Obama ... who doesn't love the guy?

Obama!! They even have Obamamania in Iraq.

If he gets elected, I hope he will take to heart what his admirers in Iraq are saying.

A nice find Doug. Obama's plan as far as I know calls for a withdrawal within 16 months but leaving a small force there (20,000?). He has stated that the withdrawal is subject to modification depending on how that situation unfolds. At least that is my take. He wants to send more troops to Afghanistan. Perhaps he's posturing but the message I've gotten is that he wants to actually put more effort into finding Bin Laden.

For us (maybe not for the Iraqis in the long run--at least I hope not)--this Iraq adventure has been a collosal failure. Nation building--bad idea. Do we need to mention again all the bs that led us into this nightmare? We cannot afford to stay--the war has been fought with the same personnel going back again and again and again--beyond that all the wasted logistical support such as equipment--beyond even that is paying for it by selling treasury notes to Pacific Rim countries which has caused quite a lot of devaluation of our currency--the current oil crisis arguably part of the war's equation devaluing it even more.

16 months--even two years if it takes that but they have to come out. There are limits--and Iraqi generals are entitled to their opinons but we cannot afford to continue to waste $3 billion a week on them. This election is as much about our economy tanking as it is about this unpopular war. If Obama does not withdraw--he does not get re-elected. He might not even get re-nominated. It's not just him--it's also the party behind him. They have a chance at a real sea change of american political life in this election. They will not want to blow it. I think there will be much broader support towards targeting Bin Laden and keeping the pressure on in Afghanistan. To me this is the where the present administration dropped the ball.

Economists have a saying: "Sunk costs are sunk costs". In folk wisdom: "Don't throw good money after bad." In poker: You've got to know when to fold. In the stockmarket ... but enough. You get the idea.

But ... is that the situation in Iraq?

If we had withdrawn three months ago, as Obama and the majority of Congress wanted us to, would we still have what seems to be a rapidly improving situation in Iraq?

I doubt it. Of course, the situation may not be improving. It may be that all the killers are just waiting for us to go, eventually, and then they will turn the place into Lebanon 1983.

But I don't think that is the case. And I suspect Mr Obama, and his advisors, won't think so either.

Now ... if I am right, and if Iraq does turn into something like an Arab Turkey -- hey, far from perfect!!! --- then the results will be far-reaching, and, from the point of view of anyone, liberal or conservative, who believes in liberal democracy, very good.

We shall see. Sometimes the good guys win. In fact, over the 20th Century, slowly, and with lots of setbacks, they have been winning. Democracy is not just for white people.

Except, of course, that the Iraqis - if they got to choose democratically - overwhelmingly want us out.

In an interview with Der Spiegel, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes"

And

"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."

And

"The Americans have found it difficult to agree on a concrete timetable for the exit because it seems like an admission of defeat to them. But it isn't," Maliki told Der Spiegel.

Of course this is what the leaders of Iraq must say, or what the Shia leaders must say. But it's more complex than that. I think this analysis has it about right.

For a little balance, I recommend reading this guy (now here), especially this article and this article.

Warning: All links, save for the last one, are NSFW.

NSFW?
Huh? What? Mizrayim? ;-)

Slih'a, GirlFromIpanema. NSFW means Not Safe For Work

Iraqi public opinion:
February 2008

March 2007

3-4% want us to stay, 35-38% want us "out immediately", the other 60-some% want us out in various degrees of "soon".

#3--the thing is it took us 5 years + to get to that point 3 months ago. The cost to ourselves 4000 + dead--30,000 or so wounded, much equipment destroyed, hundreds of billions of dollars wasted--our economy in a shambles--perhaps it wouldn't have been nearly as bad if we did as in other wars--raised taxes to pay for it. So is it worth destroying ourselves over what amounts to desert wasteland? Do we really think this Iraqi government if it survives--which it appears to have a chance to--is going to be the model for democracy that other middle eastern nations will try to replicate? I don't think so. They may keep their version of a democracy--even so their mullahs will be pulling some strings and their most natural ally--like it or not--democracy or not will probably be Iran.

Much of this has to do with hubris. Much of this has to do with the present administration not being able to face up to the huge mistake they made. To save face they spent lives. To show he's not like his father--Bush2 refuses to raise taxes instead he sells tons of treasury notes--which eventually leads to our dollar melting down. As an example I did something very stupid on our recent trip to Canada--I went to the currency exchange. $200 US got me 193 Canadian--and in reality it seemed like most places in Canada accepted our money straight up with theirs. Well things have changed--that was just throwing away $7. Other currencies remain more or less stable--ours drops. To use your poker analogy--it's like continuing to bluff and bet when everyone knows you have a losing hand. There's an episode of the Soprano's where this sporting goods dealer gets in way over his head in a poker game--it would be a good way to describe what happened in Iraq.

Doug>

The thing is, we shouldn't be this far down the river in the first place. It's like driving with someone who refuses to pull over and ask for directions--they're just hoping that it solves itself and they never have to admit they were ever lost. That's Bush's dilemma: to admit that Iraq was a mistake (ie, doing it at all, HOW we did it, how LONG we stayed, etc.) leaves him no accomplishments whatsoever--this is his baby. He's hoping that eventually, someday, this will be deemed as a smart move. And he's all in, betting every chip he's got.

Unfortunately, it's America itself that's paying the bill for his failed bets--with dollars and with lives.

re #8, Codyed

OK, I'll admit I'm naive or out of touch with local censorship. Is there really that much ideological screening for surfers at the workplace? Is there some dweeb somewhere deciding that The Nation might slip by, but then decides some other cyber rag is a No Go Zone? Say it ain't so.

krolik: NSFW is usually reserved for sites that have content that some employers may find objectionable, such as pictures of naked women or lewd jokes. Of the links I posted, only the last one doesn't feature a picture of a naked Russian girl.

Jason: Let us not mix up different things. There are at least three different issues here:

(1) Should we have invaded Iraq in the first place. I thought it was a bad idea at the time. I still think it was bad idea.

(2) Given that we did invade, did we handle post-invasion affairs more or less correctly? No-brainer. (If there are trials of the people who planned the invasion, this is what they should be tried for.)

(3) Now that we are there, what should we do? Clearly, we want to be out as quickly as we can, everything else being equal. It is not equal -- immediate withdrawal would be disastrous -- which is why both candidates in the US, and leaders in Iraq, talk about a "time horizon" etc. Why do they do this? Because immediate withdrawal ... etc.

Now .. the really good arguments for immediate withdrawal -- that it is destined to be a disaster no matter what we do -- are those presented by conservatives, like Pat Buchanan and his allies, the most persuasive of which -- to my mind -- Cody has provided links to here.

These arguments deserve a discussion on their own, because they really come down to two things:

(1) Trying to understand the social reality on the ground in Iraq, which is fiendishly difficult to do. Everyone has an agenda, and the situation is complex enough so that some evidence in favor of almost any interpretation can be found. After years of averting my eyes from Iraqi reality I am now reading everything I can find about what is happening there. But I think that, useful though it is, detailed local knowledge is secondary to having a general understanding of political evolution, which brings us to point number

(2) Trying to understand the laws, such as they are, of human social evolution: how is it that the naked ape, so selfish and treacherous and warlike, can evolve into a Swede? Or into the kind of folks who post on Pro and Con? How do people emerge from rule-of-the-strongest to Barak Obama? Is there any chance at all of this happening in the Middle East? If so, what can we do to facilitate it?

I won't try to answer these questions in this thread, you will be happy to hear.

It should have been clear to just about anyone that within about a year that our occupation was not going to be sustainable for any length of time. There have never ever been enough troops to properly do the job, they were put into situations such as policing which they should have never been put in, because there was no draft we've been re-deploying the same soldiers over and over again with the exceptions of those killed or permanently injured, we have burned out our logistical support, we have done a lot of damage to our economy back home--an economy by the way that has never been geared up to support the effort. And for all that a successful result for this is ?--well what is it now?--a democracy in the Middle East? or what passes for one. And the question that you seem to be asking Doug is whether it might be worth another 4-5 or however many years to make sure we get at least that much for it? Well--that's pretty much McCain's stance--just a few more years--at least if you take his 100 year remark as an aberration that he did not repeat again. Whether it's 16 months or even two years the clock will be ticking as soon as Obama is sworn in (that is if he wins as I expect). This is central to his campaign and central to the aspirations of the most active members of his party and central to the most active grass roots of the party that have catapulted him into being its nominee over what was considered a slam dunk nominee (Hillary) who's credibility on the issue was a bit weak. He has no other choice--anything less will be seen as a betrayal and he will face a withering critique from within his own party if he does anything less--to wit he will be seen as turning Bush's war into his own war.

Anyway as is we cannot continue to drain our economic reserves to support this operation at $3 billion a week. We have daunting problems at home to fix. Our own infastructure badly needs to be attended to. The domestic issues surrounding the rising costs of energy, education, transportation--roads, bridges, mass transit, health care, the dollar's devaluation cannot be put off. It will be an even bigger challenge to get around all of this. We need a new version of the new deal that creates jobs and industry and spreads around the wealth. I'm not sure Barack is up to all of this but he has one clear advantage at least over McCain which is he at least seems interested.

Doug>
One of my favorite quotes from Bill Clinton (and it's not because he's a democrat, it's just a great quote) is, "When you find yourself in a deep hole, the first thing you ought to do is stop digging."

To me, that is the issue: at what point does this administration say, "Alright--we've done this long enough" ? The answer is never. Bush is like one of those religious extremists who will not change his mind no matter what has happened, no matter what does happen. To this day he still says things like "the terrorists hate us for our freedom" when he gives speeches--a broken record that proves that no new information ever influences how he sees things. All we can do is wait 6 more months while he keeps on digging deeper. Sigh.

And you're right--whether Iraq was right or wrong THEN it shouldn't influence what we do NOW. But it does...it's one of the oddest things about how we choose to do things.

I was once in Thailand and I saw a man negotiating with a guy who did boat trips. The boat guy said it would be $4. The man said that he'd been quoted $3 earlier by that guy's boss, but the boat guy refused, saying it was $4. After the 2 argued for like 10 minutes the boss came along and admitted that he had quoted the man $3--said it right to both of them--but then said that the price would have to be $4 so that his employee could "save face" in the transaction.

That's how I feel about Bush in Iraq: We all know he blew it, but rather than making him say or do anything we're just holding out 6 months instead. It's crazy.

Jason: The issue is actually very simple:

If, by our immediate -- as fast as we can -- withdrawal, the situation in Iraq will be no worse, in the long run, than it would be if we stayed as long as the Iraqi government wants us to -- then we should go now. (And I am assuming that the real wishes of the Iraqi government is not that we should withdraw immediately.)

On the other hand, if our remaining a while longer can make the difference between an Iraq that gets onto the democratic path, vs. one that disintegrates into another Lebanon -- then we should remain.

This is utterly independent of whatever goes on in President Bush's head, or of his culpability for past events. These are separate issues, and of little importance compared to whether or not we can leave behind a democratic Iraq.

But it's not that simple. It is as ever a question of degree and cost.

"if our remaining a while longer can make the difference between an Iraq that gets onto the democratic path, vs. one that disintegrates into another Lebanon
"

a while: 6 months? 2 years? 20 years?
gets onto the democratic path: Zimbabwie? russia?

how much does it cost the economy and the population for how much benefit?

"if our remaining a while longer can make the difference between an Iraq that gets onto the democratic path, vs. one that disintegrates into another Lebanon"

Doug>
I think it's funny how it comes down to those two choices--democratic path vs. disintegration--all to be determined by whether we stay a "while longer" or not. Don't get me wrong, I know that's the simplified way we're taught to think in this country (Are you going to go to college or do nothing with your life? Are you willing to give 50 cents a day or do you want these children to go on starving? etc.)

It's just not that simple. If they're not on the "democratic path" (love that, Doug) by this time next year do we hang in there? Five years from now? If they're not ON the path but ON THE WAY to TURNING THE CORNER then is it justified to stay a while longer vs. a LITTLE while longer? Where does interpretation end and the truth begin?

Doug does tend to be rather fond of false dichotomies.

gets onto the democratic path, vs. one that disintegrates into another Lebanon...

Because American involvement in Lebanon was so very successful.

Nothing is certain in the world. The future cannot be predicted. We can seldom predict exactly how long even the construction of building project will take, or exactly how much it will cost.

Nonetheless, we have to make decisions in life, based on imperfect data, uncertainty, fuzzy reasoning.

My personal judgment about Iraq, for what it's worth, is that there is a chance -- I cannot quantify it except to say that it is a significant one -- that our staying for a short -- two years? three years? period longer could be critical.

And the stakes are high. A stable democratic Iraq would have an enormous impact on the region. One that disintegrates into civil war would also.

This is not just my judgment. I believe that Barak Obama's advisors believe this, and that he does too, or will.

I believe that the people who want to withdraw now, heedless of the consequences -- or some of them -- have an "essentialist" view of human groups.

In their view, the "essential nature" of Germans is to be Nazis; of Japanese, to be fanatical emperor-worshippers and militarists; of Russians, to be slave-like; of English people, to be tolerant and inclined toward compromise; of Africans, to be doomed to unending misery; and so on.

I think this is wrong. Cultural factors are very strong, and past history weighs like an alp on future history. Yet men make their own history, and many social outcomes -- both good and bad -- are the result of struggles among contending social forces which were one by one side or the other.

Germany did not have to go Nazi, nor Russia, Communist. There were strong totalitarian forces in both countries, but they were a minority in both cases -- the democrats -- or non-totalitarians -- could not mobilize sufficient force to prevent the victory of the former. But this was not inevitable.

Had the Americans not overthrown Mossadegh, Iran might today be a tolerable and prosperous democracy, or at the minimum, a Persian Turkey.

Had we not just walked out of Afghanistan after driving out the Russians and their clients, we might have been able to avert the coming of the Taleban.

Had the Israelis established a Palestinian state in the West Bank after 1967, we might today see a cold peace in that part of the world, or even something better.

What is ironic about the "essentialist" view of human beings is that, in its normal, pessimistic form, it is a right-wing view. It is disheartening to see liberals, who are supposed to be more idealistic and internationalist than my side, acting like Iowa Republicans in 1939.

We cannot help but be engaged with the world. It will not let us alone, and this becomes more true with every passing year. The real split in American politics is not between liberals and conservatives, but between people who understand this and those who do not.

The real split in American politics is not between liberals and conservatives, but between people who understand this and those who do not.

There are two kinds of people in this world...

And so goes complexity.

21> I believe that the people who want to withdraw now, heedless of the consequences -- or some of them -- have an "essentialist" view of human groups.

Isn't that an excellent demonstartion of the strawman fallacy? Ignore what your opponents actually say and make up your own version of their arguments and proceed to tear it down. He even made a name for them. Doug, I strongly doubt that you will find many "essentialists" among liberals.

Also known as "Fuzzy bunnies wear pink slippers."

I think the way I said it was clearer.

Well, yes. Liberals typically spend their time arguing against what they see as "essentialist" characterizations of primitive peoples, for example.

But I have noticed that people who are for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq actually don't put up relevant arguments for it. What they do is rant and rave about how wicked Bush is, how we went there for the oil, or to give Halliburton contracts, etc etc.

They don't engage at all with the arguments against immediate withdrawal.

Cody has given us links to someone who puts forth what I claim is the only serious argument for withdrawal: namely, that the Iraqis are irredeemably doomed to be divided into warring sects, clans, tribes and factions, and that these groups are just waiting us out. The Iraqi National Army is just one set of gangsters (the Badr Brigade) in uniform. Nothing we can do will save the situation, so we might as well go now and let the killing start up again.

Now if I were a demagogue, instead of the transparently honest, nice guy that I am, I would urge people to look at the website of the fellow who makes those arguments -- and he is a very clever and knowledgable guy -- and note that he and his friends are what we used to call nihilists, or pretty close to it. And I would say that it is not accidental that he is located in Moscow, where cynicism abounds. (Note what I am saying: not that what he is saying about the Middle East is false, but that there is barely-concealed satisfaction about this terrible state of affairs behind it. This is typical of a certain sort of right-winger, and is a fault which many of us conservatives are tempted to fall into from time to time. But it is corrosive and should be resisted.)

But that wouldn't be an argument against his -- essentialist -- view of Iraqis. I haven't made such an argument (except an implied one, at a high level of abstraction), because I do not know enough about Iraq to argue persuasively, in detail, for my view. As with most situations, I have to go on limited data. And my limited data tell me that it would crazy, at this point, to simply get out as fast as we can.

Hey, you're right - everyone DOES love the guy...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/21/former-pres-bush-a-little-jealou...

God, I love politics!

Doug, to offer a mild defense of Gary Brecher, I think his barely concealed satisfaction at the grim reality facing us in Iraq is just part of his "character." Gary Brecher doesn't actually exist. He's probably a combination of two writers from The Exile--Mark Ames and John Dolan. So, if anything, "Gary Brecher" is a brilliant expository writer but with a knack for performance artistry.

This radio interview with Brecher illustrates what I'm talking about.

Can't make that video play on my computer, for some reason. (Funny. The C130 image-intensified splatter videos work ok.)

What I hate about systematic cynicism is that it is so very attractive to young people, when we need their self-sacrificing idealism to take us forward. Everything is crap, all is lies, everyone is in it for himself. Of course there is a lot of truth in that as any good conservative knows in his bones. The world, as Oakespalding says, is bent. And yet, to quote a great scientist, it still moves.

I have to fight it in myself -- every time I read a report about how horrible things are in the new South Africa, a nasty part of me that I do not like smiles grimly in satisfaction. "Yep. Knew it would happen. What fools the whites were who remained." Well, maybe it will all break down, but we shouldn't be taking any satisfaction in it.

I have a number of Russian friends, some living there, some over here. Almost every one of them is, and always has been, cynical about Russia's chances for democracy, and thus politically apathetic, even though personally they are democrats and liberals (in the broad context). I cannot convince them that part of the problem is that so many Russians feel like they do: their expectation of failure becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So also with the Middle East: there are democratic forces there. They more people who tell them that they are doomed, the more likely it will be that they are doomed.

The world-historic defeat of socialism has made the Left cynical and defeatist, and the inevitable slide away from total world dominance of the United States, has spurred a parallel feeling in part of the Right. And so we have a malign convergence.

#31: Except that the cynicism of lost faith is not always the same as the cynicism of apathy.

But I have noticed that people who are for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq actually don't put up relevant arguments for it. What they do is rant and rave about how wicked Bush is, how we went there for the oil, or to give Halliburton contracts, etc etc.

Actually what I think is that you are ignoring any arguments that don't fit your world view. What about the argument that this war is costing us umpteen billion dollars per week and its ruining our economy? You may not like the argument. You may think that they aren't taking the negative consequences of an immediate pullout into account, but it *is* an argument, and there are others if you would just listen.

Okay. You are right about the economic argument. I have no good excuse here. One problem is, the value of a reasonably stable, democratic Iraq is very hard to quantify. In any case, the argument is not over how much it has cost us, but how much we would "save" by immediately withdrawing, as opposed to winding down in such a way as not to leave the Iraqi government swinging in the air.

Note that you can be a 100% liberal, and not favor immediate withdrawal, as in fact I suspect many of Obama's foreign policy advisory team do not.

It's not a liberal vs conservative thing, and no one on the liberal side needs to give any credit to the conservative side by simply noting that the least worst course of action for both us and the Iraqis now is to withdraw slowly enough to give them a chance to keep things together.

Doug>

jjwilson61 said it perfect in #24: you ignore what we actually say, construct your own version of what we say, then proceed to tear it down.

So again, why do you act like we have but 2 choices--helping Iraq to its feet in your "democratic path" version vs. "watching the country disintegrate into another Lebanon" unquote. There are an infinite amount of choices and options here, so why do act like there are only these two?

And you didn't address my "saving face" idea--the fact that Bush refuses to admit he's wrong about anything, any decision ever made by his administration. Don't you think that his decisions now are even PARTIALLY influenced by the fact that doing what's best for Iraq and our country RIGHT NOW would suggest that he made some bad decisions along the way--something he absolutely WILL NOT admit?

Jason: I think you are under the impression that I am some sort of George Bush fan, or his defender or apologist. Not.

By this point, an American President or Presidential aspirant who cannot give us an hour's lecture on Iraq past and present, including summaries of the political program of the Dawa party, the relative demographic weight of Turkmens in Kirkuk, the trade union situation among Basra port-workers ... does not deserve the office.

I am indifferent as to George Bush's motivations, and anything he now has to say about Iraq carries not an atom's worth of influence in my own thinking.

The question is: what to do now?

I take it that you are not for an immediate, we're-outta-here-in-three-weeks, withdrawal? If not, why not?

The simple fact is, we do not know how things in Iraq will turn out after we leave. We have a rough idea what might happen if we leave now (modified chaos at best), but we have absolutely no guarantees that leaving a year from now, two years from or five years from now will make any difference. There are too many unpredictable elements to make prediction here a real possibility.

McCain is basing his hopes a future democratic Iraq on blind optimism. Doug has said, and I agree, that the Turkish model is probably the best we can hope for, but you have to remember that Turkey is about one quarter a western, quasi-European nation. Iraq does not have that advantage. The best we can hope for may lie more along the lines of Bosnia.

So how many people have to die for THAT?

Arctic Stranger>

We didn't know how things would turn out when we ARRIVED either, but THAT never stopped us.

DOUG1943>

I'm not for immediate withdrawl, but that's more because I don't know the whole story. I know what Bush tells us, I know how the media spins it, but I can't say for sure what the best move is as far as a timetable is concerned. If I had to bet though, I'd go for sooner rather than later.

And while I don't mind the "what do we do now?" approach I think that that's an indirect way of avoiding the issue: had our "leadership" done the right thing in the first place we wouldn't have to ask such questions.

Getting out of Iraq will not give us a pool of money to use for infrastructure, schools, etc. it will simply slow down the rate at which we accumulate debt. This entire war is being fought on borrowed money. To stop the borrowing is a necessary goal, but before we can do the domestic shuffle we need to pay down the debt a good deal.

Good luck with that!

From a *purely* economic standpoint, doesn't at least the risk exist that, if we get out, we will end up getting back in under conditions that are much more expensive?

When I get in my car there is risk that I won't get out. As Doug is so fond of reminding us, you can't foretell the future. Why would we wish to get back in after we got out?

However, that said, point taken. Maybe at that time we will have a real national discussion on the pros and cons of re-engaging militarily in Iraq, rather than the bums rush we were treated to this time.

>40 timspalding: No. If our real enemies, the Sunni Islamist Jihadists, do return to a specific area, and they are not driven out by local powers (namely, Sunni tribal leaders, Kurdish tribal leaders or one of the two major Shiite factions--The Mahdi Army or the Badr Brigade), we can strike them in the same manner in which we have successfully targeted Islamists along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan: by aerial assault.

We're leaving Iraq. We're not leaving our bases in Kuwait and Qatar.

Aerial assaults have been a complete and utter failure. If they were in any way successful, then we would not be seeing a resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan (good luck trying to get rid of them, anyway, since the Talibs are essentially an ethnic association).

>43 codyed: "Aerial assaults have been a complete and utter failure. If they were in any way successful, then we would not be seeing a resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan" -codyed

codyed, the only way in which that statement is even remotely correct is if you pretend that the Taliban (indigenous mujahideen) and their internationalist Islamist jihadist allies are one and the same.

They're not. The Taliban have succeeded because they are a native socio-political and paramilitary force operating in a political vacuum. We did not invest enough money and manpower in the creation of the new Afghan state. It is, at this point, bordering on "failed state" status. That's a shame. But that doesn't change the fact that the politics and interests of the Taliban are local. Our aerial attacks on specific targets (our real enemies--the guests of the Taliban) have been relatively successful, and, while they have not wiped out the threat (i.e., we know that there are hundreds if not several thousand Arab jihadis still living/working/scheming in the region), they continue to exist only because their allies, the Taliban, provide some cover.

There is no similar cover in Iraq. The Sunni tribal leaders and former Ba'athist forces--the two Sunni groups which are responsible for the majority of American deaths in the war--have forsaken the Sunni jihadists, and are now working with us to keep them at bay. The Kurds have no love for them, and Shiites hate them with more vim and vigor than we do.

If they return in force, we will know where they are, for, if they prove to be a real threat, the locals will already be fighting them.

Our aerial attacks on specific targets (our real enemies--the guests of the Taliban) have been relatively successful, and, while they have not wiped out the threat (i.e., we know that there are hundreds if not several thousand Arab jihadis still living/working/scheming in the region), they continue to exist only because their allies, the Taliban, provide some cover.

That's precisely what I'm talking about. When we target the international Jihadis that happen to co-mingle with Talibs and civilians, we'll eventually kill innocent civilians and drive their relatives to support our enemies--it's simple human nature. Nothing screams "successful counter-terrorist measure" as dropping a 500 lb bomb on a Pashtun wedding. If you use aerial assualts as your primary tool for fighting guerrilla wars, then that will invariably happen, therefore facilitating an insurgency.

Here's an excerpt from the article I linked to above:

Those fighter jets can’t tell the difference between a wedding party carrying the bride to her husband’s village and a Taliban column moving to the attack. And when in doubt, they tend to assume all large groups on the move are Taliban. For six years, ISAF warplanes have been bombing Pashtun wedding parties and processions. It seems to happen over and over again. I’m not sure why. Maybe weddings are the only time that Pashtuns get together in big numbers, big enough to draw fighter pilots’ attention. Maybe it’s their habit of firing rifles to celebrate. But for whatever reason, we have bombed and strafed enough wedding parties to rouse centuries of hatred from the Pashtuns.

And it’s no coincidence that one of the worst of these wedding attacks happened a few miles from Wanat, exactly one week before the Taliban attacked there. On July 7, U.S. Air Force planes killed 47 civilians in a wedding party in Nangarhar. Apparently they mistook a column of relatives taking the bride to her new village for a Taliban force on the march.

That’s the kind of mistake that makes guerrillas very happy. If you’re a Taliban commander, you couldn’t wish for a better scenario than a U.S. air strike on a wedding party to rile the people up against the foreign occupier. The guerrillas don’t lose a single fighter in an operation like that. In fact, they gain huge numbers of recruits because everyone who hears about the air strike wants to volunteer to avenge the dead. By trying to do Afghanistan on the cheap, following the Rumsfeld Doctrine that air power can do everything, we’ve played right into the hands of the new and improved Taliban.

>45 codyed: "If you use aerial assualts as your primary tool for fighting guerrilla wars, then that will invariably happen, therefore facilitating an insurgency." -codyed

Not when every power structure--and there are no political vacuums in Iraq, only competing power structures--has already mobilized against the force which you are also assaulting. Afghanistan and Iraq are not at all alike. The Shiites and the Kurds will never let Sunni Islamists gain a foothold in their territory; and we are already providing arms and training to Sunni tribal and former Ba'athist forces--arms with which they continue to fight the few jihadist cells which still exist in Iraq. In other words, we have a working relationship with the traditional Sunni power structures (civil society, if we can call it that). If they are faced with a struggle in which they need aerial support (i.e., if there is a resurgence in Sunni-controlled areas), they will publicly call for help. And we will provide it.

>45 codyed: As for Afghanistan: one, two or ten misguided bombs, as terrible as they are, are only a part of the picture. After all, the only native anti-Talibani forces from that region--virtually all of which were minorities (i.e., not Pashtuns)--were purged or driven further north when the Taliban first solidified its control of over nine-tenths of Afghanistan. The current crop of locals--virtually all Pashtun--are either Talibani or independent tribal groups which are far more contemptuous of the new Afghan state and the state of Pakistan than they are of the Taliban.

Is there a risk of further alienating independent tribes and tentative Talibani (if there is such a thing; I suspect that there is not) by pursuing targets which very well could result in significant collateral damage? Of course. But let's not pretend that there was even an inkling of support for the US or its allies prior to our activities in the area.

(Edited a couple of times for clarification)

The short term dispersion of al-Qaeda from Iraq probably won't be permanent. When we are eventually driven from that country, the Sunni-Arabs, Kurds, and Shi'a will be at each other's throats. Once that occurs, mysterious men will start popping up in Sunni villages with money and weapons and a desire to train. In exchange for their hospitality, they will be given a sanctuary to plan and execute attacks on the West.

Whatever gain you see happening in Iraq is short term. Right now we have the Sunnis on our side, not because they find al-Qaeda inherently distasteful, but because 1) we pay better and 2) we offer a much better buffer between the Sunnis, Kurds, and Shi'a than some Egyptian or Saudi radicals.

Also, arming the Sunnis and providing them with air support strikes me as very smart....on the part of the Sunnis. What better way is there to supply up and gather more intelligence on your enemies than being part of their structure? And since we're willing to provide them with air support, we can briskly eliminate some of their enemies (cf. PHOENIX in Vietnam).

I hope this isn't Obama's plan.

Well...
In a few minutes, Obama will give a speech in Berlin (Germany ;-) ). There are about one hundred thousand people waiting around the Siegessäule. This is going to be interesting. *gets out pencil and paper to take notes on Euro and International Politics*
OK, off to listen!

It seems the Germans love him. McCain spent his day in Schmidt's Sausage Haus und Restaurant in Columbus Ohio. (I am not making this up!)

It seems he was to speak on an oil rig, to push for off shore drilling but...well there was apparently an oil spill, and that didnt seem to be a really good back drop.

(Again, I am not making this up!)

So Obama is campaigning for the American presidency in Germany, and the Germans seem to be lapping it up.

This all seems very odd to me, especially the part about an American politician campaigning in Germany.

#50: It seems he was to speak on an oil rig, to push for off shore drilling but...well there was apparently an oil spill, and that didnt seem to be a really good back drop.

Oh, no no no, Arctic, the trip was cancelled because of the weather. The weather, I tell you.

Oh, yes, of course. I hear partly cloudy and calm is death if you are on an oil rig. The oil smell in the French Quarter had nothing to do with it.

>53 Arctic-Stranger:
...The oil smell in the French Quarter had nothing to do with it.

Thread hijack:
They should be used to it. Some years back, I attended a corporate training event in Galveston. Our hotel was right on the beach. In each room they had a nice little basket, lined with a linen handkerchief, containing packets of some type of alcohol/degreaser wipes. Above the basket, they had posted a sign, done in beautiful calligraphy. It was titled "For Removal of Beach Tar", and went on to explain how to remove tar balls from your feet and clothing, to avoid ruining the carpets.

And what do we expect from recovery alcoholics, who, without treatment, are called "King Babies"? I treated addicts for years and they could never admit defeat, and would be loyal to the end of even their bad decisions. With treatment, this "king baby" mentality is corrected; sadly, Bush quit drinking but did not get healthy. He simply rode his family's wealth and power and got taken care of by wife, mom, dad and brothers and rich friends riding his coattails. I could tell you stories but won't, to show you how this plays out in relationships, be they with wives, communities, churches, or governments.
Unfortunately, it's America who is paying for his lack of treatment of his own psychological makeup, and Republicans who deny that there is an elephant in their living room (and in our White House.) And all taxpayers pay for this denial of our country being led by someone with a personality disorder.

Joe Klein on the Obama trip:

Lots of speculation on the web, and in whispering circles, about why Obama's foreign trip--a slam-dunk success substantively and in photo-op terms (Obama laughing with Petraeus in the helicopter was the best)--hasn't resulted in a polling bump. The emerging conventional wisdom seems to be that the trip is a bit too grand, too...presumptuous and voters are wary of that. (And presumption, of course, always comes with the subterranean tinge of racism.) Maybe so.

But I have another theory. People may be thinking, what on earth is Obama doing over there when we have so many problems back home? Why isn't he talking about the economy? No doubt, the Obama staff figured they needed this week abroad to establish the image of Obama as a potential Commander-in-Chief...and, no doubt, he will turn to the economy--a Democratic strength, according to the polls--when he gets home. But I wouldn't be surprised if Obama is paying a price for vamping about overseas while banks are cratering, gas prices soar and people are getting really, really nervous about their futures.

I like how Joe Klein notes that presumption comes with a tinge of racism. Is there nothing racist to a liberal?

Codyed, #51: "So Obama is campaigning for the American presidency in Germany, and the Germans seem to be lapping it up."

While the French and the Brits are Not Amused. Popularity contest? :-P
Lapping it up isn't the right word. Well, maybe for the two teenagers they interviewed before Obama came on-stage, and who were clearly starstruck ;-). Today's press review made it clear that people were actually listening to what he said. And beside all the feel-good messages (climate protection, co-operation, etc.), there was one thing that I actually expected him to say: More Germans to the Afghan Front (now, that is something unpopular over here).
Which, I felt, was the only thing with real substance in this speech. But then I didn't expect him to present his government programme to this crowd.
"This all seems very odd to me, especially the part about an American politician campaigning in Germany."

Actually, I didn't see the American voters as the direct addressees of this speech. This was a tour to get a feeling of the realities over here (and elsewhere) and to get some face-to-face time with the leaders.
Of course, seeing 100,000 Germans gathering to listen to what Mr Obama has to say, does send a message to the American voters. But it is not about home affairs, but rather about his image as someone people abroad would listen to.

Deutsche Welle radio has a press review of German newspapers in English: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3511159,00.html
And an opinion piece from Deutsche Welle: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3511276,00.html
Leader: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3511945,00.html

Word of the Day: Former US-Ambassador to Berlin, John Kornblum, when interviewed on TV: "This is a mixture of {World Cup} fan mile and church congress." Bwhahaha! That about sums it up! But there were no Bratwurst and no beer to be had... (essential to every big event over here).

Girl, I saw your face in the crowd, but couldn't quite pick you out.

I think the reason Obama is having such a problem separating from McCain in the polls is the people who respond to these polls at this early (yes, early) date is:

1) Political junkies (us) are the only ones paying attention right now and for the most part have already made up our minds

and

2) People who are not paying attention yet think John McCain of 2000 is running. So when asked who they like, John McCain (oh, yeah the straight talk express guy, he was pretty good) or Barack Obama (Huh?) will tend to answer McCain.

I think after the conventions and the real beginning of the political season we'll get a clearer picture (I hope) of where everything really stands.

It's almost four months until election day. If the American public does not know who these candidates are by now, then they simply have not been paying attention. Hopefully, however, they won't vote and we'll all be better off.

Not paying attention is how we got eight years of BushCo.

>60 geneg:

We "got" Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush for similar reasons, called an election. The losing side always thinks that the result was a result of electoral inattention. (Speaking of which, I'd guess Nader voters were more "attentive" than the average US voter, so so much for that.) This sort of "if only the Czar knew" argument is just a partisan mind's reaction to the cognitive dissonance of knowing they're right and still not winning elections.

Here's an example of why the peace generated by the "surge" is tenuous at best.

There seem to be more states in play and they'll tend to be Republican states from the last elections if for no other reason than there are more of them. The Democrats overall seem to have the advantage raising money in just about all areas and the GOP has almost twice as many Senate seats to protect and many retirements in both the house and the Senate. I think there may be some concern among the Democrats that Obama has not really been able to widen his lead over McCain--even so it's his election to lose and the dems almost newly devised 50 state strategy for the most part seems to be bringing in results. As for what stage we are at as per the campaigns--we're not yet really being inundated with political ads--at least not in NYS--which is as safe a state for the Democratic party as could be. Some people do not start coming around until the barrage of ads start coming--so just my opinion but the real show has yet to begin.

codyed>

I can't believe you take this fluff seriously--this nonsense that either McCain or Obama present now in the soft days of summer.

The truth is, nothing they're saying or doing right now is really important--they're just killing time and filling time, taking free publicity time from news programs that literally have NOTHING to talk about at this time of year. This is where shark attack stories and "how to avoid getting scammed while on vacation" stories come from in July and August--the need to fill 30 minutes with something other than, "well, it's hot again TODAY..."

Even if real campaigning didn't start until after Labor Day, nine weeks of being bombarded with ads and reactions and photo ops is way more than most short-attention spanners can handle. Nothing from these few weeks will even be remembered once vp's are selected, conventions start, etc.

Obama's popularity in Germany (and, I am sure, everywhere else in the world), especially among young people, should count in his favor with American voters, when they decide which candidate is best to for the advancement of American interests abroad.

If you believe that it doesn't matter what those foreigners think, then this will not make any difference to you.

And, of course, how popular an American president is (and thus how much support or at least benign neutrality his foreign policy can garner among non-Americans) is subordinate to what that foreign policy will be.

My own belief is that the actual foreign policy practice of Obama and McCain would not be very different. Neither of these men will make the bomb-'em-now, or the America-is-the-cause-of-the-world's-problems crowds happy.

My own hope is that if Obama does become President, one of the things he is able to do is to persuade the Germans to rediscover the magnificent traditions of the Wehrmacht, and let them start being real soldiers in Afghanistan.

Ahem, the traditions of the Wehrmacht were not all that magnificient....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht

Of course, the Bundeswehr is different, and I suppose they need to take some more responsibility in Afghanistan. Currently the German army has about 7500 personnel in peace-keeping missions, from Bosnia, Afghanistan to the coast of Lebanon.

Leaving the current Obama Grand Tour aside, I don't see how McCain gets credit for being stronger on defense and world affairs. Surely this is not based on his five or six years in the Hanoi Hilton. My guess is he got precious little information of any kind, much less a foreign policy education there and the closest he comes to foreign policy I can see is his service on the Armed Services Committee. Not exactly where I would go for foreign policy expertise. Hopefully, the armed forces are not driving the foreign policy of America.

My concern grows daily with regard to McCain's mental fitness for the job. He seems to make a new gaffe almost daily. Yeah, Barack misspeaks from time to time as well, but generally when speaking extemporaneously, something we all do. Although, I will say his gaffes are of the type that come from brain racing ahead of mouth more than misunderstanding the basics of a situation. How enjoyable it is to watch someone speak without seeing on his face the wheels and gears turning while talking to me as if I were a poor, benighted little boy who just needs daddy to tell him what's going on.

McCain on the other hand worries me. The things he says are either from ignorance or forgetfulness. We already have a president eat up with the dumb shits, we don't need another. At McCain's age (yes, it is an issue and should be an issue, not just the years, but what the years do) we can't really afford a guy who might give away the store because he forgot to lock it.

As for the Germans, I agree with Doug. No matter what you think of German militarism, they do seem to know how to field an Army and should be brought into the community of nations from which the world can draw for support in times of trouble.

It's time Europe stood up for themselves. It has cost the US an incredible amount of lives and treasure to be the military arm for peace and protection and the major European nations (except for Britain, they stand up as well) need to recognize this fact. What's going to happen when Russia and China come calling with their armies. Is Europe, especially France, going to duck and cover while America and Britain once more stand in the breech? Even Lichtenstein should be able to afford a battalion or two.

Poem from the Islands for Obama

. all the buntings, waving from the galleries
like strands of froth from waves
rolling shorewards

. all the anticipation-
the man in front the ocean
the ocean of tears of we who hope

. the moment of asassination
arrives just before the adulation of Caesar
the adulation of Christ

in modern times

in America

in the middle of the talk of many typing fingers.

O save this man from America.

(c) James C. Aboud

This is for beatles and anyone else who get their news from Fox News. Admittedly there is a lot of Olberspin and using Air America's Rachel Maddow as a commentator might be off-putting if you swing that way, but here Scott McClellan admits the Administration used Fox News to disseminate their "Talking Points" to the nation. This is propaganda, pure and simple.

Here. Once again, this is MSNBC, but don't let that put you off, they're reporting and letting you decide. These are just two of the many reasons you do yourself a disservice by relying on Fox News for information.

#67 I think the gaffes on foreign borders and nations you get from McCain and Bush are part of a pattern in the Republican Party (Rumsfeld comes to mind as well), which is to treat the rest of the world with disdain and disinterest (unless they have oil). Which leads to the great results we have seen in the last eight years. McCain is just continuing this 'proud tradition', with predictable results if he becomes president.

That things can be different was demonstrated by Obama this week.

Yapete: In the Second World War the Wehrmacht, generalled by Nazis, did indeed do some terrible things. But prior to that, their behavior was not outside European norms, which have themselves improved. Or rather, not outside those norms more than any other European army. And, although at this point in history it is not my intention to add to anything that lowers esteem for the American military, I would suggest, discreetly, that anyone wanting a full understanding of war and the military should study our actions in subduing the Phillipines.

In any case, as you say, the Bundeswehr is something different, and a more extensive involvement by it in combatting the medievalist barbarians in Afghanistan might go some way to atoning for any crimes committed by its predecessor.

More on Obamamania

Well, since Obama isn't getting any separation from McCain in the polls, I'd say someone doesn't love him.

Maybe Obama shares something in common with Reagan: the ability to inspire his followers more so than other candidates (i.e., McClinton) inspire their followers. Like Reagan, Obama has mastered political imagery and the power of an optimistic vision of what the USA can be. Unlike Reagan, who had the backing of the Moral Majority and other New Right grassroots organizations, he doesn't have a ready-made social movement backing his candidacy.

I hope that's all he shares with Reagan.

>75 geneg: On that I will totally agree with you!

I can't believe people would vote for McCain. Isn't 8 years of this %$%#$#! enough? Granted McCain maybe slightly better than Bush, but he still needs to cozy up to his party's roots (and he is already doing that, the days of the 'maverick' are over), so help us all when he gets in. The economy will tank completely, and we'll probably be attacking Iran before long (or at least stay in Iraq forever). I also don't see him solving problems in health insurance or energy independence. What is wrong with people?

I beg everyone to register as an independent to vote against the idiots in charge. One of the party candidates will still when and you can still vote for one of them but a statement should be made about partisan behavoir. FOX News always drove me nuts and now CNN seems as bad. I can't stand the insanity, please help! Register as an indpendent. Stop being a tool. I don't think either candidate knows a plug nickel about the economy so, we will probably be stuck with a bush league economy.