A Responsible End to the War in Iraq = ?

[kennetha]

Here is very brief excerpt of John McCain's lead up to a ferocious attack on Obama today.

Though victory in Iraq is finally in sight, a great deal still depends on the decisions and good judgment of the next president. The hard-won gains of our troops hang in the balance. The lasting advantage of a peaceful and democratic ally in the heart of the Middle East could still be squandered by hasty withdrawal and arbitrary timelines. And this is one of many problems in the shifting positions of my opponent, Senator Obama.

And here is just a bit from Obama's response:

The difference in this race is that John McCain is intent on spending $10 billion a month on an open-ended war, while Barack Obama thinks we should bring this war to a responsible end and invest in our pressing needs here at home."

I think Obama has a problem. He needs to either directly refute McCain's claim that "victory in Iraq is finally in sight" as some sort of fantasy or say why his approach is a better guarantor of victory. The phrase "a responsible end to the war in Iraq." which Obama (and CLinton when she was running) intones frequently is monumentally unclear in its intentions.

Does a responsible end = VIctory, defeat, or something between? If something in between, what exactly?

If Victory, how is Obama's recipe a better recipe for victory than McCain's? If a responsible end = some version of non-victory, how is that different from defeat and why is it acceptable.

I think Obama and the democrats generally counted on Iraq still being an utter mess come November since when the campaign began it was still looking like Iraq was nothing but an interminable Civil War that we could have no helpful role in. That was my view too. But it doesn't quite look that way now and I think McCain is being very, very effective in hammering the theme that Obama isn't tough enough and isn't prepared enough to be Commander in Chief.


Obama has to decide and be firm in that decision and explain clearly what can or can't be achieved in Iraq, how we will achieve it, and why he is the best person to achieve it. "end the war responsibly" just won't do against McCain's constant and somewhat credible claim that some sort of "victory" is in sight.

Or so it seems to me.

[TwilightGardener]

1. There is no victory or defeat. There is simply, when do we leave?

But thanks for your concern.

[kennetha]

2. Are you incapable of anything other than sneering dismissal

when you are presented with a discomforting thought? Jeepers. People like you....

[TwilightGardener]

4. No. Your post was stupid, and belied a simplistic, GOPish view of Iraq.

Folks who sport big fat woodies over the term "victory" (meaningless, because we are occupiers--we stopped being a victorious military force there in 2003) are going to vote for McCain no matter what. The rest of the public knows that it doesn't matter what we call it now, it was a mistake that needs to come to an end. If YOU, however, want to call it a victory and feel all good and snuggly over what we've wrought for the past 6 years, then go find a returning veteran and throw him a two-car parade.

[kennetha]

5. I've never put another poster on ignore before.

But you might be the first.

You either can't read or can't think or both. I've been against the war from the beginning. I'm thinking about the politics of the situation. You seem to want to bury your head in the sand and ignore the political complexities of the moment. Go ahead. Just don't bother me with your inane remarks.

[TwilightGardener]

6. OK, sport.

[TwilightGardener]

8. Oh, and BTW--to say the Dems wanted Iraq to be a bloody clusterfuck

for the purpose of November elections, is to say that Dems are guilty of treason. Good job.

[kennetha]

12. Jeepers you are impossible.

Who WANTED Iraq to be a bloody clusterfuck? Not anybody on the planet except Al Quaeda, I would think.

I myself PREDICTED from the beginning that Iraq would be a bloody clusterfuck. But I WANTED it not to happen.

[TwilightGardener]

15. Quote:

"I think Obama and the democrats generally counted on Iraq still being an utter mess come November.." Sounds a lot like McCain's line that Obama wanted to lose a war to win an election. You're despicable.

[kennetha]

17. That's just a way of saying that their strategies

were predicated on the assumption that Iraq would still be an utter mess. That's not saying that they wanted it to be an utter mess.

Why don't you try assuming that I'm a reasonable fair-minded person who wants to see democrats win and is trying to think through a couple of issues. Instead of hauling out juvenile silly accusations why don't you try thinking things through with me. I don't mind thoughtful criticism. Actually, I thrive on it. It's part of my profession to seek out such criticism and to give out such criticism, in fact.

So try to assume that I'm a reasonable guy, with genuine questions and concerns that maybe deserve to be treated with respect.

You'll get a lot further that way -- at least with me. (as if you care about that.)

[Runcible Spoon]

26. don't bother with that one kennetha. s/he won't be happy until Obama picks a repuke for VP.

I'm surprised to see Wiener on a thread other than "OMG HAGEL FOR VP" discussions :rofl:

Tip: anyone who "thanks" you for your "concern" is not worth the time.

[endthewar]

34. Please get up on the other side of the bed tomorrow.

:rofl:

Seriously though, you do realize that the Iraq War won't be the deciding factor this election, right? Also, the Iraqi government has pretty much said that the new security agreement that they sign with the USA will mandate troop withdrawals. The Obama campaign is doing the right thing by reframing the debate away from the surge and focusing it on the Iraqi government's sovereignty and their desire for an end to this occupation.

[kennetha]

36. I think indirectly

the Iraq war will be a major issue. Not directly, though. It's not that I think people will decide on the basis of the deeply held views about Iraq. Those of us with deeply held views about the war are not up for grabs. Those who are implacably against it are signed sealed and delivered for Obama. Those (few) who are still gung ho are signed, sealed and delivered for McCain. No doubt about it.

It's the inattentive voter, with no real convictions, whose votes are won by small, insignificant things and tone and Madison Avenue type marketing techniques that I'm thinking about.

And the point I'm making is that McCain is using his stance on Iraq to "frame" himself as a certain kind of president and frame Obama as a different kind of president. And Obama, it seems to me, isn't really fighting the war of the competing frames on this particular issue very effectively.

[endthewar]

38. I completely disagree

But of course you knew that I would say that. :rofl:

If McCain wants to frame himself as a war president, then let him do so. His advisors should tell him that people hate Bush and that this isn't a great election to be a war president though. McCain's Iraq War debate framing is too complicated for the inattentive voter. It requires a discussion of tactics and not strategy, everything from increased troop levels, changes in strategies to hold down neighborhoods, the Sunni Awakening, etc. Also, McCain's bellicose language against Russia will remind people about Bush. The analogy will be made that Bush 43 is to Iraq as McCain is to Russia. Bush wanted war against Iraq before he stepped into office. If McCain could have his way, we'd have tanks rolling right up to Russia's borders.

By the time October comes around the Iraqi government will have already announced that Bush has signed a deal that says that the USA will withdraw troops around a certain date. Then McCain will fly a "Mission Accomplished" banner and say that the withdrawal date the Iraqi government named just so happens to be the date that our troops will be returning on success. The media will be spinning out of control and the inattentive voter will be voting on the economy when the economic numbers without a stimulus package shock everybody. Obama will maintain his economic lead and then unleash the true power of his funding advantage. He will have more ground forces turning out the vote and be able to apply a blitzkrieg of ads that will have McCain's campaign struggling to just be on the defensive. The RNC will flirt with some ads with racial overtones and the media will pick up on it big time. McCain's already boxed himself in and he'll have to spend half of October rejecting and denouncing these racial attacks. He'll piss off his base who see the election slipping away and Sean Hannity will have an on-air meltdown that's one for the ages. :rofl:

Alright, tucking the crystal ball away for another day.

By the way, the Obama campaign doesn't want this election to be decided on the Iraq War, so they have to moderate their responses in a way that addresses it yet keeps the economy at the forefront of the discussion. McCain knows that Phil "Whiner" Graham designed his economic platform, so he'll want to talk about anything else other than the economy.

[JeffR]

3. I agree.

Obama needs to emphasize that ending this is imperative because "victory" means nothing in the context of an occupation. It can't be won because it isn't a war.

[elkston]

9. "It can't be won because its not a war" ...

Yes, I love that statement. Obama should use it.

[JeffR]

11. It's remarkable to me that the Democrats haven't hammered on this.

It's short, simple and even has the virtue of being true. And it preempts McCain's entire strategy for exploiting Iraq as a campaign issue.

[kennetha]

14. Might work

But seems too much about semantics. But the sentiment is right. We can't go letting McCain claim that "victory is in sight" while we talk vaguely about "ending the war responsibly." We either have to say we've got a better formula for victory or we've got to dismiss the possibility of victory as sham, chimera, fantasy. So far, Obama hasn't really done either, as far as I can see.

Let me make it clear, since I was an avid Clinton supporter, that I think SHE, had she won, would have faced exactly the same problem.

[JeffR]

20. I think it transcends semantics.

I can't see a way clear to coming up with a formula for victory because it's logically impossible to "win". The crisis in Iraq, as I think you've noted, resulted from our invasion. By staying there, we're perpetuating a cycle of violence and hatred that the "surge" may have temporarily ameliorated. But as long as we're there the cycle will continue, and a soon as one or more fragile internecine alliances fall apart, we'll be back to losing 100 soldiers and God knows how many Iraqis every month. "Sham, chimera, fantasy" are exactly the right words to describe it.

You're right that Clinton or any other Dem nominee would have faced the same problem, and in her case the IWR vote might have made it an even bigger dilemma. The party as a whole has been too slow and too measured in positioning itself as the anti-GOP on this issue. Obama hasn't gone far enough with this, and I think McCain's ass is exposed on it. It needs a good swift kick, and another and another, right up to November.

[JuniperLea]

7. Victory was never in the plan for Iraq

No one can define it. If they define it, they have to aim for it. This way, they can spend more and more money while chasing that elusive butterfly they call Victory.

[kennetha]

10. Well okay

But tactically when McCain keeps talking about victory and the democratic response is we are for "a responsible end" to the war in Iraq, I think we sound like indecisive, hair-splitting weasels and they sound decisive and determined and more leaderly.

I'm not saying that victory is possible. I'm just saying that we can't let them have the claim that "victory is in sight" and then let our response be that "we want to end the war responsibly."

The ordinary voter doesn't have to ask what "victory" means -- they think they know what that means. But "end the war responsibly" takes a lot of explaining and will certainly, absent a powerful counter-argument, evoke the retort "you mean 'lose'" from the opponent.

Obama has to come out and either argue directly that the war is unwinnable or shift to talking about outright winning.

Again, that's how it seems to me.

[elkston]

16. OK, I agree with you but I think maybe the campaign ...

believes that if Obama says the war is "not winnable", it would paint him as lacking confidence in our troops and leadership.

They also could be of the mind that support for the war is so low, that most people just want to get out and are not concerened with the semantics of what constitutes "victory".

[kennetha]

19. I think you are probably right about how the campaign sees this

And if Iraq were still a story of car bomb after car bomb and no electricity, etc. etc. they'd be right. But I think the support or lack of support for the war of undecided, non-ideological voters who decide elections is surface deep and highly shiftable. I think letting McCain present himself as the guy who will bring victory (at long last achievable through a strategic move that he championed and Obama opposed) is not a winning strategy. And I think the retort about "ending the war responsibly" may be music to the ears of people who are into nuance and subtlety and reality, but I don't think that describes the people who will decide this election.

It's not so much the substance of Obama's position that I'm talking about. It's the tone and the kind of implicit self-representation he is offering. McCain is representing himself as the decisive president of action, fearless, determined. Obama is representing himself as the thoughtful, nuanced guy who sees the subtleties. I much prefer the latter personally by a huge margin. It isn't even debatable for me. But I'm not talking about how he wins me over. I'm talking about how he wins over the people who decide elections.

[JuniperLea]

18. It should be "end the occupation responsibly"

The media will never give the full explanation; that's what places like DU are for.

We need to press McCain and other GOP blow hards to define "victory in Iraq," mainly because it cannot be done. There are very few "terrorists" involved. The "insurgents" are the Iraqi people who want us out of their country.

Before the RW can be honest in any answer to "victory" they must first be honest about the "war" itself. I don't see that happening.

To change they way Democrats respond to erroneous statements based on the erroneous statements would be disingenuous at best.

We can't play their "game" and tell the truth at the same time.

[YOY]

13. Dead on.

It is, was, and always will be about spending the American tax payers dollars to feed the MIC beast.

Red? White? Blue? Try green folks. We all know deep down that it's the only color that matters.

[mvd]

23. What they really want is open ended war

To protect the oil interests. There is really no victory point with them.

[mvd]

21. Well in my mind, it was already "won" for its own terms

We got Hussein and put our puppet government in. Though we meddled where is was completely unneccesary.

[mvd]

22. Also, tell McCain to define "victory"

If he says a free and Democratic Iraq, there's not much we can do over there anymore with an invasion force.

[kennetha]

25. I'm not sure.

If we force McCain to define victory whatever he says will sound good to many ears. And as long as we have extra troops over there and there isn't a huge conflagration on the news everyday, it will seem possibly achievable -- at least to (a) the hardcore GOP neocon segment and (b) the shallow, non-ideological undecideds who kinda go with the flow. And then we will be left arguing against victory. And our argument will be better. It will, however, be full of nuance and subtlety.

I hate to sound like some sort of elitist but elections in this fine democracy of ours aren't won by subtle and nuanced arguments.

[JuniperLea]

27. There is nothing "nuanced" in "what is the definition of victory in Iraq"

It's damn straight forward. And it needs an answer. It can't be answered truthfully or their game is up. If they say something that "will sound good to many ears" and is still a lie, it's still a lie and they will be called on it.

[kennetha]

28. I'm not sure we disagree

I was more thinking that the answer to the question -- if put to McCain -- would be some sort of pablum, but good sounding pablum. And then our rebuttal of why you shouldn't believe that pablum would have to be subtle and nuanced. It would have to make distinctions and explain something about the limitations of our power and our resolve, etc. And it would have to do so without sounding defeatist.

That's all I meant. Do you disagree?

[mvd]

31. What I think

McCain will likely say "a free and stable Iraq." short answer: Iraq has had elections. It is up to the Iraqis to continue. The war will continue to cost us in money and lives. Plus, few have disputed a time frame.

[JuniperLea]

32. I completely disagree

The question is exceedingly valid and should be answered truthfully, and we should press for the truthful answer. The only truthful answer is that there can be no victory in Iraq. There was no game plan because there was no reason to be there in the first place.

Everything they say is pablum... and most of it "sounds good" to the weak and feeble minded sheeple; however, I'm talking about a genuine answer without which McCain is pressed on for the truth. No where in it written that we must accept pablum.

[mvd]

33. Now that's the truth

Maybe a mix of my answer with your answer?

[JuniperLea]

37. I agree!

Very much a mix of the two.

:hi:

[kennetha]

35. Juniperx

Substantively you are almost certainly right. And if elections were about truth, I would agree with you tactically. And if Obama were better at attack -- maybe he is starting to turn a corner -- and less professorial, I might think calling BS, BS is the winning ticket.

I worry that Obama's way of calling BS, BS comes sometimes comes off too cerebral and aloof and not visceral and pugnacious enough. He needs a little "give him hell Harry Truman in him" to pull this off. But again, I don't disagree with the substance of what you have to say. And I think nobody on DU, whether they were for Hillary or Obama or Biden or that narcissistic egomaniac Edwards would. But it's not a question of our side not accepting pablum. It's a matter of our side not allowing McCain to get away with shoveling pablum. I just think we need some sterner, more confrontational, more visceral formulations than talking about ending the war responsibly.


Maybe your approach -- in your face, define victory and then call the definition a lie -- might work. But only if Obama can do it without sounding like, excuse me for saying this, a John Kerry wannabe, if you know what I mean.

[JuniperLea]

39. There is no such thing as "too cerebral" imho

We have had far too much of the other end of the intellectual spectrum, and we should be welcoming "cerebral" with open arms.

I don't believe in playing the game by GOP rules. Intelligence, truth and honesty are what is needed now more than ever.

I think Obama's cool, butter-wouldn't-melt-in-his-mouth delivery is exactly how this should be presented.

[kennetha]

42. But think Kerry, Gore, Dukakis

Infinitely more complicated minds than their opponents. All three are guys I would love to have in co-teach one of my graduate seminars. (I'm a professor so am very much into cerebral.) But except for Gore (from whom an election that should never have been close was stolen) they got their butts kicked by a much less intellectually hefty republican. Does anybody doubt that Jimmy Carter's mind was vastly superior to Reagan's. Unfortunately, the smart guys don't always win in American politics - in fact, they almost never do. And when they do its partly because, like Bill Clinton, they've also mastered the art of visceral speak to you in your gut politics.

[JuniperLea]

43. Ahhh... but what Kerry, Gore, and Dukakis were missing...

Was a personality;) Obama has that in good measure! And poor John McCain has had whatever intelligence he ever possessed taken from him... be it physically beaten out of him or not, he clearly has no business in the White House.

Gore certainly found his personality since then, but I recall the cries of "Al Bore" and the frustration I felt at the time. Unlike those who thought it was a good thing to want to have a beer with the guy they vote into office, I wanted to be overwhelmed by their superior intellect. I don't ever, ever again want a president to whom I feel intellectually superior! That is scary as all hell! I need someone to look up to, for a change:) I'm hoping there are a lot more people out there like me.

[mvd]

30. IMO there's a good response to every kind of "victory" he mentions

Obama should just read DU. :-)

[JuniperLea]

40. Exactly!

Any one of us DUers who have been paying attention would have the answer before McFibber got the last syllable out of his lying mouth!

[JeffR]

24. That's a good point too.

Saddam out. "Democratically elected" government in. No WMDs in any event. So what more is there to do (other than extorting oil revenue, which even McCain isn't nuts enough to mention)?

[JuniperLea]

41. Even though those weren't the reasons given for going into Iraq...

Yes, "their" reasons were fulfilled and game over! Mission accomplished!

I'm all for giving "them" the "victory" as long as we can start bringing our troops home.

[Heather MC]

29. What about the 16 -20 month "time horizon" proposed by the white house

and the fact that the time frame for our Occupation as set by the UN is winding down.
We can not stay there much longer anyway