is this really your position? are you really saying this? because you know that you're saying it and not Obama?
Oh really? So tell me, where has Obama claimed that he would only start withdrawing any US combat brigades if FIRST, the Iraqi military had developed the sufficient capability to replace that combat brigade, and the security situation warrented the withdrawal. Show us where Obama has always stood for "as they stand up, we'll stand down"? If Obama is really in support of a conditions based withdrawal as opposed to one that is just time based, show it.
The position that the Bush administration has advocated and the one that I have always supported is that a withdrawal will eventually come when conditions on the ground warrent it, just as was done in both Bosnia and Kosovo.
because it's the only way that you can fabricate the position that *Obama* is in disagreement with the Iraqi government, after they've endorsed Obama's plan?
They like the idea of the United States being able to withdraw in 16 months as anyone would, but they have always insisted that any withdrawal must be based on conditions and Obama has never had any prerequisites for starting a withdrawal or had a set of conditions that first had to be met for security on the ground. Why would the Iraqi government support any withdrawal plan that withdrew US combat Brigades before the Iraqi military was ready to assume the responsibilties and missions that those US combat brigades are currently providing? The Iraqi's are not against withdrawal, they are against a withdrawal that is not based on the facts on the ground and the capability and strength of the ground forces. Obama does not have any prerequisites as to the level of capability that Iraqi forces need to achieve before a US combat brigade is withdrawn. Obama has no requirements for conditions like the level of violence or economic improvement of any province before he would start withdrawing US combat Brigades.
are you really going to continue to pretend that Obama is as inflexible as Bush?
Bush has changed force levels and tactics on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 7 years when the situation required it. No inflexibility there at all. Obama by contrast supports a policy that is not based on the facts on the ground, is inconsistent with the recomendations of the lates NIE on IRAQ, and those of General Patraeus and Admiral Mike Mullen.
going to deny that this isn't a timetable? that a "time horizon" isn't just a fancy name for a timetable?
Its as much of a timetable as the "Surge" was a timetable.
ah yes, the surge. i do owe a long post on this.
Well I wonder how it will compare with what military commanders from General Patraues down to platoon commanders on the ground have had to say about Iraq and the Surge over the past 18 months. There are plenty of casualty statistics to look at as well, economic figures and political changes and progress to look at. Multiple past opponents of the Surge are claiming that it is a success.
we had a Civil War in Iraq.
Really? So there is not a "Civil War" in Iraq now? When did this so called "Civil War" start and when did it end?
we had the ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis from Baghdad
Really? This will certainly be news to the Sunnis who continue to live there as well as the Iraqi military and US military patroling the streets.
we've had unimaginable bloodshed.
Far more Iraqi's died in the 1980s during the Iran/Iraq war as well as during the 1990s under Saddam. Saddam murdered more Shia's in the months after the 1991 Gulf War than the number of Iraqi's who have died in the past 5 years combined. This is the guy who's removal you and Obama continue to claim has made the world "less safe". The unimaginable bloodshed you talk of would involve 10% of the population being slaughtered like it was in Bosnia. The level of bloodshed in Iraq is not even remotely close to being what it was in Bosnia on a per capita basis.
we've had the introduction of Al Qaeda, religious extremism, and suicide bombing into Iraq when it never existed before.
Of course, your idea for preventing that was leaving Saddam in power. Nevermind all the consequences that would entail.
Iraq is more violent today than it was when Obama last visited in early 2006.
Really? Lets take a look at that claim.
Obama was last in Iraq in January 2006.
Iraqi civilians killed in January 2006: 590
Iraqi Security Forces killed in January 2006: 189
Coalition troops who died in Iraq in January 2006: 64
Figures for July 2008
Iraqi civilians killed in July 2008: 182
Iraqi Security Forces killed in July 2008: 55
Coalition troops who died in Iraq in July 2006: 12
The above figures come from
iCasualties: Iraq Coalition Casualty Count .
however, if you're going to run on the small successes of The Surge and not admit that the entire operation has been a mistake and a catastrophe, then you might as well just give Obama the White House keys.
Can you name any military commanders on the ground in Iraq who would describe the success they have seen as being "small"?
If you want to claim that removing Saddam from power was a mistake and that the world is "less safe" because Saddam is no longer the leader of Iraq, go ahead.
and McCain's been forced to concede on the Obama/Maliki timetable. after all, "when they stand up, we'll stand down." but not until we say so?
Obama has a timetable which calls for starting to withdraw US troops immediately, without any prerequisites for the capability of Iraqi forces and the security situation on the ground, with all combat brigades to be out in 16 months.
Maliki wants to see US combat forces leave as soon as possible, but not before the Iraqi military is capable of taking their place.
McCain does not want US combat brigades to remain in Iraq any longer than is necessary, but will only withdraw them when the Iraqi military has achieved the capability to replace them and the country is relatively stable.
Thats their positions, and its obvious that McCain and Maliki are closer on the issue than Obama and Maliki who have opposite views when it comes to whether any withdrawal should be based on conditions on the ground.
so what's left for you Sting? are you going to endorse a timetable for withdrawal (which you say will bring the apocalypse upon the the Surge-made-Shangri-La) and admit that Obama was right (and admit that his judgment is sound) or are you going to deliberately ignore the explicit, expressed wish of the Iraqi government in order to prolong a war that most Americans and their government admits was a colossal mistake?
The only withdrawal plan that I have ever supported for either Afghanistan or Iraq is one that is conditions based, just as US withdrawals from Bosnia and Kosovo have been. A withdrawal that is FIRST conditions based instead of simply being time based will not bring on the "apocalypse".
I can't support someone who believes that the world, especially the Persian Gulf and Kuwait, would be safer with Saddam in power in Iraq in 2008. The idea that Kuwait is "less safe" today because Saddam is out of power is laughably absurd. Not only has Obama's judgement proven to be poor in 2002, but its proven to be poor over the past 18 months with his prediction that the Surge would INCREASE violence in Iraq. Instead the opposite has occured. The strategy he opposed and said would make things worse has succeeded and vastly improved conditions faster than most thought possible.
Its everyones wish that the US forces not stay in Iraq longer than is necessary, but the Iraqi government, Bush, and McCain do not want a withdrawal prior to the Iraqi military being able to handle the situation on their own. In contrast, Obama wants to start withdrawing troops immediately without regard to conditions on the ground or the capability of Iraqi forces that would replace them.
it all depends on what happens on the Iraq/Pakistani border.
But, for Iraq, Obama's plan does not depend on conditions on the ground. Why not have a time based approach in Afghanistan as well?