it's also grotesque to say that someone should hold the same position today as they held in early 2007. if we've learned anything from Bush and Co., it's that the steadfast maintenance of a position irregardless of reality is the worst possible option. early 2007 is different than mid-2008.
No one is saying that they should hold the same position today as they held in 2007, were just pointing out what might be a change in the position. If Obama is changing his position on Iraq from where it was in 2007, I think thats great. In addition, if your going to be honest and objective about Bush administration policy on Iraq, your going to have to acknowledge that the Bush administration has changed its position on various issues involved with Iraq policy over the past 5 years.
what i find ironic is that for everyone who touts the "success" of "the surge," really, you're making the case for Obama's withdrawal. i find it impossible for some to talk about McCain having a position of withdrawal (though he knows that current troop levels are unsustainable) when there is no clear goal of what "success" actually looks like. though i will say it is beginning to look like the establishment of 60 military bases.
One who touts the success of the surge is only making the case for Obama's previous withdrawal plans if they think things in Iraq have been successful to such a degree, that the Iraqi government, military, and conditions on the ground would not suffer or reverse itself by withdrawing 1 to 2 brigades a month with all US combat brigades out of Iraq in 16 months. But most realize that its way to early to be making such a declaration, and that there is still a lot of work that needs to be done in Iraq and although Iraqi forces as of today have vastly been improved, they are not yet ready to handle the security situation on their own without the presence of US combat brigades. What Bush, McCain the US military fundamentally agree on is that conditions on the ground in Iraq, NOT campaign promises and a simple desire to withdraw US troops from Iraq will determine when various US brigades can come home.
What is really ironic about Obama's position if he is in fact shifting to a policy of withdrawal based on conditions on the ground, is that he thinks that things have been more successful than anyone who supports the surge or the Bush administration itself. If you think the United States should start withdrawing all US combat brigades NOW with all US combat brigades to be out of Iraq in 16 months, based on conditions on the ground in Iraq, then you obviously think that the US has been more successful in Iraq than even the biggest supporters of the war and occupation.
Non-surge troop levels are sustainable and have been sustained for over 5 years now. The active US army only had 33 combat brigades in 2003, but now has 45 combat brigades and will grow to 48 combat brigades by the end of 2009. Thats a 50% increase in the number of combat brigades available just for the active Army. The Army National Guard has 34 combat brigades roughly what it had in 2003, and provided equipment levels for the Army National Guard are replaced, all of their Brigades will be ready for deployment. General Patraeus told congress directly that if he felt the Surge needed to continue beyond the normal 18 months, he could sustain it with the addition of National Guard brigades and extending deployment times of various units. In any event, the last Surge brigade is leaving Iraq in two weeks and new US units getting ready to deploy to Iraq have had their deployment times cut from 15 months to 12 months, which would not be happening if force levels were in some way not sustainable. The active US army has consistently stated that it can sustain indefinitely, a global deployment of 1 combat brigade for every 2 that are at home. By 2009, that will be 16 brigades with 32 at home, just for the Active Army. That could mean 1 brigade in Korea, the three brigades that are currently in Afghanistan, and 12 of the non-surge 15 brigades that are in Iraq. Thats without even considering Marine Combat units and the 34 Army National Guard brigades.
There has always been a clear goal of what success looks like for both Iraq and Afghanistan. Its the successful development of Iraqi political, economic and security structures and environment to a degree that US ground forces are no longer needed in the country for their development and maintenance.
As for these 60 permanent bases you keep refering to, could you please explain the difference between a permanent base and one that is not permanent? The US currently has bases all over Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other places around the world that are basic logistical requirement for the deployment of brigade and division level ground forces in that particular area for months or more time. I've never heard of a US base that could not be removed at some point in time or handed over to another country's forces.
this, to me, is the more interesting question and really what the distinction is between McCain and Obama. do you want American troops stationed in Iraq for the indefinite future, or not? and if some troops are going to be there (and they are), what is that presence going to look like?
If you want the US troops presence on the ground in Iraq to be based on conditions on the ground there with the goal of successfully developing Iraq's political, economic, and security structures so that one day US ground forces are no longer required to be there to help develop and maintain those things, then how many US combat brigades and how long you want them to be there will be dependent upon how close you think you are to achieving those development goals. Someone suggesting that the United States can begin immediately withdrawing non-surge combat brigades from Iraq with all non-surge combat brigades to be out of Iraq in 16 months obviously thinks the United States has been massively successful in Iraq and is very close to achieving all their goals in the country, IF they are basing their withdrawal plans on conditions on the ground. Those that feel that while success has been dramatic, but still feel that Iraqi military is a few years away from being able to handle things on their own and acknowledge that there could be some temporary setbacks and reversals down the road may leave plans for any such withdrawal open and only remove US brigades in increments directly tied to conditions in the specific province they are being withdrawn from and would clearly still leave open the option to send back or even surge troops again if conditions on the ground warrented it in terms of achieving the key development goals.
The same question can be asked of Afghanistan. Do you want American troops stationed in Afghanistan for the indefinite future, or not? and if some troops are going to be there (and they are), what is that presence going to look like? The general answer to this question is the same as the answer to the question for Iraq.