You are aware al Qaeda wasn’t even operating in Iraq until we invaded it right?

Which is precisely why it is completely justified, and necessary to fight them there. You have just acknowledged that they attatcked us. They chose to enter Iraq of their own free will and try to annex territory amidst a power vacuum and set up “the Capiphate of Mesopotamia” as they called it, in the meantime they could score points for Allah by killing American soldiers.

It is a similar situation to Somalia in ‘93. We went there to carry out a particular mission against a criminal warlord, Al-qaeda sensed an opportunity and attacked us there. We fled with our tail between our legs and Bin Laden interpreted this as our weakness. He said so himself.

What if we found WMD? Would Al-qaeda say, “oh well, I guess the Americans were right, lets not go to iraq and fight them.”?

“you don’t beat al Qaeda with bombs and bullets”
No mention of short term military goals there. In fact, short-term military goals are exactly what the surge is supposed to accomplish – that has always been clear from its inception. If you think that there are goals that can only be accomplished through military action, you should put those words in your own mouth so that I know what you mean.

I think he said “back it up” because he had to to appeal to ranting extreme left. Maybe I shouldn’t say it out loud, but Obama is a politician.

Yes. I think Obama would have “refined” his position eventually, even if the surge was not ratified by congress, and the violence in Iraq increased. He will not set an arbitrary timetable if president, he will listen to military experts who have been involved with Iraq over the course of the war, and any withdrawal will entirely be conditions based.

A smart, effective counter-terrorism policy requires a blend of short-term military goals and long term human outreach. Barack Obama has displayed to me an understanding of this. John “I Know How to Win Wars” McCain hasn’t.

Barack Obama never said anything about abandoning Iraq. You’re placing words in people’s mouths.

At about the same time Harry Reid said the war was lost, Obama called for immediate withdrawal to be completed by March 2008. This was at the peak of violence in Iraq. Consequences of withdrawal was not an issue then, but I have to say Obama has gone all over the map on this one, and now he is even quoted as saying that leaving troops in Iraq would be “entirely conditions-based”. What the hell am I supposed to believe? Hope? Change? zzz….

Any counter-terrorism expert worth their salt will explain to you that you don’t beat al Qaeda with bombs and bullets, but with a comprehensive policy that attacks the roots of terrorism (like poverty, inequality, etc.)

Really? So why does Obama want to escalate the war in Afghanistan? He is calling for a troop-surge there, with no exit strategy or timetable for withdrawal. Besides, are you telling me that the reason for the success of the “awakening” was because all of a sudden, poverty and inequality were resolved in Bagdhad? What nonsense. Again from Totten:

. Recruiting for the Iraqi Security Forces in Anbar increased from virtually zero through 2006 to more than 14,000 by mid-2007. As the 2007 surge forces augmented U.S. troops in Anbar and began to change the political dynamic in Iraq, efforts to clear Ramadi and bring overall violence in the province under control also peaked.

.
Sometimes there is a military solution. Especially when thousands of armed thugs are terrorizing entire townships and need to be “cleared” in order to achieve security. You think Colonel Sean MacFarland and the First Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division rolled into
Ramadi to hand out welfare checks to terrorists in order to assuage their anger and resentment?

First, Jimmy: You state that “So abandoning Iraq in the midst of the chaos which has made us more vulnerable would have made the terrorist threat magically disapear [sic]?” This is my favorite internet fallacy: the straw man argument. I never said anything about “abandoning Iraq,” Barack Obama never said anything about abandoning Iraq. You’re placing words in people’s mouths. We are both discussing handing the country over to its sovereign democratic government.

Furthermore, that excellently sourced bit of history is a huge affirmation of a smart counter-terrorism policy. There should be less focus on national occupation and more focus on human out-reach and local partnership. The events at Anbar had nothing to do with troop numbers (the surge wasn’t initiated until early 2007) and everything to do with a non-militaristic counter-terrorism approach. Any counter-terrorism expert worth their salt will explain to you that you don’t beat al Qaeda with bombs and bullets, but with a comprehensive policy that attacks the roots of terrorism (like poverty, inequality, etc.) Barack Obama has spoken at lengths about leaving a residual US force that would do exactly that. I highly recommend you reading “Terror in the Name of God” by Jessica Stern if this kind of stuff interests you.

This leads me to Mr. or Ms. Kritter. Your insistence that we ignore the history of the Iraqi invasion, and those responsible for it (like John McCain) is tantamount of consequentialist intellectualization. To judge the policy makers on their approach of Iraq as it stands, without examining their positions at the time of the invasion, is myopia of the highest order. We cannot look judge our countries’ foreign policy by simply looking at the outcomes. I hold a firmly deontological view that we must take into account the morality of our actions when making judgments of our policy. This leads me to John McCain. As a major player in the initial invasion, I find it impossible to reward him with the presidency.

As a sidenote, I am a bit ruffled that you’d make such assumptions about my political affiliations. I am a registered independent. This isn’t a question of partisanship, but of right and wrong.

I’m happy to agree with you that the decision made by the Bush admin to invade Iraq was at best highly suspect and extremely risky. I didn’t want us to invade Iraq but realized that once the choice was made, it required support. I fail to see today how this decision is in fact, as you put it “the broader issue.” It’s only the broader issue if you’re still obsessing over the fact that your argument and your views did not carry the day 5 years ago. This obseesion is, frankly, tedious. I’m a grown-up, so I know that in the real world if you break it, you bought it. This 5 yr old decision has little bearing on what our policy in regards to Iraq ought to be today.

I expect it (the debate over its alleged righteousness) to inform future policy somehow, yes. But in current calculations, it is simply a given that we invaded. The broad issues now are
1)how do responsibly transfrom/conclude our direct involvement

and

2)how do we approach problems in Iran and Afghanistan and so on.

The solutions to these problems will not be derived by George Bush. They’ll be derived by Barack Obama or John McCain. It’s both tedious and exhausting to me that partisans from either wing continually try to frame these problems by suggesting either that Barack Obama can be relied upon to behave as passively and naively as Jimmy Carter, or that John McCain can be relied upon to act as preciptously and as injudiciously as George Bush 2.

I am left to conclude that political partisanship lowers one’s IQ by somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 to 80 points. The smarter you are, the stupider you get, because all of your intellectual skill is harnessed in the service of special pleading that is expected to lead to the outcome you desire.

First off, you’re completely ignoring all of the other factors that have gone into Iraq’s reduction of violence

First of all, the Awakening itself was initiated by a change in U.S. strategy that preceded the actual increase in troop numbers. When sunni tribes rebelled against Al-qaeda on their own, they were subsequently cut down in some of the worst atrocities that have occured in this conflict. From Michael totten:

Nevertheless, the Marines and Army units in Anbar began a series of quiet efforts to regain control that ultimately led to spectacular and unexpected success. They began to engage local leaders in talks, particularly after al Qaeda committed a series of assassinations and other atrocities against tribal leaders and local civilians as part of an effort to enforce their extreme and distorted vision of Islamic law. U.S. forces under the command of Colonel Sean MacFarland also began a quiet effort to apply the clearing principles honed through operations in Falluja, Sadr City, and Tal Afar to Ramadi.

The troop surge was part of an overall strategy that enabled the Awakening to achieve its success. All of our commanders on the ground believe that, as do all of the Sunni tribal leaders involved.

Multiple government agencies have found that instead of neutralizing the terrorist threat, invading Iraq has actually made us more vulnerable

So abandoning Iraq in the midst of the chaos which has made us more vulnerable would have made the terrorist threat magically disapear? On the contrary, it would have augmented it. Whatever reasons for invading 5 years ago that you want to rehash have become a moot point. If the terrorist threat in Iraq has made us more vulnerable, then we must confront it and destroy it, rather than running from it.

Because when Iraq, the White House and even his opponent all agree that a 16-month withdrawal is, in McCain’s own words, a “pretty good timetable” that’s just fantastic luck.

Remember, Obama’s original timetable he proposed during the Democratic Primary was March 2008. Was that a “pretty good timetable?”

This debate has become pure semantics over the definition of the word “timetable.” Is a flexible, conditions-based withdrawal that begins when Iraqis are capable of defending their country without our assistance, which could be completed within 16 months – altogether any different than what the Bush administration has been pressing all along?

It is not what the democrats have been proposing all along, yet Obama has come to “refine” his position on it so many times, that mw is right and there is no difference between what McCain, ( and Bush for that matter) have proposed as their strategies all along, and what Obama has decided to adopt as his strategy only recently.

Second, we’re still not answering the broader question of invading Iraq in the first place. OVer 4000 servicemen and countless innocent Iraqis have died. Multiple government agencies have found that instead of neutralizing the terrorist threat, invading Iraq has actually made us more vulnerable. You’re really missing the forest for the trees.

And finally, it’s ridiculous how you’re unable to throw Obama a single bone. Because when Iraq, the White House and even his opponent all agree that a 16-month withdrawal is, in McCain’s own words, a “pretty good timetable” that’s just fantastic luck.

Right. No policy acumen there at all.

If the current administration had listened to Obama, Iraq would be a mess and there wouldn’t be any talk of “time horizons” or Iraqi stability. There would be far more casualties in Iraq than Afghanistan; hell, Al-qaeda could have completely relocated to Iraq if they wanted to. We get to leave soon because Obama was wrong and the surge worked.

“And unlike mw, I don’t think this helps McCain since he has been so down on anything having to do with a timetable… – JG

I don’t see how anyone can argue that this does not help McCain. You can argue it won’t help him enough, but he certainly has been helped.

He was saddled with a complete losing issue with his stance on Iraq (What GerryF in another comment accurately called “an albatross around his neck”. 60%+ of the US population want us out. If something did not change, he had zero chance of getting elected. Zero. None. Well something changed. Maliki inadvertently threw him a life line. We are mostly out of Iraq in 2010 regardless of who is president because the Iraqi government is setting the timetable. Without that albatross, he now has a slim chance of getting elected. Going from no possibility to a slim possibility is an improvement. Ergo – he has been helped.

Was his endorsement of the Maliki timetable clumsy? Well yeah. A drowning man seldom reaches for a life preserver with grace and elegance.