor. There is no "there" there. Except to be time-driven.

My plan would be to have the government do their job and establish criteria for military/state success in Iraq. The military then allocates the necessary manpower to meet those goals. As they are met, units go home. Driven by military/state goals...not public opinion polls.

Mannahnin wrote:Event-driven might work. What are your events? Having a certain number of trained Iraqi troops in place? What if they don’t meet the goals? How long are we willing to stay? Iraq has continually missed and failed to meet timeframes and deadlines we’ve given them. Obama thinks a gradual withdrawal will force them to take the action that’s needed. If they want to be secure, they need to defend themselves. We can’t keep doing it for them. It didn’t work in Vietnam either. And yes, Vietnam fell to the North Vietnamese. But you know what? We’re on pretty good terms with Vietnam nowadays. Nixon and Johnson spent a lot of American lives before they finally got us the heck out of there.

The South Vietnamese spent a hell of a lot MORE lives to the North after we left. That's usually forgotten.

And no, we can't do it for them. There must be accountability in their government. If they can't do it, TFB. Once OUR goals (train xxx number of Iraqi troops, effectively, in the following tactics) are met, we're done. Then it's their problem. Until then, security is OUR responsibility. It's nice Obama thinks that and he might be right. It's not HIS kid on the line if he's wrong.

Mannahnin wrote:Good man. Electing Obama would clearly communicate to the rest of the world that we are serious about changing our course. It would reinvigorate our diplomatic abilities and put us on much better footing to deal with countries that are currently extremely suspicious of us, and appalled by Bush. Which is most of them. Electing McCain would be saying that we still think we were right all along.

I don't elect a president to make the world happy. I have foreign friends who like McCain just fine. They can be appalled by Bush all they want. I'm appalled at their inaction to major world events, except to point the finger at the US (sometimes deserved, sometimes not). I want to choose a president that is best for the United States of America. If that's good for the world, so be it. If not, I won't lose a wink of sleep.

I do not necessarily believe Obama's path will work. The Middle East scoffed at Clinton in 1992, 2000, and still do. For all his soft influence efforts, Bush accomplished just as much if not more between Palestine and Israel.

It's this simple. I want Obama to be the Democratic candidate. I am very pleased that McCain is the Republican candidate. I don't know who I am going to vote for. McCain had the brass balls to take the hits by supporting the surge, when it was the LEAST popular thing he could do. That shows moral conviction...more than Obama or Clinton have ever shown. McCain has family in Iraq, with more going. McCain understands the physical cost of war far better than Clinton or Obama. McCain has more experience in foreign policy than both of them together. McCain has PROVEN record in federal level bipartisanship. But even I don't believe he deserves the job yet. And we share an alma mater that produces a stronger bond than most schools.

Obama brings a fresh perspective and good ideas, but is a bit soft on executive matters. His foreign policy talks has me exhilirated and very nervous. I am a firm believer in Teddy Roosevelt's "speak softly and carry a big stick". I don't know if he believes in the big stick. In today's world, I don't trust a president who doesn't. I support Obama's social policies more than McCain's. By quite a bit. I admit and agree that his election will benefit us in re-engaging with the world community. I like his youth, his freshness, and his presence. I believe in him.

So it boils down to this. If I think his foreign policies are going to cost more lives than McCain, I'll vote for McCain. If not, I'll probably vote for Obama. I don't believe in parties. I waited in line for TWO HOURS in 2004 to write in John McCain and Joe Biden on my ballot. Many would argue I "wasted" my vote. But it was mine...it did not belong to Bush or Kerry. In the end, I could live with Obama or McCain, because both have their strengths, and those overcome their flaws.

Mannahnin wrote:I hear you.

I am occasionally a somewhat judgmental person, and I am using fairly stark language in this discussion.

I often get tired of seeing people on the other side of the ideological divide be the only ones expressing their position in strong terms. Sometimes putting your views forth in a nuanced, nice manner feels and looks like weakness. Especially when the folks I’m opposing are espousing views and positions I find morally repugnant, intellectually bankrupt, and/or grotesquely incompatible with their professed religious beliefs.

Can you tell me which of my views are so incomprehensible?

I am curious as to how your worldview is so fundamentally different than mine.

Sure, I'll try. First off, I'm not sure what "side" you're on, if that has any meaning. I think the political division of right and left in this country is oversimplified, if not completely superannuated. With that out of the way though.....

First off, one of the things that seemed to appeal to you about Obama is a commitment to ending global poverty. Now, I dont watch the news, so I don't actually know what he said. Regardless, I'm not inhuman, regardless of what my exes might say, I do think that the suffering of people in say, Dafur, is terrible, but I can't see giving anything of mine, something that might help people I'm close to or help myself, to do anything about it. I think trying to solve all the problems in the world is an act of futility that will only make the haves poorer without really helping the have nots. Its a case of making everyone in the world poor rather than making everyone rich.

Another thing that is that I think, and I may be presuming here, that you accept, tacitly and without reservation, that a egalitarian, representative democracy with equal rights under law is good for everyone all over the world. I'm not so sure myself. I really look at democracy as a sort of popularity contest, or, to make another analogy, three wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat. I think masses create their own tyranny, and that a classless society is completely foreign to human experience. I feel that men are not, in fact, created equal, and that egalitarianism is ultimately futile. I think it is particularly inappropriate in the Middle East right now, and I think it is one reason why some people over there hate us so passionately. Basically what I'm getting at is that human organizations are inherently selective, and that to some extent it should be allowed to stay that way.

Which brings me to another point, which is probably not apropos to what I was discussing, but having to do with the original topic...I don't think this clash of cultures has anything to do with religion, or if it does, only tangentially. This is not Christian vs. Muslim. There are many Christian communities right now in the middle of Iran and Iraq, and while I don't doubt that they may have been treated like second class citizens on occasion, I dont think there is any sort of organized anti Christian movement, even amongst the radicals. I learned today that Iran has exceptions to their prohibition of alcohol law for the Eucharist. I think what we really did to the "Islamic Extremists" is hurt their pride. Pride is something older than Islam, probably older than religion. I think it offends them deeply that, as they precieve, we tell them how to run their societies, and perhaps most importantly, how to behave toward women. And, I think that most westerners, particularly on the political left, can't understand that for some "traditional" people, it is better to die than be ashamed or be dishonored.

Anyhow, those are my perceptions.