Stability?  Ha!  Here's a headline from  a year ago from Obama-flecting MSNBC: "Obama: Don't stay in Iraq over genocide."  www.msnbc.msn.com/.../19862711

Anyone who thinks "stability" in a place like Iraq can be divorced from military strength is living in a fool's paradise. We have no business in the role of Baghdad P.D., but there's going to be a significant military role for the US in Iraq that Obama will hand off to his successor, Take it to the bank.

There's a difference between short-term stability and long-term stability.  A military presence can help achieve the former, but not the latter, since it doesn't address the underlying issues that make Iraq unstable in the first place.  It can buy you time, but in essence it deals with the symptoms, rather than the disease.

In any case, Obama was careful to leave himself some room on this one.  The goal is still to get out as quickly as circumstances reasonably allow, but he's said from the beginning that we have to be careful about how we do it, that whole line about having to be "as careful getting out as we were careless getting in."

Interesting question (for both candidates): how will we know when we can reasonably leave, i.e. what do "winning" (McCain) and "being careful" (Obama) actually mean?  It seems that the level of violence isn't a particularly useful indicator; when violence is high, we can't leave for fear that the situation will degenerate into civil way, and when violence is low, we can't leave for fear of jeopardizing the progress that we've made.  So what do we look for?

From daily kos, where one of the diarists points out Obama's statements on troop levels:  www.dailykos.com/.../6397

I'm not seeing where Obama declared that he is going to throw Iraq to the wolves, here:

“Nobody is proposing we leave precipitously. There are still going to be U.S. forces in the region that could intercede, with an international force, on an emergency basis,”

“Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,"

Then there are these two beauties, which are obviously just more of those pesky nuances which must simply be discarded outright.

“There’s no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there.”

“It is my assessment that those risks are even greater if we continue to occupy Iraq and serve as a magnet for not only terrorist activity but also irresponsible behavior by Iraqi factions,”

I think this is what really separates Obama from McCain, though:

“When you have civil conflict like this, military efforts and protective forces can play an important role, especially if they’re under an international mandate as opposed to simply a U.S. mandate. But you can’t solve the underlying problem at the end of a barrel of a gun,”

Goddamn, coming on this board is making me insane. Is there any consideration for the wishes of the Iraq people and their elected leadership in a discussion of Iraq? Does this talk of "stability," and "victory," and "taking it to the bank" include a realistic appraisal of how the next election in Iraq will affect the American presence?

Ultimately, if there are American troops in Iraq (130k McCain or 50k Obama), whether Iraq is wisely or poorly governed, whether the Iraqis choose to ally themselves closely with Iran, whether the democratically elected government of that country decides to reconcile with the Sunni or relegate them to an impoverished, rump-state financed by neighboring Sunni nations will be decided by the Iraqis. It’s going to happen, they will assert themselves in ways that have nothing to do with our definition of stability or victory. There is endless bandwidth dedicated to how this affects the US elections and limitless parsing of what “a 100 years” means, but not a word about the wishes of the Iraqi people or leadership. Unbelievable.

This Wilsonian nonsense has got to be squared with the realities in Iraq and the Middle East. Otherwise, fuse this blog with the Cook Political Report and give up on any discussion of foreign policy.

AlanSP  said

"Interesting question (for both candidates): how will we know when we can reasonably leave, i.e. what do "winning" (McCain) and "being careful" (Obama) actually mean?"

Obama words don't really matter. They are just words. You can interpret  them anyway you want. He will always point you later to the fine print that invalidates a impressions that he was trying to create in his previous speech.

McCain is clear. He see no reason to leave  When did we win in Korea, Japan, Germany, Kuwait, Italy, Philippines?  US has 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries. Why doers the Left want to remove all US military presence in Iraq?  

Jacob,

As I've pointed out on this board for nearly two years, this isn't our decision, it's theirs.

www.reuters.com/.../idUSL0353522920080707

It's both their and our decision.

mpatrick: are you joking?  You *believed* Colin Powell when he said "you break it, you bought it"?!  Come on now, five years is enough time for those snivling Iraqi parents and their kids to spine-up and demand that their leaders stop the violence.  If they can't and ask us to stay and we leave anyway and a genocide takes place, the world will surely put the blame at their feet, where it belongs!  After all, we've got retiring baby boomers to pamper.  

ps - re that article, this isn't the first time Maliki has made noises to the effect of "real soon we're going to ask the U.S. to leave" -- I think it's more for Iraqi public consumption than a prediction of what's going to happen.  But I'm happy to be proved wrong!

"It's both their and our decision. "

It is the sole decision of the duely elected officials of the Iraqi government; we can negotiate for some stuff, but nothing more. We have no business attempting to rule other countries (by proxy or otherwise), even if we did "free" them from their dictator.

What's funny is that if you go on Salon.com you'll find people who have been arguing (angrily) for months - based on various statements he's made - that Obama's never had any real intention of withdrawing right away regardless of the "situation."  

Of course, Obama's statments on this subject are and have always been very "political" - and he's super good at that.  My own confidence in Obama isn't at all tied to how quickly he'll get our troops out, but with how quickly and how drastically he'll make a sharp and clean break with Bush's ME policies in general.  If he lays out a new approach to the situation that makes sense, I'd be willing to grant Obama as much time as necessary.  I don't expect any candidate to honestly lay out thier specific plans before they're elected, but I trust Obama to make wise decisions.  Or at least I trust him more than McCain or any other Republican.  

GSpinks,

We can decide to leave even if they asked as to stay. Obama seems to suggest that this is what he is going to do. On another hand, we should pay no attention to his words.

Do you trust any Democrat more than any Republican or do you have any specific reason to trust Obama  words?

newdex, fair enough, but why?  What is  it in Obama's background, personal hisory, whatever - that makes you believe that he will make wise decisions?

Maybe he will, and if he's President, I hope he will, but I have a hard time with what I consider to be blind faith in someone with practically no resume at all.

So, why?

Jacob,

Wrong. It's their decision. If their elected government asks us to leave, we leave. That's a fact, not an opinion.

lymon,

Try reading the link before typing something. It might help.

In any event, the fact that the Iraqi government has "made noises" in the past is precisely the point. Explicitly saying there needs to be an American exit for "public consumption" would seem to fly contrary to your assertion that they are asking "us to stay."

The inevitability of being politely invited to leave Iraq has been obvious for more than a year. If we had given them the weapons systems (mostly heavy armor) that they have been asking for, it's likely they would have already done so. That's not a coincidence. In any event, it's likely to be the elected government of Iraq that would be responsible for a systematic pattern of violence, or as your call "genocide, which it wouldn't be, if we left.

That's democracy, kids. Get used to it.

jacob writes,

"McCain is clear. He see no reason to leave  When did we win in Korea, Japan, Germany, Kuwait, Italy, Philippines?  US has 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries. Why doers the Left want to remove all US military presence in Iraq? "

A few points.  First, to answer those questions, see here www.heritage.org/.../cda04-11.cfm

I particular this chart www.heritage.org/.../chart5_1.gif and this one www.heritage.org/.../chart6_1.gif

What you'll notice is that while we kept residual troops in all of those places for a long time, those residual troops levels are dramatically lower than the levels during active conflict.  My question was not about removing of every single soldier from Iraq.  Neither McCain nor Obama wants to do that.  But like almost every other international conflict we've been involved in, we will at some point remove most of our forces from Iraq.  McCain does not plan to keep troops at current levels indefinitely.  My question for the two candidates is what they'd need to see in order for that type of reduction in troop levels to happen (in Obama's case, it might be better to ask what he would have to see in order to delay that reduction).

Butchie:  Read the June 12 Cass Sunstein post in the Open University.  That will give you a part of my answer to the question you ask.  Aside from my negative impression of his opponent (hot-headed, light wieght, etc.), I support Obama because he has impressed me as a man of reason with a cool and thoughtful demeanor and a capacity to inspire.  I draw these impressions from his books, from his speeches, from the way he has run this campaign, and from the comments of people I have long admired like Prof. Sunstein.  I could be wrong about the guy, but I don't think so.

Anyway, resumes are over-rated.  The guy belongs in the majors.

jacob, I'm still waiting for them to ask us to stay. From what I've seen in the news, they'll barely be able to tolerate minimal troop levels (of any kind), and only if the soldiers keep their noses really clean.

Medic in famous photo dies after PTSD struggle

www.armytimes.com/.../military_suicidedwyer_070308w

Butchie B: Not blind trust.  More like cautiously optimistic trust.  

There's not a resume in the world that could "prove" a person has the wisdom to handle the ME wisely.  But Obama's proved himself a quick learner and, ultimately, he seems like he has the right principles, in my opinion.  

I know this is very vague, but I think it comes down to basic ideas about the role of American power in the world. McCain, like Bush and most conservatives, want to see America as mayor/policeman of the New World Order, whereas Obama is willing to see America more as a cooperative senior partner.  I think Obama not only wants to change that attitude but - possibly - can change it.  

butchie asks, "What is  it in Obama's background, personal hisory, whatever - that makes you believe that he will make wise decisions?"

Personally, one of the big reasons that I believe he will make wise decisions is that he uses a process that is conducive to making wise decisions.  See Cass Sunstein's article blogs.tnr.com/.../obama-the-university-of-chicago-democrat.aspx and the piece that Noam wrote a while back about his policy team www.tnr.com/.../story.html

The fact that he seeks out other viewpoints, and recognizes that good ideas don't exclusively come from people ideologically aligned with him is a plus.  The fact that he's intelligent enough to evaluate the ideas he hears on their merits is another.

It's worth considering how much a legislative record can really tell you about someone's decision-making ability in the first place.  Sure, there's the occasional vote that's actually an important decision (e.g. whether to authorize a war), but these are few and far between.  What does McCain's record as a Senator really tell you about his ability to make good decisions?  It can inform you about what his positions are (or at least what they historically were), but it doesn't tell you a whole lot about his ability to make good decisions when it's solely up to him.

"What does McCain's record as a Senator really tell you about his ability to make good decisions?"

Well, the fact that McCain is voting against the McCain-Feingold bill is pretty telling if you ask me... :)

AlanSP  said:

"What does McCain's record as a Senator really tell you about his ability to make good decisions? "

"The fact that he seeks out other viewpoints, and recognizes that good ideas don't exclusively come from people ideologically aligned with him is a plus.  The fact that he's intelligent enough to evaluate the ideas he hears on their merits is another."

There millions people including you  and McCain who recognize that good ideas don't exclusively come from people ideologically aligned with them.  Somehow we need to choose a person to lead the country from millions of such people.

"What does McCain's record as a Senator really tell you about his ability to make good decisions? "

He advocated the surge that saved this country from the inevitable biggest strategic defeat in the American history, while Obama was not able to recognize  that good ideas don't exclusively come from people ideologically aligned with him. He aligned himself with convention wisdom and he didn't support the surge.

mpatrickhendri, great posts. People like Jacob are woefully ignorant of history, countries with colonial history chafe at any kind of occupation unless it is absolutely necessary for their survival. Turkey was once a colonizer, they had their empire so feel secure in their own prestige to allow US bases, Kuwait is a small kingdom beset by far larger neighbors, they need US troop presence. NATO, of course, is a partnership of equals and for years served as a counterweight to the Soviet bloc. South Korea is still technically at war.

Iraq will never accept a long term US troop presence (unless it is in Kurdistan which is beset by the much larger Arab world around it). You can take that to the bank. As soon as the Arab Iraqis feel they don't need us they will kick us out. The only question is will we remain in Kurdistan in large numbers or small.

And don't forget, we are not really training the Iraqi military, they have no jet fighters in their airforce and we won't sell them any advanced weaponry, we are trying to keep them dependent on us but why? I supported the surge specifically so that the Iraqi army could be equipped and trained as a proper army so that we could then leave. Now that oil is so expensive how long will it be before the Iraqis say to the US screw you we will buy weapons from the Russians or French.

"He advocated the surge that saved this country from the inevitable biggest strategic defeat in the American history" that is one of the dumbest things I have read in a long time, again no sense of history.

Does anyone believe in 15 years Iraq will be a liberal Democracy? We are just delaying the inevitable.

We won the war when we got Saddam out of his spider hole, if we packed up and left that would have sent a far more serious message to the Arab world. The chinese have a saying, kill the chicken and show the monkey. We break it we bought it? Hell no, that is honorable bullshit, the key is to break it and then walk away saying we can break it again anytime we want if you screw with us. Our problem is we killed the chicken then tried to make love to the monkey, rather confusing message.

Blackton,

What about Japan, Germany or Saudi Arabia, Philippine

Anyway, if at some point Iraqi decide that they don't need any American troops, we would leave.

Japan and Germany were conquered after WW2, there was no way we were going to leave. The Philippines we were asked to leave, and we did. Don't forget we fought a war against Spain to gain it, and then fought a long term rebellion, had to fight the Japanese and at the end of WW2 we gave it up.

As to the bases there, when the Philippinos asked us to leave Republicans were all up in arms about it, but in the end it doesn't matter, we left and now Subic bay is something else entirely. Saudi Arabia is a special case of course, we aren't welcome there but are necessary to protect the Saudi princes and their oil. The restrictions US troops face there is beyond anything anywhere else. And let us not forget Panama, the country would not exist without us having created it from Colombia, then we built the canal, and still they kicked us out, and we left. Did the Panama canal fall apart or become Commie? No. Did Republicans act as though that were the greatest defeat in American history? Yes.

"Does anyone believe in 15 years Iraq will be a liberal Democracy?"

Was South Korea   a liberal Democracy 15 years after the war?

"We are just delaying the inevitable."

Yes we can bring stability to Iraq and prevent  inevitable. Yes we can.

blackton,

I don't see what's your point. If Iraqis  ask as to leave we would. The question was in 2006, cut loses and leave or start surge.  Obama wanted to get out, McCain wanted to fight. Now, Obama wants to obscure his position and his predictions about surge. He also tries to obscure his future plans about Iraq.

"What does McCain's record as a Senator really tell you about his ability to make good decisions? "

It says he was a good pal with Phil Gramm from Texas.  Shutter!!  If you lked the subprime crisis, you will absolutely love the American economy under Treasury Secretary Phil Gram.

"He advocated the surge that saved this country from the inevitable biggest strategic defeat in the American history"

A couple points.  First, McCain wasn't the one who made the decision on this; Bush was, even if McCain supported him.  The surge would have happened with or without McCain on board.  That's sort of my point; Senators pretty much never have the choice fall solely to them.  You think everyone who supported the surge would make a good President?

Second, on what exactly are you basing the claim that leaving Iraq would have led to "the inevitable biggest strategic defeat in the American history"?  Want to say the surge has had success? Fine, that's certainly a view that can be supported by evidence.  But the hypothetical defeat you're talking about is pure speculation on your part.  Am I saying that everything would have been just fine if we had gotten out in 2006? Nope.  I'm saying we really can't say a whole lot about how it would have turned out.  There are a couple results that you can logically infer (e.g. U.S. casualties in Iraq would have gone down, since you can't be killed in Iraq if you are not in Iraq), but there's not much you can directly infer what the big picture in Iraq would look like now if we had started leaving in 2006.  You can try to make an argument to support your conclusion that leaving would have been a disaster, but you don't seem to be inclined to do so.

Jacob - Since when do we let foreign countries dictate what we do with our army?

It is the army of the United States of America.  If we want out, we get out and to hell with what the Iraqi government thinks.  The boys dying in Iraq (29 last month) are American citizens and the Iraqi government should have no say in whether our citizens live or die.  

And here I thought conservatives were against having our forces be commanded by foreigners.

Did we ask the Haitians or the Lebanese or the South Vietnamese whether we should leave?  If we had, would our troops still be there?  No, we decided to leave (despite massive instability in Haiti and Lebanon which continues until today and despite outright defeat in Vietnam) because we did not want our troops in harms way and because we were accomplishing nothing useful by being there.  Sounds like Iraq to me.

Leaving Iraq is not defeat and it certainly would not be "biggest strategic defeat in the American history".  It cannot be defeat because victory has not been defined.  By all reasonable definitions of victory, the toppling of Saddam Hussein is victory.  There is no other possible victory or defeat in Iraq.  The toppling of the Hitler regime defined victory in Europe in WWII not the emergence of a stable democratic regime in a part of the defeated Germany 10 years later.  Otherwise, I guess we lost WWII because a totalitarian regime emerged over 1/3 of the country and ruled for 44 years.

Anyway, the actual defeat in Vietnam and the non-victory in Korea were both bigger strategic events than a departure from Iraq would be.

Finally, it is actually impossible prevent something which is inevitable.

"It is the army of the United States of America.  If we want out, we get out and to hell with what the Iraqi government thinks"

Sure we can. The question is was it the right decision to get out in 2006 as Obama advocated.

So far none of you answered this question.

"The toppling of the Hitler regime defined victory in Europe in WWII not the emergence of a stable democratic regime in a part of the defeated Germany 10 years later. "

Stable union of Democracies in W. Europe defined victory in Europe in WWII.

AlanSP  said

"You can try to make an argument to support your conclusion that leaving would have been a disaster, but you don't seem to be inclined to do so."

Do I have to? Isn't this obvious by now?

Yes, it was the right decision to get out in 2006.  Iraq would be more stable today had we done so.  Iraq would be closer to being able to govern itself if we had gotten out in 2006.  And, not incidentally, thousands of lives would have been saved.  And, we could have prevented the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistand (although I have my doubts whether this administration actually would have done so).

No, victory in WWII was not defined be stable democracies in W.Europe and certainly not by a union of democracies.  Are you arguing that WWII would have been lost without the creation of the EU?

This is a truly weird re-writing of history.  Last I checked Roosevelt and Churchill believed that they had been victorious and both died long before the EU was created.  I also don't remember any historical references wherein the Allies claimed that they were fighting for democracy in Western Europe only.  Maybe you could point these out to me.

I agreed with blackie that we should have bailed after the capture of Saddam, and for about the same reason he cites. But I was wrong.

That strategy could, and probably would have worked if the CIA had been doing its job, which is to say working to establish a viable transition of power to credible Iraqi leaders on the ground instead of going along with completely disbanding the remnants of the Iraqi state while chasing will-of-the-wisp wmd's in support of domestic American political concerns. We could just as easily have had an "Anbar awakening" in 2004.  Given the appalling ineptitude of the occupation, it seems to me entirely likely that had we simply left then, the ruthless,  well-financed, and capably led AQI would have established solid long-term operating infrastructure, if not effectively taken over the state. Far from being "more stable today" and "saving thousands of lives", Iraq would probably be in the hands of the enemy today after a bloodbath that would have eclipsed even the horror that occurred.

People should note that "the Surge" is over. It has been true all along that within reason the exact number of troops is far less important than what they are tasked with doing. If we had been doing in 2003-04 what we've been doing for the last year, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Going forward it seems extremely unlikely that we're going to be in a direct combat role under any likely circumstances. On the other hand, we are quite likely to be the de facto Iraqi airforce for quite some time, complete with supporting infrastructure. This will be no more an "occupation" than what we currently have in places like Turkey,  Okinawa and South Korea, and the particulars of the agreement will probably look very similar to the ones we have in those places.

Great posts Blackton, RP, Jacob, Butchie - et all.  You're all much more informative than the media.  

My uncle, a wise Butchie-esque retired engineer said to me last nignt "Darlin, nothing is more silly than watching you liberals start in with your bodice ripping.."

I repeat ad naseum JFK's term for the lefty bodice rippers: suicidal bastards.  In this case, arrogant too - as if they own Obama, as if he doesn't have to be President of the whole country, not just them (something Bush was too dense and arrogant to grasp and has paid dearly - Obama gets that).  

Thursday morning I go to a fund raiser here in NY for Obama, Hillary is supposed to speak - I don't mean to be petty, but I was disappointed when I found out she'd be there.  They told us THAT part after they sold the tickets.  

Normally, I'd jump at the chance to catch a speech by a big shot like her over breakfast near my work, one of the perks of living in Gotham I guess.  But the problem is, the speech is  in front of the "Women for Obama" section of the DNC, and I feel my hackels going up.  If she starts in with the victimology stuff, she will create alot of resentment.  I don't think she'll do that, she's been quite the stateswoman I remember these last weeks and I really appreciate it.  Will let you all know how it goes.    

gennitydo said:,

"Yes, it was the right decision to get out in 2006.  Iraq would be more stable today had we done so."

Obama is a weak man. He's afraid  to agree with you . You don't see his saying anything like this anymore

"Are you arguing that WWII would have been lost without the creation of the EU? "

I'm  arguing that WWII would have been lost if US abandoned Europe and let USSR to extend it's empire to all Europe

Thanks, Wandrey, we do try.  Good luck with HRC.

I have a friend - USAF Colonel just deployed to Qatar, who believes that we'll have about 5 combat brigades in Iraq by the end of 2009, to stay indefintely.  Regardless of who wins in Nov.

See rp's comments above - this will not be an "occupation" because soon we shall have a SOFA, negotiated by 2 sovereign nations.  Just like we do in Turkey, Japan, et al.

Going forward, Iraq has a chance to be, if not a democracy as we would prefer, not a violent anti-American dictatorship, dedicated to the suppession and murder of its own people.  I would consider that to be a strategic victory, and credit goes to Petraeus and company who broke the code of Iraqi society in the nick of time.

The fact remains that in Jan 2008, Sen. Obama said that the surge would not, and indeed, could not work.  I guess it depends on how you define  "work" but we're far better off today.  And so are the Iraqis.

yeesh Jacob, Iraq is not Europe. It is impossible to know what would have happened if we had left in 2006, but why single out only his opposition to the surge, where was McCain in 2003 yelling and screaming that there were not enough troops going there, and why did he not at least threaten to vote no unless there were enough troops? McCain started to support the idea of the surge pretty damn late, how many Americans died because he did not lead a Republican revolt against Bush's handling of the war? You have a very one sided view of history based on your disappointment of Hillary's losing.

I am not saying McCain is bad, or wrong to have supported the surge. I supported the surge myself but the reasons I supported, so that the Iraqi army could be truly equipped and ready to stand on its own, is not being done. Bush hopes to keep the Iraqi government helpless, as of now I have no idea what both McCain and Obama will do about arming the Iraqis. 16 months is more than enough time to arm them to the point that no insurgency would stand a chance. In WW2 we went from a 100,000 man army to a 10 million man one in about a year. You are telling me it will take a decade to adequetly train and equip the Iraqis? Let us also not forget the Iraqis fought a major war just a generation ago, it is not like the Iraqi people are hopeless.

blackton said

"McCain started to support the idea of the surge pretty damn late, how many Americans died because he did not lead a Republican revolt against Bush's handling of the war? "

At least he did. Obama never did.

" I supported, so that the Iraqi army could be truly equipped and ready to stand on its own, is not being done. "

First you need to make sure that there is a Iraq, then you can equip the Iraqi army with advance weapons.

jacob, six years to equip and train the Iraqi Army, how truly incompetent can we be? Anyway, Maliki is now demanding a timeline for withdrawal and Bush is pushing back basically punting until next year.

I am not saying there won't be troops in Iraq, but they will be in Kurdistan. You are still ignoring the main point, the surge was designed so that the Iraqis could get their shit together, not least militarily. If they don't (or if we don't arm and train them) then the surge would have been a disaster, a huge waste of taxpayer dollars and soldiers lives.

And of course Iraq would exist regardless, don't be ridiculous. If we had left there would have been a short, sharp and bloody civil war and sectarian cleansing. The Shias would have won and the Kurds as well, the Sunnis would have been driven to their own areas and you would have Bosnia all over again, but Bosnia still exists.

The simple fact is that the Arabs in Iraq don't want us there to pretend otherwise is indulging in wishful thinking (like the kind where we would be greeted as liberators).

I still believe in the end that both McCain and Obama will do pretty much the same thing, and that is to begin withdrawing most troops and keep the rest in Kurdistan and Kuwait, with US advisers (special forces too) in the rest of Iraq.

Again, you ignore the fact that the surge has not been a success nor is it a failure, we won't know for a few years at least. Perhaps it has done nothing more than to buy time at considerable cost to the US taxpayer, or perhaps it was right, we simply have to admit it is too early to say. To say Obama was wrong is to engage in a counterfactual, you simply have no way of knowing what would have occurred if we left then.

blackton  said,

"o say Obama was wrong is to engage in a counterfactual, you simply have no way of knowing what would have occurred if we left then."

We don't know anything for sure. We can't do double blinded studies.

We imply have no way of knowing what would have occurred if we left Saddam in power and not to start the war.

"I still believe in the end that both McCain and Obama will do pretty much the same thing, and that is to begin withdrawing most troops and keep the rest in Kurdistan and Kuwait, with US advisers (special forces too) in the rest of Iraq."

You don't need to believe about McCain. He is telling you what he is going to do.

You have no way to know what're Obama intentions . I don't know what're your base for predicting Obama intentions.

"Petraeus and company who broke the code of Iraqi society" Is this a joke? Petraus and company did no such thing. They simply did what had been advocated six-months before the first shot was fired: Put an adequate number of troops on the ground to hold the peace. Toss in a few hundred miles of blast walls and some well placed bribes - poof, the violence starts to drop. No kidding.

Everyone that knows anything about peace keeping knows that casualties and violence are inversely related to troop levels. Unfortunately, the numbnutts in the Bush Administration denied this obvious fact, including publicly embarrassing and shit-canning anyone who mentioned it until Iraq had descended into utter chaos. Now having reinvented the wheel, we get to hear loud crowing about the brilliance of this tactical success. And now that the Iraqi leadership has said unequivocally that the United States has to set down a timetable for withdrawal, the debate in America has proceeded to "if" we should have a timetable for withdrawal. Good grief.

Why bother pointing out this obvious incongruity, coming on here is like banging my head into a wall.

mpatrickhendri, no buddy, I agree and I complimented you way up top about it. I agree it is kind of circular for us here but you can take some comfort that there are some people who agree with you. Maliki, and the Iraqis, have said for the first time they want a withdrawal timetable and Republicans are completely ignoring it, as though it is some kind of negotiating tactic on their part. After 6 years they still haven't learned anything. I am not sure why Obama isn't pounding them on this.

For the last time Jacob, what McCain says he will do is only half the story, and what he is saying now is directly contradicted by the wishes of the Iraqi government. I said what McCain will do, not what he wants to do. And Obama will do the same since it is what he said he will do and that is withdraw the troops. I don't know how you can insist up is down. Obama and McCain will withdraw troops, only Obama is saying he will.

What is behind Obama's "Iraq pivot," Mr. Crowley, is that Obama along with the Left and the entire Democratic Party leadership (same thing) have been wrong all along on Iraq.  And everything else to do with national defense and security since 1968.  

Obama is now trying to run to the head of the parade of success in Iraq to which neither he nor the Democrats have any right.

He is showing himself to be shameless and contemptible, despite his superb rhetoric.  Makes me ill, these Lefty hypocrites.

re AlanSP, "...Interesting question (for both candidates): how will we know when we can reasonably leave, i.e. what do "winning" (McCain) and "being careful" (Obama) actually mean? "

We can reasonably leave when we depart Korea, German, and Japan.  And we'll know we won when we no longer need M.E. oil and good give a damn what happens there.

Which, of course, will be a hell of a long time, because we have other interests in the M.E., starting with preventing its volatility from destroying Europe.

Trouble is, Europeans are committing suicide by not replicating themselves.

mpatrickhendri  said

"Everyone that knows anything about peace keeping knows that casualties and violence are inversely related to troop levels"

Not everybody. Obama didn't know that in 2006.

blackton  said

"Obama and McCain will withdraw troops, only Obama is saying he will"

Obama doesn't say that he will  withdraw ALL troops only combat troops,

McCain does say that he will withdraw troops.

For Obama, withdrawing troops is the only stated goal, for McCain  withdrawing troops is the result of achieving stability in Iraq.

I trust both McCain and Obama to do about the same thing in Iraq.

We have been transforming our military since the intellectual and institutional foundations for doing so  were laid in the Clinton Administration. Rumsfeld actually put things in motion, and the opening of active fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq have turbocharged the process.

We are past the time of "Little America" bases with Burger Kings, spouses, kids, day-care centers and schools, dogs, churches, etc. We have been relocating to bare-bones "lily-pad" bases. The number of SOFA's with host countries has doubled from the end of the Cold War, and the Air Force signed over 20 comparable gas-and-go agreements with countries in Africa. These arrangements can be compared with the global coaling-station networks of a century ago.

Chan, Obama hasn't made an "Iraq pivot".  It's a fiction bought by fanatics on left and right only.  I agree with your 12:20 post, but not the others. "Winning" and "being careful" in this case mean exactly the same thing.

Keep in mind that this debate about time-lines has itself been going on for years.  Even Obama's 16 month timeline is still two years away from now.  In fact, if recent reports are true, the Iraqi military is stepping up to the plate (Mosul) and the government is consolidatiing.  This supports Obama's plan to withdraw.  If Petraes gpt a few more months for the surge from Bush, he may be giving them back to Obama.  If the 'surge' worked, as McCain says, then we should be able to move out faster.  Obama should co-opt 'the surge worked' and use it against McCain for NOT setting out a plan to withdraw.  horribledictu.com

So, can any of Obama supporters explain his position?

How does he want to change the current strategy or tactic in Iraq?

Are we going in the right direction in Iraq?

CAM2  said:

"Obama should co-opt 'the surge worked' and use it against McCain "

How about Obama should be honest and have his own views?

Yes he should.

jacob, NO one has a silver bullet for Iraq at this point, if there ever was one.

Obama has made it clear repeatedly that he recognizes the strategic importance of Iraq, even if he tends to exaggerate the strategic importance of Afghanistan. He's also made it clear repeatedly that he recognizes our moral responsibility to act in Iraq to prevent chaos and genocide; against terrorist groups; to  protect ourselves while doing so; and to maintain an ongoing working relationship with the elected Iraqi government. He just doesn't think the best way to do that is for us to use the 82nd Airborne as the Baghdad P.D., which seems entirely sensible to me.

TNR.com loves the smell of policy reversals in the morning. This week, John McCain promised to balance