A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
November 21, 2006McCain's Call for More TroopsMuch has been made of Senator McCain's recent call for and additional 20,000 troops in Iraq, which really he has been saying for going on three years. I agreed with him from the beginning that we didn't have enough troops to adequately prepare for the post-Iraq invasion phase of the war, or as Tully puts it, the nation building that has gone on after the war. I also believe the Senator makes a lot of sense when he says we should be sweeping and holding ground rather than leaving in those areas that insurgencies (and I know we are not calling them that anymore) have held. However, after discussing this issue through the years on this site, I have come to some conclusions. 1. We don't have the troops to increase our numbers in Iraq even if we wanted to, and; On one front, I like what McCain is doing. He is quite possibly the only politician in Washington D.C. that is still talking about victory in Iraq rather than a reasonable solution that justifies failure. Furthermore, his call for more troops goes to the core of what I love about the man in that he often makes his case regardless of its popularity with the American public. That been said, I can't help but wonder if this is an attempt by a Presidential candidate to please the base of his party and rally the troops here at home for the primaries, only to jump on the withdrawal band wagon once he can claim he has "exercised all of his options" and has no other choice. Don't get me wrong, I hope McCain is right. Those who would argue that we need to have a political and not a military solution in Iraq are simply ignoring history IMO. One has never happened without the other, and to rely solely on politics will only mean that we will absolutely fail to complete the mission in Iraq. I hope we do have enough troops to send more and I do think that the best goal is outright victory, as I believe it is vital in regards to our foreign policy and position in the world. I'm just not convinced it is possible and am not willing to watch Americans die continuing to hope for what is never going to happen. This country has done that once before and we do not need to go there again. Posted by Starbucks Republican at November 21, 2006 12:18 PMComments
McCain has never been a Commander,and a lot of Generals disagree with him.He's no expert on Military tactics as some seem to think.I suggest you read Colonel David Hunt's book," They Just Don't Get It",if you want to learn how we should fight the War on Terror. Posted by: Paul Daly at November 21, 2006 01:09 PMI can't help but wonder if this is an attempt by a Presidential candidate to please the base of his party and rally the troops here at home for the primaries, only to jump on the withdrawal band wagon once he can claim he has "exercised all of his options" and has no other choice.I don't think that would "play" very well "to the base". McCain has said this from the "get-go". If he's playing politics then IMHO he's avoiding the "flip-flop" label that has gotten other Presidential candidates in trouble. I'm intrigued by so many pundits trying to find the "ulterior motive". While we can never know what a candidate is "really thinking". This is just another example of a politician who isn't afraid to say something controversial and keep saying it. I like that (although that alone won't get my vote) Posted by: c3 at November 21, 2006 01:45 PMand a lot of Generals disagree with him However, the alternative that these generals propose is to use the Iraqi army to take the place of additional American forces. As an example, Gen. Ab1zaid, during his Senate testimony, justified the notion that there are enough forces to stabilize Anbar province because the "American plus Iraqi" forces are adequate. This approach would work for a regular insurgency, but right now we have a low level civil war and the Iraqi army is largely affiliated with one side of the civil war and thus are unlikely to earn the trust of the Sunnis. If the Iraqi army fails to win this trust, whatever forces contribution it provides would count for zero or negative, meaning more coalition forces are needed. As for sending between 10 and 20,000, has anyone suggested concentrating them and our diplomatic efforts in Ramadi? It would be a meaning accomplishment that could be done with that amount of troops and success there could be leveraged for political support for the resources needed to stabilize Baghdad. Posted by: Scott Smith at November 21, 2006 02:46 PMMcCain may be reacting to this. Part of me says McCain is simply reacting to the dangers of the very defeatism AQ predicts will happen soon. We are in the middle of the Islamic nexus of extremism and we are acting like we are trapped. If this mess doesn't go directly into the Jihadist pot then maybe Tully is right. It does seem like America suffers from ADD. I think much of the Republican base is isolationist or evangelical. They are not the same as conservative hawks or Internationalists. McCain's stand seems more an appeal to the Reagan crowd and the center which is loath to quit the Middle East and watch our worst nightmares take shape. Take back the tax give away to the richest and build a larger volounteer military, energy independence and homeland security. We'll get the return later on future market share, safety, and lower energy costs. And our adversaries will have to sleep in bunkers for the next decade instead of sweeping into power from Africa to the Far East. Confidence and horsepower often attracts the babes. It will also engage allies as they begin to see the threats to their own propserity and freedoms increase with every new Jihadist bonfire. I'm not sure McCain has much of a tactical plan. I'd keep my eye on what is worse for Iran and Syria in how I would deploy and utilize force. I don't know McCain's plan in dealing with Iran and Syria so there is a long way still to my vote too. Maybe McCain's Iraq stance is linked to his planned preparation to confront any Iranian or Syrian beligerance given the growing possibility of war between these two and Israel. Posted by: Maxtrue at November 23, 2006 01:23 AMI thought this might be the place to post the following quotes, lest everyone forget what Democrats and Republicans were spouting before we invaded Iraq. The belief that Saddam had nukes ready to deliver was not the central worry. At least McCain has been somewhat consistent. > "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that > >> "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
> >> "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
> >> "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
> >> "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
> >> "[W]e urge you,after consulting with Congress,and consistent with the > >> "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass > >> technology which is a threat to countries in the region
> >> "Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
> >> "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a > >> "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical > >> "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible > >> "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are > >> "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the > >> "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working > >> "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, > >> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports > >> "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that > >> "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, Max, you left out the best one: We cannot afford to wait for the final proof, which may come in the form of a mushroom cloud. That was GW, Bush in his pro-Iraq invasion speech to the GenPub. Now, a few years down that road, folks are wondering whether we are actually better off. The continued insistence that we MUST stop our enemies from acquiring nukes fails to speak to the question of whether it's actually possible over the long-term. Posted by: bk at November 28, 2006 02:59 PM |
Archives
February 2008
January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Three Quotes
The Choice, Based on Iraq Policy Even More Of A Surprise Castro Bows Out Kosovo Declares Independence Will Obama Take McCain's Funding Dare? Global Poverty Act Preservation Friday Band Taking on Obama Electoral Results Came Out As Expected?!?
|
