the McCain Doctrine - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-02-2007, 04:14 PM   #1
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 32,208
Local Time: 02:06 PM
the McCain Doctrine

very, very smart politcs on the part of Edwards, and a perfect way to frame the upcoming surge as a political liability for the current Republican front-runner:

[q]Edwards terms Iraq surge "McCain doctrine"
By Jim Wolf Sun Dec 31, 2:06 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards, targeting a potential Republican rival in 2008, dubbed plans for a short-term U.S. troop increase in Iraq "the McCain doctrine," in an interview aired on Sunday.

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona, considered likely to be a Republican candidate for president, has been "the most prominent spokesperson for this for some time," Edwards said in an early salvo of the 2008 campaign.

Edwards, a former senator who was the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004, made his remarks in an interview on the ABC News program "This Week."

"I actually, myself, believe that this idea of surging troops, escalating the war -- what Senator McCain has been talking about -- what I would call now the McCain doctrine ... (is) dead wrong," said Edwards.

The former senator from North Carolina launched his run for the White House on Thursday with a call to withdraw 40,000 to 50,000 troops from Iraq, about one-third of the current force, to spur Iraqis to quell their own mounting communal violence.[/q]
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-02-2007, 04:41 PM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,142
Local Time: 06:06 PM
I mentioned this in the "Hot Stove" thread. Smart move by Edwards, already targeting the presumed GOP competition.
__________________

U2democrat is offline  
Old 01-02-2007, 05:04 PM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,593
Local Time: 10:06 AM
McCain has earned it

he is almost more pro escalation than W
he has even talked about Iraq in relationship to VietNam


Now if this surge works
or is deemed to have been successful
it will be McCain's victory also.
deep is offline  
Old 01-02-2007, 05:24 PM   #4
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 32,208
Local Time: 02:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2democrat
I mentioned this in the "Hot Stove" thread. Smart move by Edwards, already targeting the presumed GOP competition.


eep, sorry.

am way, way, way behind on my FYM these days.

you might start seeing more of me in ... March?



work be CRAZY these days.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-02-2007, 09:14 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,142
Local Time: 06:06 PM


Well I look forward to March then

As long as you're enjoying the craziness that's all that matters
U2democrat is offline  
Old 01-02-2007, 10:31 PM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 02:06 PM
Regardless of how and if a troop surge is authorized, Edwards would have little chance against McCain.

A lot of the feeling that Edwards is a pretty boy ambulance chaser will carry through to the 2008 nomination race, I believe. As long as JM doesn't do anything too stupid and plays his cards carefully, he'll be hard to beat.
Canadiens1131 is offline  
Old 01-02-2007, 10:47 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,142
Local Time: 06:06 PM
Honestly if McCain gets the nom, the only reason I see him losing (if he doesn't royally screw up) is because people are sick of Republicans in the White House...and that could take the Democratic nominee far. We'll see.
U2democrat is offline  
Old 01-03-2007, 02:29 AM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 01:06 PM
Actually, I've always been inclined to support the "McCain Doctrine."

It's not a popular viewpoint, and I don't think it will happen, but I've always believed it's what SHOULD happen.

People want an easy fix.

Guess what?

There isn't one. (Well, there is for us as a nation, but it won't be so easy for Iraq, once we having barged into their country and screwed it up, slink away, and leave them with the mess, which is what is likely to happen).
maycocksean is offline  
Old 01-03-2007, 03:50 AM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:06 AM
More troops are more targets; indigenous forces should be augmented.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-03-2007, 07:15 AM   #10
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 02:06 PM
Actually, the "McCain Doctrine" sounds an awful lot like Nixon's approach to Vietnam. We can see how that turned out.
Ormus is offline  
Old 01-03-2007, 09:57 AM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:06 PM
Smart move by Edwards. McCain can't win with the "McCain doctrine". It's way too unpopular.
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-03-2007, 09:58 PM   #12
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 32,208
Local Time: 02:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
More troops are more targets; indigenous forces should be augmented.


"redeploy" to Kurdistan?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-03-2007, 10:02 PM   #13
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,142
Local Time: 06:06 PM
Edwards and Co. were at the Carolina game tonight...

I'm Tarheel born and I'm Tarheel bred
When I die I'll be Tarheel dead!
Rah rah, Carolina-lina, Rah rah, Carolina-lina, Rah rah, Carolina-lina, rah rah rah!
(Very first song I ever learned. No joke)

Aaaaaanyway, continue
U2democrat is offline  
Old 01-03-2007, 10:11 PM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,593
Local Time: 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
Actually, I've always been inclined to support the "McCain Doctrine."

It's not a popular viewpoint, and I don't think it will happen, but I've always believed it's what SHOULD happen.

People want an easy fix.

Guess what?

There isn't one. (Well, there is for us as a nation, but it won't be so easy for Iraq, once we having barged into their country and screwed it up, slink away, and leave them with the mess, which is what is likely to happen).
my prediction is that Bush will announce 25-30 thousand more troops
deep is offline  
Old 01-03-2007, 10:51 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 02:06 PM
The only thing a troop increase will do is provide for the chance of a couple of victories and a positive spin on the dying days of the Iraqi War before US forces withdraw. The second they're out of there, the Iraqi government troops and police are going to get raped, though.

It's like the band continuing to play on the Titanic while the ship sinks.
Canadiens1131 is offline  
Old 01-03-2007, 11:30 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:06 PM
1. The type of troop increase, surge, etc that has been discussed recently in the media is not actually a troop increase at all. All that would happen is that a few brigades scheduled to leave at x time would remain several months past that point, while Brigades scheduled to replace them would arrive a few months earlier, which would temporarily mean there would be more troops on the ground in Iraq for a few months.

2. This has already been done on several occasions in the past with troop levels temporarily increasing by 10,000 or 15,000 troops.

3. It is not the escalation that Democrats talk of, nor is it some grand new strategy that will suddenly achieve objectives that are going to take years to achieve.

4. It does put greater stress on the active Army Brigades and Active Marine regiments that will be involved.

5. A permanent increase on top of the 17 Brigades already in Iraq is the only way to improve and speed up the nationbuilding and counterinsurgency task that are under way. The only way to achieve this is to end the restrictions on the use of National Guard Combat Brigades. Active Army and Marine Combat Brigades are all either deployed or are waiting to replace a deployed brigade. Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Okinawa, Bosnia, Kosovo have roughly 27 active Army and Marine combat brigades deployed to them with roughly the same number resting and refiting from their previous deployment so they can deploy again to replace current deployed brigades. All 51 active Army and Marine Combat Brigades are either deployed or are in line to replace a deployed unit. The vast majority of the National Guard's 34 combat brigades are currently at home and have no plans at the time to deploy anywhere, either to increase troops in Iraq, or relieve the burden on active Army and Marine Combat Brigades. Restrictions on the use of the National Guard must be changed in order to relieve the burden on active duty troops as well as allow for troop increases.

6. A larger permanent force on the ground in Iraq can bring greater security to Iraq as well as develop the Iraqi military at a quicker rate. Despite the improvements that a larger force can bring to Iraq, it will still take several years to build the Iraqi military, government, and economy to the point that coalition ground forces are no longer needed, but a larger force can help speed up the process and lesson the severity of setbacks that are often inevitable in such a long and difficult process.

7. Withdrawing 50,000 US troops while the Iraqi's are 4 years away from having the military force they need will only handicap the entire process. Insurgents and militia's will have more room to operate as the smaller number of coalition forces have less resources to deal with threats and provide security for the Iraqi people, government, as well as help build the new Iraqi military. Coalition casualties may also increase as area's once secured or at least patrolled no longer have such coverage and become more dangerous to coalition forces that will have to eventually go into such area's.

8. Withdrawal should only occur when the Iraqi military and other security forces are sufficiently ready in the numbers required to replace any withdrawn coalition forces.






McCain has supported a larger force in Iraq since the summer of 2003. But the only way to get a larger permanent force in Iraq is to end restrictions on the use of National Guard Brigades. A brief short term surge of a few thousand troops has already happened multiple times and in reality, does not represent any real new deployment of a greater number of troops to the country. It is not the esculation that democrats make it out to be nor the real increase in troops that many would like to see to improve the security situation in the country and speed up the development process.

Edwards idea is illogical and contradictory at the same time. On the one hand, its explained that the whole process under way in Iraq is a disaster and then in the next sentence there is going to be the reduction of 50,000 troops. If the situation is as bad as Democrats like Edwards would describe, you don't withdraw 50,000 troops. If you think a stable government and situation in Iraq is important to US and regional security, withdrawing 50,000 troops is not going to help insure that unless of course you think the Iraqi military and security forces are only a year a way from being able to replace the withdrawn coalition troops or conditions on the ground have improved to a degree that would warrent the withdrawal.



Its obvious that some of the candidates care more about winning the next election as opposed to what the right course of action would be. It appears Democratic candidates want to pick up the votes of those who would like to see the immediate abandonment of Iraq as well as those who are more cautious about such an approach. A phased withdrawal having nothing to do with conditions on the ground in Iraq accomplishes that and does nothing to insure that remaining forces will not find themselves in a more dangerous environment, improve the rate of development of the Iraqi military, as well as helping to improve the security situation throughout the country. Withdrawal in Iraq should be based on conditions on the ground, not ones political fortunes in the United States, if one is serious about building a stable Iraq that is not a threat to its neighbors.
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-03-2007, 11:35 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 17,749
Local Time: 02:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

It appears Democratic candidates want to pick up the votes of those who would like to see the immediate abandonment of Iraq as well as those who are more cautious about such an approach.
You mean the 89% of your country which doesn't want the surge? Sure seems like a dumbass idea to actually listen to such a small majority. I mean, is that even a mandate?
anitram is online now  
Old 01-03-2007, 11:48 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


You mean the 89% of your country which doesn't want the surge? Sure seems like a dumbass idea to actually listen to such a small majority. I mean, is that even a mandate?
As I have just explained before, the "surge" has already happened multiple times in the past without any complaints. The surge does not actually send any NEW troops to Iraq. All it does is delay the rotation of a few brigades back home while speed up the deployment of brigades already assigned to replace them. Its already happened several times without any sort of outcry. But people on both sides of the political spectrum are trying to make hay out of it and describe it as some major new policy shift.

Shouldn't the intelligent course of action be to develop a policy that insures US security interest in the region and is based on conditions on the ground in Iraq as opposed to ones personal political fortunes in the next election? Do you want candidates that are only interested in doing what would best suit them politically currently as opposed to what is the best course of action for the country?

How does a premature withdrawal from Iraq strengthen US Security interest in the region and create a stable country that does not threaten its neighbors like Kuwait?
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-04-2007, 05:51 AM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 01:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus
Actually, the "McCain Doctrine" sounds an awful lot like Nixon's approach to Vietnam. We can see how that turned out.
The problem in Vietnam (well at least one of the problems) was that the U.S. was unable to fight a full-on, "conventional" war there. No one had the political will to do such a thing, there certainly wasn't any support from the American public, and it's debatable whether such an approach was even possible in Vietnam.

The situation is similar in Iraq.

My understanding is that even if Nixon increased troop strength, he also was responsible for getting U.S. troops out of Vietnam as well. Unfortunately, Iraq will suffer far more than Vietnam did when the U.S. exits stage left.

Here's the thing though. Isn't it true that one of Bush's many mistakes was in failing to send enough troops in the first place, and then failing to increase our troop strength during the early part of the war? I understand that the war grows in unpopularity, the idea of sending more of our soldiers over there is less and less appealing, but does that make any less of an improvement?
maycocksean is offline  
Old 01-04-2007, 05:52 AM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 01:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
Smart move by Edwards. McCain can't win with the "McCain doctrine". It's way too unpopular.
True.
__________________

maycocksean is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×