Requisite Iraq War post:
As one might expect, things look slightly different from my camp.
To which,
more informed voices than I reply: The war in Iraq has been a disaster, the stupidest foreign policy decision ever made by an American President. It has weakened America's moral, military and diplomatic status globally. It can not be "won" militarily. The best case scenario is a testy stability, most likely under a Shi'ite strongman, who will be (relatively) independent of Iran and (relatively) independent of us.
I personally believe that war shouldn't have happened. Maybe I'd feel less centered on that opinion if it hadn't been such a messy venture and
we hadn\'t been lied to so shamelessly (citing the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity). Maybe there's less blood in Iraq, but hearing about deception and the record number of suicides again has me thinking about the cost of this war.
And months after the Surge, [Obama] refused to admit that he was wrong and that victory is at hand.
The problem, I believe is ideological. For most on the left, it's not a black-white issue, but rather an uneasy gray area. Did the Surge work? Yes,
but it's much more complicated than the right tries to sell. The right oversimplifies what went into the decreased violence in Iraq. Bill O'Reilly (who, I, as not a fan, was surprised to find, called Obama's choice on the war perspicacious) barely let him finish in his jump to cement Obama in that rigid point of view.
CNN has a an interview (dated Sept 10) with Bagdad correspondent Michael Ware which looks at "winning" and raises questions on it:
BROWN: The increase in troops, the 30,000 troops. That’s what [McCain] means, though, when he says it, right?
WARE: Yes. Well, if that’s what he means, then he has no idea what is going on in Iraq, because what has delivered the successes we’re seeing now, as drops of 80 to 90 percent in violence, and who doesn’t welcome that, began two years ago or more, when the U.S. began engaging with its enemy, the Sunni insurgency when it started bringing in al Qaeda, and putting them on the U.S. government payroll, setting them loose on hard-core al Qaeda elements, and setting them loose on Shia militias.
BROWN: So, strategy, rather than the 30,000 troops?
WARE: Yes, the 30,000 troops was sort of like the icing on the cake.
BROWN: Right.
WARE: But the success that you’re seeing right now has been building for two years. And it also includes accommodating someone who was one of your number-one enemies, which was Muqtada al-Sadr, and turning him into a legitimate political figure.
BROWN: OK.
For those of us familiar with puppet governments and the consequences of legitimazing people who should not have power, this might give some pause.
Obviously I'm ecstatic about the decrease in violence, but I don't believe that this war has made us safer. I question the judgement that got us into this war in the first place, a war that McCain supported, the same way Roger questions Obama's judgement in opposing the war and surge. Obama has said:
I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."
I would agree with this, I have read quite a bit from both sides and have yet to be convinced that this war was necessary and worth its cost. My unease grows when I consider what's happening in
Afganistan and our current state of things, that problem seems to need our attention soon (the current administration seems to agree, somewhat). Not to mention that I'm sure there's many that would tell you that they don't care if you want to call it "defeat," they want those loved ones back.
as the president's first responsibility is to keep his country safe since he can't be trusted to take on the hard jobs.
Obviously, I disagree. I believe Obama's shown himself to be a thoughtful person capable of weighing the pros and cons of a situation instead of making rash, impulsive decisions. In a world full of complexities, I want a person like that leading, not someone with a hand on the red button. I also really appreciate Obama's pragmatism--what the right spins as flip-flopping, I see as someone who realizes that circumstances change and is willing to adapt to make the most of a situation.
I'm also not a fan of politics of fear. I refuse to let others dictate how I live and take away my liberties. I also refuse to let others strip away my values and lower me to their level. You don't fight criminality with more criminality and the instances that have come to light of this have disturbed me. Torture is never funny. War is never trivial.
My own views aside, both candidates have similar plans for Iraq as this article points out:
Counter-terrorism in the campaign The
National Journal evaluates the situation in a level way:
Of course, there is a measure of truth in the charges and countercharges coming from each camp. The Iraq debate is perhaps most notable, however, for the degree to which both sides have staked their claim to the White House on shifting sands. Both candidates have recently scrambled to recalibrate their positions in accordance with a fluid and unpredictable conflict.
All of this is worth considering, as it ultimately comes down on whose judgement this country trusts.
PS
Chief among them is Barack Obama, who earned the impartial National Journal's rating as the most liberal Senator in Washington.
I don't mind at all. Then again, I make way less than 150,000 a year and to
implement the 9-11 Commission's homeland security recommendations, provide more children with health insurance, expand federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and maintain a federal minimum wage.
(votes counted among those that made him "liberal") sounds pretty good to me. If anyone is interested in more from the other side
progressive Media Matters links to methodology critiques .
PPS I'm leaving the he said/she said discussion on all fronts unless anything hits my trigger button. There's too much gray to say anything more than what has been said, given the facts. How one sees it after knowing the circumstances ends up being up to the individual. Then "truth" by consensus, I guess. Double-edged sword.
alcyone
