solicitr wrote:Except, Cerin, that events have overtaken those who so believe. Things are moving forward in Iraq now, and are doing so precisely because we did not follow Obama's prescription.
That things are moving forward in Iraq is certainly one valid point of view, but it is not the only one. I don't believe things are moving forward significantly in Iraq, and will not until we get out. What we have now, in my opinion, is a stasis based on our presence there, which I do not believe is in anyone's best interest to maintain indefinitely and which only puts off the inevitable -- which is the sorting out of the country by its own citizens.
As for the last part of your statement, none of us knows what would have happened if we had taken a different course; speculating on that is useless, in my opinion, so I won't engage in it.
Obama's fixed position on Iraq has been "pull out now and damn the consequences."
No, that does not accurately reflect anyone's stated position. That is your perspective on the withdrawal position, because you don't agree with it. It is another example of the tactic of saying that those who support withdrawal want to surrender. It seems to you that withdrawal is surrender, but it doesn't seem that way to those who hold the other point of view.
There are many people who believe that the only way for Iraq to move forward toward whatever configuration they eventually achieve (which will most likely be far worse from our strategic point of view than things were before we invaded) is for us to leave. Trying to prevent that eventuality, trying to forestall the inevitable consequences of our disastrous invasion isn't a viable strategy, in my opinion. That doesn't translate as 'pull out and damn the consequences.' It translates to, 'pulling out is the best thing to do; and we will bear perpetual responsibility for the mess we needlessly created there, whose ramifications none can foresee.'
The *only* reason he can talk about pulling out, now, without disastrous consequences is because the policy he resolutely opposed in fact proved to be the correct one.
It did not prove to be 'the correct one'. You view it as such, but no one knows how withdrawal now will differ from a hypothetical earlier withdrawal that never happened. We don't know what the consequences will be of pulling out now, either.
The surge was undertaken to make space, by a reduction in violence, for political reconciliation, and the latter aspect has not happened to any significant degree. The country is simply in a holding pattern, in my view, until we get out.
Had Obam's bill to force a complete withdrawal by March 2008 actually passed, it would indeed have been a forfeit- Iraq ceded to the forces of chaos and anarchy which were running amok two years ago.
In your view, it would have been a forfeit. But you do not know what would have transpired had we begun a withdrawal earlier, any more than you know what will happen if we begin a withdrawal now. All we have done is put off the inevitable. All of the forces are still there, that are being suppressed by our presence, and which will move into action when we are gone.
The long, painful sorting out process would not have taken place had we followed Obama's prescription.
You do not know that. Nobody knows what would have happened had we begun a withdrawl that we never began.
'Sorting out' can only take place in conditions of security.
That isn't true. Sorting out will take place in whatever conditions exist. Conditions will change when we leave, and the sorting out will take place in those conditions, whatever they are.
The Iraqis had no prayer of establishing security on their own. The militias and terrorist groups had to be defeated before 'sorting out' could begin, and only the US military could do that.
A security established by our presence, which cannot and should not, in my opinion, be permanent, is no real security. The militias are not defeated, they are simply suppressed. The terrorist groups are there because we are there. I believe nothing of permanence can happen until we leave, unless you hold the view that our presence should be permanent in order to permanently maintain the conditions it has created.
The facts on the ground speak for themselves: our troops have been the solution, not the problem.
The facts speak for and according to the viewpoints and opinions of those who assess them. Your opinion is that our troops have been the solution; my opinion is that our presence in the country has created many more problems than it has solved.
I would ask you, Cerin: are there not some hidden assumptions in the idea that the US troop presence was, supposedly, only making matters worse? Does that not effectively imply a vote of no confidence in the GI's abilities?
I can say absolutely and unequivocally, no. It implies a vote of no confidence in the people who made the decisions that caused the troops to be there, and who will never themselves see those battlefields or feel the personal consequences of those decisions.
I would offer up the possibility that the constant refrain from Obama's party that the war was 'unwinnable' was not read by the troops as 'respect.'
I'm sure that is the case for some troops, and not the case for others. There are plenty of troops, there are organizations of troops, who advocate for an end to the policy and who understand that a lack of respect for the decisions of the administration does not equate to a lack of respect for the troops or their abilities, just as there are many troops who take any criticism of the policy as a personal affront.
