As Dickerson points out there is not much differences between Obama and McCain on the subject of what to do with Iraq. As any military expert will tell you. In the middle of a war, one does not set time table and inform your enemies when you are going home. It is also agreed by almost everyone that pulling US troops out of Iraq before Iraq securities forces can manage internal and external security will result in chaos. We all agree that the speed of draw down and the number of troops remain are to be determined by the US and Iraqi field generals and not by politicians.

Here are the differences between Obama and McCain’s positions regarding the Surge and troop draw down.

McCain is the main proponent of the Surge, he is putting his political career in jeopardy on this issue. If the Surge fails, his career is finished. Obama was against the Surge. If the Surge is a success, Obama would have made a wrong judgement.

During the Primaries, Obama stated, if he becomes President, he will withdraw all US military forces in 16 months without conditions on the ground. McCain insisted there will not be any time table, and if necessary, might have to stay for years similar to US forces in Japan and Germany.

After the Primaries, Obama’s position softened some what, he still insisted on a draw down in 16 months but with input from the generals on the ground. Seeing the good results from the Surge, he still insists that the Surge is not a success, the reduction in violence is due to n some other factors.

Right now, Maliki would like to have a time table for the US to withdraw, which would indicate the violence is down, the security is under control and the Iraqi security forces can manage their own internal and external security requirements.

Interesting manfromv. I also remember hearing if we pulled out of South Vietnam, all the countries around Southeast Asia would fall like dominoes. Been to Bangkok lately?

It doesn't matter if the renforsement de troupes was a success or not, we will have never have won a victory.

But, to the crux of your post, Obama's point papers were always pretty much aligned with Captain McCain USN (Ret)'s position.

They're both politicians first, and would be commander's-in-chief second.

I wonder if ex-President Jimmy Carter has looked at the candidate's wives and committed adultery in his heart. : - )

I am not sure what you are getting at. We left Viet Nam with little care about the situation and before too long, didn't the North overtake the south. I guess you would not mind if all the other countries do not change but say Al Qaeda takes over Iraq.

The issue in Viet Nam is there were only brief periods where the military was allowed to do what it does best. The logic for going to war with Viet Nam made no sense as I recall and neither does Iraq. But the key point is that we should never make the same mistake as we did in Viet Nam. If we commit to a war we should do everything possible to win it. I think that what constitutes a win may not be totally defined but I am sure that we could would know what it looks like when we see it. Could you define as conditions allow.

I agree that both are politicians first and for that I cannot get very enthusiastic about either of them. But I think on this issue McCain has taken more stands that were not politically based. I think Obama's stand that the surge did not change a thing is political. I think that honesty would suggest that it has been a factor in what conditions are like in Iraq.

His stand on that one point to me shows he is very political and as such will run the country based upon a political agenda and what is best for the country be damned.

The reason that the US lost in Viet Nam was because it was a civil war. It doesn't matter how long the US stayed in Viet Nam we would not have won.

The reason taht the US will lose in Iraq is because it is a civil war. It doens't matter how long the US stays in Iraq we will not win.

Bush43's war of choice is a disaster.

Respectfully,

wdp

Hello Raptor5618. My first point in playing dominoes was to show everything around the PRVN is still stable after all the noise died down! As for al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia taking over Iraq, I wouldn't worry about that too much.

As for Captain McCain USN (Ret), everything he does is politically motivated these past 7-1/2 years, unfortunately, though it doesn't mean I don't like brother John.

I've a homework assignment for you if you're so inclined? Some of us are wondering if the surge may not have had unintended consequences for Iran, having misread what our Democratic controlled congress was going to do.

You know, the reemergence of the Taliban alarms Tehran. Perhaps they're may be some cooperation there on the Iraqi issue, to allow us to move forces into Afghanistan. : - >

"Tactics are only a very small part of warfare." Xenophon

Uh, but you forgot what happened to Vietnam when the US pulled out. Do you remember the number of South Vietnames being killed or died in the sea when they tried to escape? There are many Vietnam refugees in the LA area, just talked to them about their stories. The US withdrawal resulted in the creation of a murderous regime in Cambodia whose dictator killed millions.

I agree that the definition of victory has many meanings to different people. I will use the one as defined by the President of the US. He defined as overthrow of Saddam, set up an democratically elected government which is self sufficient, stable and is friendly to the West in the fight against terrorism. If you agree with me of this definition, then we can observe the results of this war. Saddam is overt rowed. There is a democratically elected government. Since the Surge, its stability and its ability to protect itself is increasing everyday. As a matter of fact, Maliki recently is so confident that he can see the US to withdraw within 2 years that is a good sign.

Regarding Obama’s position on Iraq, he is wavering like the willow in the wind, one of his characteristics of flexibility of policy issues.

manfromv:

We all agree that the speed of draw down and the number of troops remain are to be determined by the US and Iraqi field generals and not by politicians.

This is insane. The United States is not ruled by a military junta. The President and Secretary of Defense are both civilians (one elected, one appointed). Warfare is an instrument of policy. The speed of the drawdown and number of troops that remain will be in alignment with the policy that the United States' civilian leaders wish to implement in the region. The U.S. and Iraqi field generals will have input into this policy, but they will not determine it.

OK Tyrtaios-rising I will bit on this. I agree on the Viet Nam part. There was the domino's theory tossed around at that time. I do think that there were some pretty nasty events after we left Viet Nam. But I think that idea was one that fed into the fear of communism even if it was not really a concern at that time.

I have no idea about if Al Qaeda will go back to Iraq in a big way or not. I was only tossing it out as a what if statement.

I am not sure what homework you are suggesting I do. Some of your comments ask questions that no amount of research is going to uncover the facts. I really do not understand what you are saying but I think you are implying that there is more violence in Afghanistan because of some cooperation between the US and the Taliban? I guess I do not understand what kind of cooperation you mean.

If you can restate it perhaps I can reply or as you suggest do some home work.

Viet Nam was not a civil war any more than Hitler taking the Sudetenland was. They were two countries and the one set out to conquer the other-which it did. Iraq today is in part a civil war and in part an Al-Quida invasion. What is the issue of intervening in civil wars? Bosnia was a civil war. Darfur is a civil war. The UN has made a defacto policy for 20 years that it only intervenes in civil wars-not wars between nation states.Wherever the US is doing blue helmet peacekeeping, there is mostly or all civil war issues. So, not interveneing in civil war is not an option unless we want to look away from all the genocides and just let the world go on without us.

Very well said.

Ketone, this is not insane at all, but quite reasonable. I agree that the military is under civilian control. Policy is decided by civilians and how to achieve those policy goals are left to the military, because only they have the knowledge and expetize.

Let us say, the President makes the policy to withdraw most army and left behind some to help out the Iraqis. Then this policy is carried out by the generals to decide the speed and how many to be left behind in consultation with the Iraqi generals considering all aspects of the situation.

Note, policy defines the what, and implementation defines the how. There is no conflict at all between our views.

Yes, manfromv, our departure from RVN was a debaucle. It especially hurt some of us who had tours with the Naval Advisory Group. The 4th Battalion, Vietnamese Marine Corps was left as a blocking force. We lost good friends.

Unfortunately, our president didn't understand the "when" to project force. We have lost prestige and credibility in the region. We have allowed ourselves to be distracted from the world wide war on terror, as well as the situation in Afghanistan.

We have failed to achieve any victory, and have done harm to our strategic force projection capability.

Back to your position on Obama. Again, he and McCain aren't that far-off when you look at the point papers as opposed to what they say to would be voters.

Thanks for the discourse. We'll talk again - old man. : - )

"We have allowed ourselves to be distracted from the world wide war on terror"

A conclusion you base on what, specifically?

manfromv:

Let us say, the President makes the policy to withdraw most army and left behind some to help out the Iraqis. Then this policy is carried out by the generals to decide the speed and how many to be left behind in consultation with the Iraqi generals considering all aspects of the situation.

Note, policy defines the what, and implementation defines the how. There is no conflict at all between our views.

I would submit that such an implementation is pretty much unworkable, as the timetable and number of troops is part of the policy decision. When the president says, "I want to withdraw troops," obivously it matters, policy-wise, whether that withdrawal takes place now or 100 years from now. When the president says "I want to withdraw most troops," he has to decide what size footprint to leave behind, and that decision is more than purely a military decision. The generals can all consult and tell him the pros and cons -- as they see it from a military perspective -- of different withdrawal strategies, but obviously the president isn't going to leave it up to his generals (let alone foreign generals) to decide everything.

Hello raptor. Let me put it this way. Iran originally cooperated with us upon our driving the Taliban from power. Tehran had previously almost gone to war with them in the 1990's.

Now, it appears (possibly) they may have misread we might unilaterally withdrawl from Iraq when the Democrats started their rhetoric last November. Our surge indicated otherwise, and they may be rethinking they need only have some influence in the Iraqi parliment as opposed to controlling it.

Again, the reemergence of the Taliban concerns them greatly. They see we cannot address a concern of theirs, due to our inability to further project force into Afghanistan, unless we feel they pose no threat to fill any vacuum that might occur should we start pulling out.

This was the question I offered you to ponder. It's only a conjecture based on several tid bits of information I've heard, but I'd be interested in your, and others opinion?

Incidentally, a good source of information (not intelligence per se), is the Christian Science Monitor - strange as that may sound. Most intelligence departments view it. : - )