All About McCain

[scaeagles]

Concept wars are indeed not what I was speaking of, and I think that's obvious.

As far as Vietnam, yes, we never finished the job there....but it look at what happened in Vietnam after we left. What would be good about that? Retreat was certainly not the better part of valor. The Vietnamese were slaughtered by the thousands (if not tens or hundreds of thousands - I'm not exactly sure how many perished in the reeducation camps) and who knows how many Vietnamese boat people died.

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, it was horrible. We do not have the power to stop history, or to stop evil. It may be stupid to get into areas were a power vacuum or our or another element's causing results in regional hatreds, slaughters, and unspeakable atrocities on an unimainable scale. But it's stupider, imo, to then have to ...what?... stay forever to now prevent those forces from being unleashed? Our finger in the dam forever and ever because of our international military blunder? Commitment to drain our country's treasury and young human resources to pay for such militadventurism mistakes for all time?

[scaeagles]

I suppose we view the current situation differently, because it is improving and it is not an indefinite thing we are facing. We will always have a military presence there, but I view that as the same thing as having a presence in Japan or Germany or South Korea.

Regardles of that, I am not one for abandoning commitments. We can debate the price being paid, but in the long run, I believe the price is higher should we stop (a great example over the long term is Reagan and Afghnaistan after the Soviets pulled out).

[3894]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I suppose we view the current situation differently, because it is improving and it is not an indefinite thing we are facing.

It depends on how you define victory. If victory is a stable, basically uncorrupt, representative, non-repressive government, then we're talking about a sea change. Who knows how long that will take.

This idea about victory and defeat is one of the things I find most frustrating about McCain. He never defines victory, yet postures a lot about it. It is only a feeling but it seems to me that in the Iraq War McCain is reliving the unfinished business of Vietnam 40 years too late.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Regardles of that, I am not one for abandoning commitments. We can debate the price being paid, but in the long run, I believe the price is higher should we stop (a great example over the long term is Reagan and Afghnaistan after the Soviets pulled out).

I don't disagree. And I don't think Obama disagrees, though there's some disagreement with the best method to succeed. I have never been for a summary troop draw down. I AM in favor of setting more concrete goals and forcing the Iraqi government to stand up and take care of its own sh*t. I believe Obama will do that. Suggesting that Obama wants to just abandon Iraq with no plan at all is as absurd as suggesting he wants to sit down and have tea with Ahmedinejad. It's a grossly distorted interpretation of his position. All he wants is to stop playing nanny in Iraq and start putting the responsibility on Iraqis to take control of their own country.

No. You have to spend what it takes to get the job done. This is not intended to get tinto a discussion as to if we should be there or not - that has been discussed ad infinitum here. It is simply that you have to finish what you start.

Again, I do not fundamentally disagree. But as much as you don't want it to be about whether we should be there or not, that IS a crux, if not the crux, of the discussion. Because to me the question is, who has the clarity of judgment to make the right decisions going forward, whether it be on how to finish the job we stumbled blindly into, or whether to wage more war elsewhere. And I believe Obama to possess better judgment.

You can point to the surge all you want. There is no proof that the surge is the only reason things have improved there, or that they wouldn't improved without the surge. But hey, I'll give the administration that one, let's say the surge was the difference maker. That's one good decision after boatloads of awful ones, and the first time that Bush actually decided to listen to the generals on the ground. And it's one that's about controlling a specific situation in the short term. It's not remotely on the same scale as deciding whether to invade another country and understanding the large scale ramifications. I believe Obama (and his advisors) have better judgment on that scale. And perhaps Obama doesn't have the chops for handling the smaller scale day-to-day combat decisions (as if Bush does), but I expect him to defer to those that do. For instance, Patreus's replacement, Odierno, who has already said he expects to start calling for significant troop reductions of the next year, that weak, unpatriotic bastard.

A strong military is important. However, I do not think that throwing money down the military drain, using force to shove democracy down the world's throat, and threatening countries with invasion are signs of a strong military.

[Tom]

I am asking, because I don't know, but did Japan, Germany or Korea before their respective wars have internal conflicts like the Sunni/Shiite/Kurd conflicts in Iraq, conflicts between different ethnic or religious groups within the country that were violent and centuries old? Because if they didn't, it would seem to me likely that our long-term military presence in Iraq will be very different than in those other countries.

[scaeagles]

Not to my knwledge, but Japan and Germany had those loyal to their fallen leaders and governments and fought for years after the end of WWII. Japan might be considered a bit similar to the current situation in that the populace had viewed their emporer as a god, so the religious aspect comes into it. Germany....nothing like it, really.

[scaeagles]

If victory means a basically uncorrupt government than we should overthrow our own.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

If victory means a basically uncorrupt government than we should overthrow our own.

So define victory. Because no one else has.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

If victory means a basically uncorrupt government than we should overthrow our own.

When do we start?


Seriously, the biggest thing gone wrong with our government is we can no longer overthrow it. Setting up a future overthrow was endemic to the Declaration of Independence ... and technology has progressed to the point where the populace of our nation could never mount a successul insurrection against our tyrannical government so long as the military and police powers remain under their control.