The Facts On The Ground
Senator McCain recently called for Senator Obama to come to Iraq and view the actual situation with him on the ground. Of course Senator Obama cannot do that until he firmly has the Democratic Nomination in his hands but apparently there are plans in the “works” for him to visit Iraq at some point. I think there is no need to visit Iraq because we know a few undeniable facts:
- The American presence in Iraq has strengthened Al-Qaeda due to the increase of anti-American sentiment worldwide as well as in the Middle East.
- The situation in Iraq has not improved and no one has a strategy for how it could be improved on either side of the political divide.
- Beyond these two simple issues, the most pertinent fact is the number of American and civilian casualties. People whose lives were lost for no tangible reason.
The facts on the ground are this Senator McCain, most of your Republican colleagues as well as the majority of the Democrats realize we need to get out. That is all Senator Obama needs to know and hopefully when he becomes President, he will refocus American troops where they are needed most.
May 29 2008 12:56 pm | American Politics
May 30th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Okay, how’s this? I, and many others (including those who have spent a lot of time there) deny your first two “undeniable” facts.
The third isn’t really debateable; the number of casualties is simply a number which in and of itself has no meaning. Casualties in *one hour* at Gettysburg were higher than those of this war so far; should we have gotten out of the south?
But Obama, if he becomes president, will be Gen. Petraeus’ direct commander. Petraeus says things quite different from your facts. If Petraeus is right, then perhaps American troops *are* where they are needed most.
Perhaps Obama ought to see for himself what the situation is before he commits himself to a policy?
May 30th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Hey Gordon, undeniable was probably the wrong word to choose but the only way to verify that terrorist recruitment is up is to infiltrate the organization. I have fortunate to know a fair amount of muslim people who are really angry at america because of iraq and though this anger is misplaced. It is still there and in some places where people are poor, down-troddern and lack direction, the best route for them or as they are brain-washed would be jihad?
Improvement is a relative term but what i mean is that there has been no significant decrease in the violence. No period of time where absolute peace has been achieved.
I don’t blame the USA for any of this and I don’t think anyone should but I do believe the American prescence has excerbated an already precarious situation.
I have never been to Iraq therefore my statements are based on the publicly released information which is the same information that many in the Senate and Congress rely on. My simple argument as to why Senator Obama does not need to see the situation on the ground is that globally, people agree that Iraq is not where it should be. Isn’t that enough?
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Crian,
I would agree that the Iraq war did become a rallying point for AQ recruitment. The thing is, that was then. CIA analysts two years ago said that Iraq was a AQ rally point. The same analysts now say that AQ in Iraq is nearly wiped out.
In Basra and Sadr City the Shiite militias and the Iran-backed groups have been crushed; not by US troops, but by the Iraqi military.
The rate of violent death in Iraq is now lower than that in South Africa. South Africa is not at war. People are killed even in times of peace, and in the nicest countries.
But I don’t know how you can argue that violence isn’t greatly reduced. Even NBC News,
which made a big deal of deciding to call it an Iraqi civil war a couple of years ago, has stopped using that term–because it’s not accurate.
A little over a year ago Obama said that the surge wouldn’t work–it didn’t matter how many troops we used. Now his spokesman is trying to spin that Obama didn’t say that.
Obama has been telling all of us that *his* judgement on Iraq was superior–based on a speech he made while he was in the Illinois state senate. Fine and good. But we’re not back in 2002 any more.
What’s the best thing to do right now? His recent judgements aren’t looking so robust. Perhaps, before he commits to a policy, he ought to take another look.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Hey Gordon, you won me over with that South Africa point, and I just did a quick Google search which indicated that CIA believes that Al-Qaeda is done for in Iraq. This is the same CIA that said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq though.
I don’t mean to bring up the past since we are in the present but I won’t believe Al-Qaeda in all its many forms is retreating without some definitive evidence in the media or some congressional hearing.
As for the Surge, it did produce benefits but the troops are actually are at greater strength than the surge levels, http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/30/143234/516
Given what you have said though, I will say that making a trip to Iraq once he seals the nomination is a good idea.