Vice-President Picks

Remove all ads!

Chandos,
in my understanding the Cheney troupe pushed for the surge to bring the US in a situation to attack Iran. The (quite) realist(ic) counter argument that at the time convinced Bush not to try anything as silly as bombing Iran was the nightmare scenario of the Iranians and Shiites cutting off US supply lines, leaving US troops running the gauntlet for the exits in Kuwait. This option was seen as Iran's most credible deterrent. The saying iirc was that Iran had 'escalation dominance'.

They Cheneyites, of course, couldn't have that. Along came AEI's Fred Kagan to the rescue. He, not Petraeus, was the architect of the surge. The idea behind the surge was to pacify Baghdad, stabilise the Sunni areas to then be able to roll up the Shiite militias thought to be friendly to Iran (especially the Mahdi Army; ironically, because the Maliki government is politically closer to Tehran) to deprive Iran of this escalation dominance and make them 'attackable' again and put the 'option' of a military strike back 'on the table'. Considering that the US military was strained at that time already, that strategy in itself meant upping the ante.

Apparently they had, until Maliki (intentionally?) blew the attack of Basra, the feeling to succeed in this, and it is interesting that the steady drumbeat of accusations towards Iran stopped somewhere around that time.

 

Ragusa - Inside the US the "Surge" feels more politcial than it does strategic. The Bushmen were desperate for something because the political heat was very hot. They had to stop the political bleeding before the American people pullled the plug on the entire show.
As I commented, shelving Rummy and bringing in Gates probably saved them. It was a good move.

 

Chandos,
you're right, the Bushmen were and are still hiding behind the surge and the military and Petraeus in this. I found it preposterous for lack of a stronger word, that they just said: Well, Petraeus is the commander, it's up to him to decide when the surge is over! Yeah right. Just as if Bush himself wasn't the commander in chief, and the very guy who gave Petraeus the very order to surge after having been advised by Kagan. According to Whitehouse lore the surge is Petraeus so, by criticising the surge, you're criticising the troops!

Stab in the back!​

 

Well, if you two are done patting each other on the back...

Ok, but seriously, some of what you've said is spot on, some of it isn't. For example, as I understood it as it was happening, the Awakening didn't happen in a vaccum of American influence. It was the American troop surge that put enough pressure on Al Qaeda for the Awakening Councils to feel free enough to act and to stir enough resentment for Al Qaeda that they could be painted as the enemies among the majority of the Sunni. Furthermore, this seems likely to be a lasting effect, unless Maliki and the like really ruin it by trying to oppress the Sunni again (gee, what are the odds of that?).

All in all, though, the nightmare situation of McCain continuing this is unlikely. Remember, he's a military man himself. He knows enough to respect the people that have earned high ranks in the millitary. He may be sabre rattling now, but we'll see what happens if he gets into office.

As for Obama, he seems to be totally separated from reality, himself. Does he really think a windfall profits tax will help anyone except those in the government distributing the money? Does he really think we can convert to 100% 'clean' power by 2018 (seen that in some commercials here)? Does he really think Corporate America is the enemy that must be taxed into submission? Does he really think the US can afford to provide healthcare for everyone right now? And with Biden's history of Foot-in-Mouth condition, I'm not sure if he'll be more of a help or a hinderance on foreign policy. If Obama keeps him in the background, but listens, he'll be a big help. If he puts him in charge of anything himself, it's playing Russian Roulette.

All in all, though, don't believe for a second that I like McCain, I just fear Obama much more. The guy's way to idealistic, and I just get a vague feeling that there's someone behind him feeding him all his lines. I can't prove anything at all, but I get that feeling.

 

The tribal revolt against Al Qaeda is not the result of the surge.

McCain says that, yes. As I will show, that narrative is incorrect. For a long time it was standing US policy policy to support the Shiite central government. US occupation officials viewed the sheiks and their hold over extended families as undemocratic. Iraq was to be all new, shiny and democratic, not feudal, damn its inhabitants. The US would also not ally with the Sunni because they were the insurgency, perhaps had US blood on their hands, were former Baathists and generally bad guys. All proposals for cooperation were vetoed from the top. The change started in 2005, and I can't resist saying that, well before the surge was announced by Bush on January 10, 2007.

I will make it short and suggest you read this article: al Qaeda vs. the Iraqi Insurgency from January 2006.

That was when for the US that was 'red on red' fighting. The incompatibility of the facts with the causality the narrative implies is obvious. McCain, just like Bush, is trying to make political hay with the surge, and he isn't too scrupulous with the facts. Or maybe he is confused. Or he doesn't care. Either way, he is wrong.
The US took advantage of something that pre-existed, but that the US was unable to take advantage of under their previous policy of staying clear of the Sunni groups. Petraeus deserves credit for implementing the counterinsurgency tactics that allowed the US to capitalise on the conflict between the tribes and Al Qaeda in Iraq. He led the US away from their previous notoriously heavy handed approach that so much alienated the Iraqis.

As for the nature of the alliance between the Awakening groups and the US read this blog entry in the Army of Dude:

And as for this:

High?

That said, this post has been a piece of work. Enough for today.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080824/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_convention_rdp :


Since Biden's selection, the McCain campaign has come out with two campaign ads addressing the Democratic candidate's choice of a running mate.

The latest ad, released by the campaign early Sunday, features clips of Clinton during the primary battle saying critical things about Obama, including, "Senator Obama's campaign has become increasingly negative."

A voiceover announcer says, "She won millions of votes but isn't on the ticket. Why? For speaking the truth."

I have only one thing to say about whoever thought, made and approved that: what *******s. Wasn't there a saying about stones and glass houses?

 

It's an attempt to divide the democratic party between Obamaites and Clintonites, and it may well work. There are a lot of Clinton followers who feel she was cheated out, and there are a lot of them that voted for her because Obama was too liberal for them. The second may be fixed by policy changes, or it may not. The first may be fixed by Clinton, but it doesn't seem to have worked so far. This is probably why Obama has handed over so much of the convention to Clinton. Either way, adds like that will probably work.

 

I'm fairly certain that the number of former Hillary supporters who, at this stage of the game, are serious about (and will actually follow through with) defecting to vote for McCain out of sour grapes because Hillary got "slapped in the face" are, by and large, greatly exaggerated, particularly by themselves. They exist, to be sure, but not in numbers large enough to matter.

I also have my doubts about the effectiveness of these kinds of ads. Most people are smart enough to realize that the primaries were a long time ago (in political time, that is) and the dynamics have changed significantly since then. And as far as showing the ads featuring Hillary's past comments, I have a hard time believing that anyone will be swayed by the words of a candidate whom Obama has already defeated, shared party or not. It's a poor reflection of the McCain campaign that this and Paris Hilton are the best they've got.

 

A recent poll I saw said Obama was only getting something like 65% of Hillary's supporters. Now, I'm sure we all know the accuracy of these polls, and not all of them are going to McCain, but that's still a large number.

 

That sounds about right for this stage of the game, actually. A few months ago it was much worse for Obama than that - a full 50% swearing to defect to McCain, IIRC - and it should steadily get better for him as November draws closer and people realize how silly that is. Otherwise, these voters were more dedicated to Hillary herself than the issues, and they're not the kind of voters the Democrats (or I would hope any party) would want anyway. You can't admire Hillary for her positions on the issues, and then in a pouting rage turn around and vote for the candidate who embodies essentially the exact opposite of those positions just because your girl didn't get what you believe she was owed and refuse to accept that her former opponent, who is of the same party and is far more similar ideologically, is actually a candidate worthy of your support. Well, I suppose you could...if you were an unserious, unreasonable, barking lunatic Hillary-Hack. And many of them are...but not THAT many.

Anyway, come November, I sincerely believe the most reasonable of these holdouts will come around, and the remaining buffoons will vote contrary to both their interests, their party affiliation, and their powers of reason...for no good reason at all. And by then they'll be such a small group they can pull a toddler and waste their vote if they find it childishly cathartic...it will make a negligible impact at best.

 

Well, Biden was my second choice. Kaine was my first choice. Then again, that is in keeping with my track record. Obama wasn't my first choice for the Democratic nomination either. My first choice there was John Edwards, and given the recent scandal of him having an affair on his cancer-stricken wife, it just goes to show how good my gut feelings turn out. That said, I'm not upset with the Biden choice - I just didn't think it was the best possible choice.

 

Well my first choice for Obama was a bust. Perhaps McCain will choose Edwards -- after all, a political figure who had an affair with a WOMAN may actually help the republican party....

 

Never forget. The Dems are the party of tolerance and inclusion. At least that is what they believe

 

Speaking which, I understand that McBush is considering Rudy for the VP slot. That would be interesting...but I'm hoping he picks Romney. Please shoot yourself in the foot, Mac.

 

I just hope he doesn't pick Huckabee.

 

Me too. I think he's McCain's best bet at this point. Mittens - who seems to be the favorite of the far right - would be a disaster, so naturally I hope he goes with him.

 

Please Chandos -- give it a rest.

Obama's a good candidate. McCain is also a good candidate. I think this is the first election in a very long time where there is actually two good choices. Over the past twenty or so years the primary reason to get out was to vote against one of the candidates (choosing the lesser of two evils). I believe this election breaks that streak.

 

If you had said that a year ago I would have agreed. In fact, there's a chance I would have even voted for him. Now, I don't agree. I think he's a sell out. Phil Gramm? Give me a break, T2.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil.html

NOTE: Post and link were edited for clarity. I apologize for any confusion that the original may have caused (which I admit was kinda weak). Readers may now read the entire editorial by David Corn, as it appeared in MJ. David Corn has also written for the Nation:

http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/david_corn

 

You link a Mother Jones editorial about a Republican? Please, give me a credible source -- one that, at least, is not so biased.

Phil Gramm was a colorful individual -- and I voted for him when I lived in Texas (I also voted for Ann Richards). He did a lot of good in office -- and really blew it with the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. However, he was co-sponsor with four other senators, it withstood the scrutiny of both the House and Senate and was signed into law by President Clinton. There was more than just one politician who either didn't do their homework or turned a blind eye to the "Enron clause." When you read the clause, it sounds reasonable -- unfortunately it was also exploitable by amoral individuals willing to break the law.

Just how did the topic shift from McCain to Gramm?

 

Wait, didn't the article say he was McCain's economic adviser? Mother Jones may not be 101% objective, but I don't think it got it wrong - I've heard it said in other sources too. It's not like he's exactly unrelated to his campaign.

Wasn't McCain supposed to be less free-market-uber-alles-ish a few years ago?