Obama considers Iraq visit amid Republican criticism of foreign policy experience
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 1 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 1 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
78 Comments
Login to comment
0
smithinjapan
NO Republican can actually criticize another party leader's inexperience in foreign policy unless they are directly linking it to Bush's COMPLETE inexperience in the field at the start of his presidency, and subsequently using it as an example of how it fails diplomacy and should not be followed.
0
SuperLib
I disagree. I think if an elected official makes a good decision then he should be complemented for it. If he makes a bad decision then he should be criticized for it. I'm not sure why you feel George Bush's existence would change that. Your statement is mostly an emotional outburst that you'd probably temper if you took the time to relax, think about it, and say what you really believe.
0
smithinjapan
Superlib: Well, if nothing else I applaud your VERY objective and well thought-out post. I still stand behind my comments that the same people who never made the 'good decision' about Bush that they have made on Obama are utterly hypocritical. What's more, I'd take your own point and argue that it is THEY who are being emotional, strictly because Obama is the opposition and will likely win the White House next year.
0
SushiSake3
Sen. McCain's "foreign policy experience" primarily involves the reckless crashing of U.S. Navy warplanes and sitting in a Vietcong POW camp for most of the Vietnam war.
Are we to look up to that for some reason in a blur of patriotism because Sen. McCain "fought for his country" (from deep inside a POW camp)?
But I'll at least give him this - at least he went to war, unlike chickenhawks Bush and Cheney who so desperately failed to serve their country but whom the war supporters on JT still back to the hilt..
0
SezWho2
I don't think Obama should go to Iraq without preconditions.
Uh-oh. Hang on there. Do I have the right country? Oh, I know what it is. He shouldn't talk to al-Sadr without preconditions. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Better yet, he need not go at all. There are no answers in Iraq.
0
super delegate
Obama is a lightweight. He won't go to Iraq. His handlers know even unelected thugs like al Sadr would play him like a violin. They're even more worried that Maliki will dress him down. Best for Obama to stay home, work on his spin, put out the flames from the latest scandal exposing the racism and sexism that the country now knows was regular fare at his former church.
0
RomeoRamenII
So, Barack Obama said the other day he supports the troops, but he won't go to Iraq to meet with them. However, he said he'll will go to foreign lands to meet with our enemies without any preconditions.
A future CinC should be willing to meet with the men and women who are serving the country, no?
Heh ... the great unifier.
RR
0
SezWho2
There's zero chance that al-Maliki is going to dress down someone who may well be the next President of the US.
0
Madverts
ramen,
As an ardent supporter of the president who'd hardly ever left the US before taking office (if ever), and who's doomed policies have caused the needless deaths of thousands of servicemen and women, I think your critisism should be directed elsewhere...
0
SezWho2
RomeoRamenII,
When did Obama say that he wouldn't go to Iraq to meet with the troops. Do you have a source for that? As I read this article he said that the purpose of any visit to Iraq would be to do exactly that.
Yes, a future Commander in Chief should be willing to meet those who serve. That doesn't mean though that he has to fly in unannounced in the dead of night and serve up turkey.
0
Madverts
Heh, super d,
"Obama is a lightweight. He won't go to Iraq."
As per the article, he's already been to Iraq, "Obama made his only trip to Iraq in January 2006 as part of a congressional delegation."
Can't the partisan hacks actually read the bloody article before commencing with the shriek-down?
0
skipthesong
Why is he going now?
0
Nessie
How can they criticize his foreign policy experience when he ain't got none?
0
Madverts
"How can they criticize his foreign policy experience when he ain't got none?"
More to the point, why weren't they critisizing Dubya's total lack of experience in anything other than being a rich kid?
0
super delegate
madverts - - "More to the point, why weren't they critisizing Dubya's total lack of experience in anything other than being a rich kid?"
Much more to the point: George Bush - and I can't believe I am again pointing this out - is not eligible for re-election.
I swear, you lot are gonna miss Dumbya more than the Nascar crowd ever will.
And yes, you're being lumped in with the Lefties here, your willful forgetfulness has got to be the result of ideology.
Bush's" total lack of experience" included governorship of a state with an economy larger than that of Canada.
0
RomeoRamenII
When did Obama say that he wouldn't go to Iraq to meet with the troops. Do you have a source for that?
Uh, yeah. This article: "Barack .... said he is considering a trip to Iraq"
Considering? He wants the job of CinC and he's considering to go meet our troops in a combat zone? Remember, this is the guy who says he's America's great unifier who supports the troops. So, where is the unity?
Yes, a future Commander in Chief should be willing to meet those who serve. That doesn't mean though that he has to fly in unannounced in the dead of night and serve up turkey.
Heh ... Perhaps the rookie senator from Illinois is worried about being photographed as he's swarmed by his hordes of loyal al-Quida supporters.
RR
0
Madverts
"I can't believe I am again pointing this out - is not eligible for re-election."
Who cares? Seeing people like McCain critisizing Obama when they're standing shoulder to shoulder with the doomed bush foreign policy, and when the bush himself hadn't even left America prior to the supreme court legalizing his election makes me want to laugh un-controllably at those stil loyal to the sect.
0
Madverts
Fella's, keep Panicking about Senator Obama.
Heh, it's really amusing.
0
super delegate
Who's panicking, Madverts? I want Obama to win nomination for his party. Since he'll probably finish with fewer popular votes than HRC it will demolish a good part of "liberals" argument about the validity of the outcome of the 2000 election, in addition to seriously diminishing the so-called Clinton Legacy. He's the second coming of George McGovern.
0
usaexpat
Obama is the annointed one it seems, come from nowhere to be president. That means there are powerful interests pulling the strings. I think the Obama flock (as in sheep) need to start asking some questions. If Obama wins he's going to be another Carter, a disaster for the coutry by every measure because he will be walked over and controlled. Before you flame me as a Bush supporter I will tell you he's been a disaster as well but Obama's empty calls for change don't make me think he'll be any better. I hope his charming (ha ha ha) wife makes lots of appearences on the campaign as she is gift to McCain. Back on topic yes Obama if he wants to be commander in chief better find a transport to Iraq ASAP rther than commenting about the troops from the safety of his campaign bus.
0
smithinjapan
"Much more to the point: George Bush - and I can't believe I am again pointing this out - is not eligible for re-election."
Nobody but you is talking about reelection (and your lost dreams). It's perfectly valid, however, to contrast the future CIC Obama with the moron that precedes him if the topic is about being a leader.
0
smithinjapan
usaexpat: "Before you flame me as a Bush supporter I will tell you he's been a disaster as well but Obama's empty calls for change don't make me think he'll be any better."
It's all fine and dandy to speculate, but what you're talking about just that; speculation, and not at all based any evidence, whereas the fact that both Carter (brains but no brawn) and Bush (no brains, talent, tact, gifts, etc.) were disasters is more than well known. One just just as easily, if not moreso, say McCain will be yet another disaster.
0
super delegate
"whereas the fact that both Carter (brains but no brawn) and Bush (no brains, talent, tact, gifts, etc.) were disasters is more than well known. One just just as easily, if not moreso, say McCain will be yet another disaster."
Joe Clark will have to step up, save the day.
0
SezWho2
RomeoRamenII,
If I consider what I write before I write it, I am considering whether and how I should write. This does not mean that I'm not going to write. When Obama says that he is considering going to Iraq to meet the troops, I think he is referring to a similar range of activity--whether he should go and how he should do so. It definitely does not mean that he will not go so your other questions on that score lack relevance.
As far as your al_Qaida quip is concerned, if it pleases you to indulge in inanity please do so. There are no hordes of Iraqis (or other Middle Eastern people or Muslims) that are likely to swarm Obama or any other candidate. If you are worried about someone who might be the next President appearing to be popular, you can rest easy on that score. Of course, if you're just being snarky, my bad and please continue.
0
super delegate
I'm offended!
"Fella's, keep Panicking about Senator Barack Hussein Obama. Heh, it's really amusing."
0
RomeoRamenII
If Barack Obama does go back for a visit, he should bring back a few of those Islamoterrorist prayer rugs with the AK-47's on them that they make in the back alleys of Baghdad so he can say they got 'em while busting into some safe houses while out alone on patrol.
RR
0
RomeoRamenII
obama should have gone 2 or 3 times by now; not just wait until it becomes an issue and then say he's "considering" to go this summer.
The snakeoil salesman says he supports our troops .... heh.
RR
0
super delegate
I think Obama fears a Dukakis moment in Iraq, being photographed in an Army helmet and uniform, temporarily made part of the quintessentially American organization, which he secretly despises.
Dinner parties at the homes of his elitist sycophant buds would never be quite the same.
Yeah, maybe the nation's "liberals" will get him elected as president, but everyone else knows that even if elected he could never truly be called Commander-in-Chief.
That vital shortcoming, incidentally, is also why he appeals to so many in the 'internationalist' crowd from the post-modernist pseudo-states of Europe and most of the Commonwealth.
0
Madverts
"temporarily made part of the quintessentially American organization, which he secretly despises. "
Heh.
In their Panic, they'll make up anything and repeat it ad-naus.
0
super delegate
Future Commander-in-Chief talking? -
"We've got to get the job done [in Afghanistan] and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."
0
super delegate
"“In the last year, grassroots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the Party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back.” - MoveonPAC.
"General Petraeus or General Betray Us?
Cooking the books for the White House"
http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html
Guess which candidate these morons want to see made Commander-in-Chief
0
USAFdude
I would be proud to call Obama my Commander-in-Chief. Here's why:
"We've got to get the job done [in Afghanistan] and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."
Obama is the only candidate who seems to understand the importance of American victory in Afghanistan. That's why he has my vote.
0
super delegate
Yeah, USAF dude. Obama has got the picture:
Here's his take on translators -
"We only have a certain number of them, and if they are all in Iraq, then it's harder for us to use them in Afghanistan."
Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish.
Afghanis speak Pashtun, Farsi or other non-Arabic languages.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/14/obama-stumbles-on-iraq-afghanistan/
0
SezWho2
RomeoRamenII,
Should have gone to Iraq two or three times? No. Could have gone. Yes.
The person who needed to go was the President. And he's been there what? Three times? Has he visited there since September of last year?
I know you're looking for any excuse to rag on Obama, but "insufficient number of visits to Iraq" is one of the silliest.
0
RomeoRamenII
The person who needed to go was the President. And he's been there what? Three times?
Guess that means Mr. Bush won't get re-elected in November.
Meanwhile, a guy vying to be the next CinC and says he supports the troops has only been there once. Perhaps he's concerned that by going there and actually seeing the progress made in Iraq wouldn't fit his surrender agenda.
RR
0
USAFdude
I see wisdom in Obama's plan to pull us out of Iraq and re-deploy us to Afghanistan , where we're inarguably more needed) in far greater numbers. Far from being a "surrender agenda" (whatever that's supposed to mean), it would instead be the greatest progress for the US military in the war on terror, IMHO.
Frankly, I'd like to hear one, even only one, reason that holds water as to why we seem to consider our operations in Iraq more important than those in Afghanistan. Been waiting over five years, and I haven't heard one yet.
0
super delegate
"The person who needed to go was the President. [...] Has he visited there since September of last year?"
Bush appointed the man who turned things around.
McCain backed him. Better for McCain to go and basically reap the rewards.
Obama won't go because of the contrast it would present in light of the Dems' treasonous, shameful treatment of Gen. Petraeus.
0
zurcromium1
"I see wisdom in Obama's plan to pull us out of Iraq and re-deploy us to Afghanistan..."
Me, I'm not in the military, so can you explain the wisdom in staking your bid to be president on unilateral surrender in oil-rich Iraq, the most central nation in the ME, refusing to acknowledge or even look at the changes made in the 2 years since your only visit, and then promising a token redeployment to remote Afghanistan, where our so-called European allies don't even bother to send the troops and equipment they pledged?
0
RomeoRamenII
Perhaps barack obama should remain in America. Afterall, considering all his personal battlefields (Wright/Ayers/Rezko/Pfleger/Farrakhan/etc., etc., etc.) he has no time to meet the troops in a real combat zone.
RR
0
SezWho2
RomeoRamenII,
For a while there I thought you were serious.
It won't make a speck of difference to the primary process for Obama to go to Iraq now. I imagine he will go if he gets the nomination. But you seem to prefer to speculate on an imagined cravenness on his part.
Whether he goes or not will have no bearing on the election and says nothing at all about his qualifications to be Commander-in-Chief. Much too much is made of this Commander-in-Chief thing. You could get an actor to be Commander-in-Chief and Americans have even done that.
What we need of our President is someone who will make an attempt to be President for all of the people. I don't like McCain in particular, but I think he will do that if elected. His military experience, however, is as inconsequential as Obama's lack of it.
0
RomeoRamenII
Far from being a "surrender agenda" (whatever that's supposed to mean)
I'd explain it to you but it would be off-topic. But we did have one when the last democrat Great Decider was in the White House.
RR
0
super delegate
"Whether he goes or not will have no bearing on the election and says nothing at all about his qualifications to be Commander-in-Chief."
Off the top of my head I'd say that if things continue to improve at the rate we've seen in the last few months and AlQaeda is indeed routed I'd say Barack [middle name redacted] Obama's decision to base his Iraq policy on one single 2006 visit will cost him at least a million votes.
0
SezWho2
super_delegate,
Treasonous treatment of Petraeus? That's very inflammatory and very false. If you would like to remind yourself of Obama's treatment of Petraeus, you can look here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9wtAqXq7Sg
or here:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5bylo6
(The latter link is a preview window which will take you to a U-Tube address if you click through.)
Nothing treasonous going on here. If you are talking about the MoveOn.org ad, it was about as inflammatory as your post. However, like your post, it was not treasonous either.
0
SezWho2
super_delegate,
Obama has made no such decision. You're grasping.
0
Sarge
"Obama, who is now just 44 delegates shy"
Incredibly, it looks like the Democrats are actually going to nominate this guy.
0
USAFdude
I'd be delighted to explain it to you. You see, pulling troops out and re-deploying them is not surrender, it's a proven strategy for success. As for oil-rich Iraq, I've certainly seen plenty of posters here swear that Bush's war is NOT about oil, but rather about fighting terrorists. At last report Osama bin Laden, the murderous scum behind 9-11, was hiding near the Afghan-Pakistan border; THIS is the guy Bush should have gone after in force, particularly if OBL is anywhere near nuclear-weapons-rich Pakistan.
As for Barack Obama, I've heard nothing precluding his visiting our troops in Iraq; perhaps he'll do so after he's elected President of the United States in November, 2008.
0
USAFdude
zurconium/romeoramenII
There. I've answered your question. Now, would you please answer mine from my 07:57 post as politely as I answered yours? This way, you can avoid looking as though my question has stumped you (again) AND stay on-topic!
Apologies to the mod.
0
Sarge
USAFdude - I see you finally made it back here on JT. You haven't changed much.
"pulling troops out and re-deploying them"
Re-deploying them where? There are terrorists in Iraq and the gains we've made are still fragile and reversible. If we pull out all our troops now, President Obama or McCain will just have to send them back in under conditions way worse than now.
0
USAFdude
Sarge - hello again. Thank you for your kind compliment regarding my fortitude.
As you know from my 07:57, but act as though you've forgotten for whatever reason, I favor re-deploying our troops to Afghanistan. You see, we're more needed there than in Iraq. Can't put it any plainer than that.
Perhaps you'd care to accept my challenge to zurconium and romeo, seeing that they don't seem up to the task. Otherwise, I'll just take your silence as yet another argument won by me.
0
Sarge
Dude - We have enough troops in Afghanistan - that operation is being run by NATO these days. We are not needed there more than in Iraq.
0
USAFdude
Sarge - prove it.
Obama disagrees with you, and this is one reason why he's going to be your next President.
0
RomeoRamenII
obama has put himself in yet another difficult position on the issue of visiting our troops in Iraq. If he goes now he will be seen by all as going because Mr. McCain told the rookie senator from Illinois that he should go.
RR
0
SezWho2
More like McCain has put him in a seemingly difficult position. Savvy voters will see the situation for what it is.
0
Madverts
USAF, welcome back, dude :)
I always enjoy your take - heh, and the way you rattle the military wannabees.
0
USAFdude
Good to be back, Madverts!
Truth be told, I really would like to engage in mature conversation with someone about whether the US military should re-focus on Afghanistan or stay focused primarily on Iraq. I've seen quite a few posters come here who seem interested in intelligent debate, but for some reason, my posts attract the ranters. I'm glad to see you among the former!
Ontopically, I believe Obama has expressed the most desire to re-focus on Afghanistan. What are your thoughts, Madverts?
0
Sarge
Obama has no intention of deploying more troops to Afghanistan. He just intends to get us out of Iraq no matter what the situation is on the ground.
0
Damax6
get us out of iraq is what he has to do and do it quickly, a total modern day vietnam...anyways, no graceful way to get out when ur behind(sounds like hillary) and behind we are in iraq, just like `nam.
0
USAFdude
Sarge is yet again proven - PROVEN - utterly and inarguably wrong. http://whereistand.com/BarackObama/23643
Sarge, I'm here to engage in meaningful conversation with adults. Shut up and sit down.
0
Sarge
"Shut up and sit down" - USAFdude
That was rude. Quite unbecoming a non-commissioned officer.
I don't care what Obama says, I guarantee you if he becomes president ( yikes! ) he won't be sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.
0
USAFdude
Sarge, I trust President of the United States Barack Obama's statements far more than your "guarantees".
As for "rudeness", I'm frankly shocked that you're allowed to stay on this site with all of the immature, inflammatory statements you post. But, at least I'm man enough to defeat them (every time!). Sorry if I "hurt" your feelings.
0
Sarge
USAFdude - Obama has said he may order additional troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan AGAINST THE WILL OF THOSE CURRENT GOVERNMENTS. Talk about getting us into cluster-you-know-whats! You can't be serious about supporting this guy to be our next president...
0
USAFdude
Sarge, Those current governments are in countries that are harboring the most execrated man on this planet, Osama bin Laden. As an American, I demand justice for the atrocities of 9-11. Taking down OBL will have huge worldwide ramifications that most likely will result in increased support for our efforts in Afghanistan. Once OBL is gone, Al-Qaida in Iraq (or elsewhere) will no longer have funding, supplies, or direction.
I am totally serious about supporting Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States for this among other reasons. I can't see how you could be serious about supporting a party whose rallying cry used to be "Have you forgotten 9-11?" but then lets the bad guy get away. But then, I serve to protect your rights; after all, you do have the right to be wrong.
Sarge, vote for McCain. It's OK. President of the United States Barack Obama will still serve you well.
0
Madverts
USAFdude,
You don't need to waste your time.
I'll be interested to see what those that would continue the doomed foreign policy of Bush Co have to say once Senator Obama is elected.
I was pretty neutral when the US invaded Afghanistan - there had to be some sort of clout in respnse to 9-11, but I'm with you. Bush lied again when he promised "not to forget Afghanistan". I'd much rather see US military efforts concentrated there to at least finish a job where it just might be possible. And there is international support for this conflict to be garnered too.
The Bush administration pissed on too many people to even attempt to ask for help in their un-controllable little sand-pit.
0
Sarge
We got a Republican candidate who is not a true conservative and 71 years old, the economic slowdown, and a messiah-like smooth talking Democrat candidate...
0
super delegate
Rasmussen polls - and we know how much madverts and the Lefties here love polls - have McCain ahead of Obama where it counts:
"McCain Trusted More Than Obama on Economy, Iraq, National Security" Friday, May 30, 2008
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publiccontent/politics/issues2/articles/mccaintrustedmorethanobamaoneconomyiraqnationalsecurity
0
super delegate
Even foreign media, from the Left no less, are saying Obama is looking weak:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/01/barackobama.uselections2008
0
SezWho2
super_delegate,
Maybe you'd better go back and watch Obama's treasonous treatment of Petraeus. Obama says that the surge has improved the situation in Iraq.
0
super delegate
McCain has his number.
*ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico: Republican presidential hopeful John McCain has criticised Democratic rival Barack Obama for not having been to Iraq since 2006, and says they should visit the war zone together.
"Look at what happened in the last two years since Senator Obama visited and declared the war lost," the Republican nominee-in-waiting said yesterday, noting the Illinois senator's last trip to Iraq was before the US military surge that is credited with curbing the violence.
"He really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq, and he has wanted to surrender for a long time," the Arizona senator said.*
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23768876-5013948,00.html
0
usaexpat
USAFdude, I'm not sure if your putting one over on Sarge or being serious. You really expect Obama is going to be the guy who focuses America on taking down OBL? Obama is a nightmare candidate for national security, as weak as weak can be. This is the ghost of Jimmy Carter's presidency. I can't wait to see what we will get with CinC Obama but I'll wager it's going to make the Iran hostage situation pale in comparison.
0
usaexpat
Damax why don't you offer the proof. The junior senator from Illinois has no foreign policy experience. Prove me wrong, point me in the direction of anything that Obama stands for other than "change" whatever the hell that means. I am as pleased as anyone to have Bush and his band of liars out of office but not in exchange for a guy who has no more credentials than Bush did. As an independent who has voted for Republicans, Democrats and independents, I want more details before I give up my vote. Apparently you know more than I do or you're in love with the Obama machine.
0
Damax6
NOT!!!, in love with the man..just a man who i believe wont foolinto a war that we need not get into.. since ur independant..LIKE me, try the documentary Zeigiest, i hope i spelled it correctly..that changed the way i think about most things these days...proof you say..well...were there WMD
s, where is OBL, where is the oil money going???, the govt has no proof for us , so how in the hell i have proof for you, you spoke about Obama like you knew him, i am going with obama for this simple reason, in order to for a young whippersnapper to get experience , he needs the OJT, and guts, drive,determination, and honesty, The ole dogs know how to you with all experience crap. I blame GW, because after 8yrs, we have NO positive result ANYWAY,Foreign and DOmestic...but.....where does the oil money go???? where is OBL. well he pops in now and again on Al jezeera, to get us amercians blood flowing again...hmmmm who controls this.....FOCUS !!!!0
USAFdude
Hello, usaexpat. Pleasure to meet you; seriously, I do hope we can engage in meaningful debate.
I am quite serious in my support of Obama. Frankly, I don't share your view regarding his effectiveness as CinC. If I saw him as "weak", he wouldn't get my vote. And believe me, as a US troop, strength in a CinC is a paramount concern of mine, one to which I give very careful consideration.
0
Wolfpack
Obama should go with McCain to Iraq so the war veteran can school the naive one about the ways of the world. McCain was right about the surge as even the Washington Post has now admitted in their editorial today http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053101927.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
No war is easy or predictable but the outcome is predictable if we have the will to prevail. President Bush had the will while the Democrats were surrendering en mass. As American's begin to focus on the election later this summer and into the fall, there will be the realizaton that Obama is ill-prepared for such an important job as president of the United States.
I would say that the chances are more likely that Obama will meet with Ahmadinejad before he meets with American troops. I get the impression that he feels more comfortable with others that share his anti-American views then with those crazy patriotic people in the military.
0
Betzee
Yeah, capitalism has taken route (though I wouldn't exactly describe it as "just like Indiana in the summer" as one of McCain's prevoius travelling companions described their visit to a market made with Tomahawk helicopter protection):
In Iraq, the Americans are not the only ones who pay to win hearts and minds. And until now, the exchange of money and goods for tranquility and peace seems to be working, at least in some areas. But the question remains: What will happen when the payment stops?
A few days later, an Iraqi diplomat working for the Iraqi Foreign Ministry in Baghdad tells me: "First al-Qaida came in and said, 'We will give you $200 to place an IED.' Then the Americans came in and said, 'We will give you $200 not to place an IED.' You get some amount of money and you don't have to do anything for it.
"Of course that works," the diplomat continues. "Behind the insurgency there isn't so much ideology. What's behind it is a whole lot of economy."
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/06/03/iraq_dispatch/index1.html
0
Betzee
The Sunnis now on our payroll want government jobs. But Maliki, despite US prodding, won't move on it because he doesn't want to bring Sunnis into the state security forces. So the US is stuck paying each Sunni USD 10 a day not to harm our troops in places where casualties were high in the past.
Then there's the matter of the two million displaced, again mainly Sunnis who lived in mixed neighborhoods in Baghdad. They will not be able to return to their homes (which are now occupied by Shia) as Patreaus himself acknowledged. There's simply no security to protect them. This reflects the lack of a social compact which is necessary for sustainable peace to emerge in this war-torn country.
0
usaexpat
USAFdude pleased to meet you as well. I have to say what makes me nervous about Obama is his hesitation when asked unscripted questions on national security. It's those little stammers that make me wonder if he's really got the fortitude or if he is more a scholar than a commander. Don't get me wrong GWB certainly could have used quite a bit more reflection rather than his "yee ha" approach. What is it in particular that makes you more confident in Obama than McCain?
0
Zaphod
Wolfpack:
I do hope that was sarcasm...
Alas, on that one you are right.
0
USAFdude
USAexpat - Sorry it took me so long to respond! I'm not always near a computer, unfortunately.
To answer your question, I'm confident in Obama precisely because he is the candidate whose approach is farthest from Bush's "yee ha" approach. Having been a part of Bush's military, I have no confidence in his approach or anything close to it.
Back to top