Printable View
Last night during the debates, McCain said that Obama didn't understand the difference between a strategy and a tactic, implying that sending more troops to Iraq was a strategy, not a tactic.
I thought the strategy was the overall plan or goal, while tactics were how you implemented your overall plan or achieved your goal.
iirc a tactic is a technique that is used on the ground while a strategy is the overall plan
Selecting Sarah Palin the day after the DNC, thereby cutting off Obama's post convention news cycle and extending the RNC convention bump, was a great tactic.
"McCain said that Obama"
McLiar, bottom of his non-intellectual-college class, has told lots of repeated lies about Obama, the top of his professional postgraduate class.
This condescending insult is just more of McSame.
come on guys you gotta admit this is some funny sh**.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_
Every month we're in Iraq is $50B. That makes every 14 months = 1 bailout. We gotta go, if for no other reason than the financial hemorrhage.
I don't think either was wrong...
McCain was talking about the surge as a military strategy, which it is. To bring in more troops and shift focus to a two-front battle (training Iraqi Army AND defeating the insurgency), which could not be accomplished without the addition of troops.
Obama was talking about the surge as a tactic to assist in accomplishing the strategic goal of establishing a self-sufficient Iraqi government, which could not be accomplished while the focus was on sectarian violence and insurgency.
From a military standpoint though, it's a strategy.
"surge as a military strategy"
Absolutely not, it was nothing but a change in tactics, aka, throwing more boots on the ground.
The US military has changed tactics, even reversed course, many times.
The strategy was invading Iraq for oil and occupying Iraq forever, making Iraq safe for US.UK oilcos. Everything below that is military tactics to carry out that strategy.
it's a fucking waste of lives and money
Don't just assume the surge was about more troops. It was about re-shifting focus to a two-front battle. Their mission post-Saddam was to train Iraqi forces, but that became impossible with the insurgency. The "light footprint" strategy adopted by Don Rumsfeld failed because the situation on the ground changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_
They had to adjust their military strategy.
"Don't just assume the surge was about more troops."
I don't assume, I KNOW that the surge included US troops kicking down doors and invading homes all over Bagdad, REALLY pissing off a bunch of innocent people, who, like any red-blooded patriots, pushed back hard, making the 2007 surge year the worst for US military causalities, and actually increasing the violence in Bagdhad which had been decreasing since late 2006.
McSenile has been exposed for getting the sequence of events ALL WRONG, esp when the Sunni Awakening started and what affect it had.
The surge was a huge mistake. The ethnic cleansing of Bagdad of Sunnis by Shiiites, and the tactic of Petraeus paying Sunnis $24M/month to Sunnies to quit figthing, money for peace, were successful. The surge was not successful on its own and was not major factor in the drop in violence.
Your own candidate admitted on national television that the surge was successful "beyond his wildest dreams". But, you can keep clinging to your fringe perspective and denying the decrease in violence since the beginning of the surge strategy.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_
I have never seen "surge" mentioned as a military tactic or strategy until Rove spun it up. I believe the correct term is a "correction" although that, too, may not be the tern used by the military.
You did not commit enough resources? You make a correction. You underestimated the resistance? You make a correction. You used the wrong strategy, placed troops in the wrong positions and did not place them were you should? You make a correction.
The "surge" was not a success, it was a correction. It means you have bungled things up before.
Too bad the repubs successfully trained the media and the dems to use the term "surge." It was a political failure to let them define the terms and use creative words. Had the dems a real leader instead of Pelosi, Bush could not have bamboozled people on this, he would have been called out for all the previous military blunders.
Anytime McCain brings up surge, Barak should respond "What surge? Do you mean the escalation? When we finally committed the right number of troops and quit trying to have a war on the cheap. You, sir, helped screw things up and then fixed some of your mistakes but the biggest mistake was in fighting a war that did not need fighting. Meanwhile, did your escalation net Bin Laden? No. Did your escalation diminish Al Qaeda? No. Can we afford more military bungling on this scale? Hell No!
"you can keep clinging to your fringe perspective and denying the decrease in violence since the beginning of the surge strategy."
co-incidence does not prove causality, but you can keep believing the unending stream of "winning" lies from dubya and McSame.
HUSSEIN isn't going to pick a fight over the surge working or not. He's smart enough to know that the situation is very complex and the surge was only one factor, many of which other factors were at least if not more important. $$-for-peace worked as well as the surge, if not more so. Bribing 80K Sunnis to quit killing Americans and Shiites is very effective.
a. Muqtada al-Sadr declared a ceasefire and tried to transition to a political power (basically he screwed up).
b. The Shiites of Iraq resisted Iranian dominance.
c. There was a backlash among the Sunnis against Muslim on Muslim violence.
and many other factors play into the decrease in violence in Iraq. It is a mistake to think that we intimidated them into behaving.
So you're saying that Obama thinks the American people are too dumb to comprehend causality in a complex situation? He can't say, "well the surge was working, but what about....", and give the explanation you provided?Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_
Or it could be that you misconstrue the facts and can't admit that putting more troops in the area and shifting the strategy to directly combat the insurgency played a vital role in the quelling of violence in the nation as a whole.
You might as well admit it....your candidate did.
Its a tactic for god's sake.
If that was how we were initially when we were in iraq then it would be, but it was built upon failure, to give the troops more breathing room.
It is pitiful that a veteran doesn't even know that
Incorrect. The escalation of sectarian and insurgent violence was not a pre-conceived calculation for which the administration felt the troop level was adequate. It was not calculated at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by sook
Therefore, when a new enemy presented itself and an alternate mission was formed there had to be a shift in strategy. Troops were added as a consequence of undertaking the new strategy.
So you claiming that little things like "Oops, that's Iran next door" (perhaps Bush thought he was authorizing an attack on Iran, it would have made more sense-tricky four letter countries starting with an "I") or let's dismiss all the Baathists, they won't mind or those folks in Tikrit (Saddams family area) sure are going to be glad to see us, had results that could not have been anticipated?
On second thought, are you just saying "We did not know what we were doing so everything surprised the crap out of us."
Your second thought...Quote:
Originally Posted by byrontx
The initial invasion was very well planned from a military perspective and it was executed to perfection. I think the administration underestimated how fragile and seperated the country actually was once the rule of an iron-fisted dictator deteriorated.
And once it was clear that the borders were not secure and violence rapidly increased, it was the stubborness of the administration that failed to admit they had inadequately planned for the next step and an eventual exit strategy. They maintained the same strategy for years until outspoken members of the party (i.e. John McCain) and the new commander called for a shift in strategy that dealt with the changed environment.
And as painful as it is to admit, our forces were trained and equipped for the type of initial battle that took place, and not the type of urban combat they saw from insurgents. They had to adjust their combat tactics.
I cannot help but largely agree with that assessment. A number of generals felt that there was an under-commitment of force. To tell the truth up until this election, I have always supported McCain. What changed my position was the horrible mistake of going into Iraq and his support for that venture. I have always felt that it was poorly planned (although initially well executed) and a distraction from the real "War on Terror."
The problem with claiming the escalation in Iraq a success is that concurrently with that venture we started losing further ground in Afghanistan, where the real "War on Terror" is occurring. So to claim success in Iraq is like skipping your Mastercard payments to pay down Visa. You can claim an economic success in paying down one card but in the overall view you were still losing ground.
And I cannot help but largely agree with that assessment. In fact, along with his shrewd fundraising/ organizing ability and speaking ability, I think Obama's biggest strength is his opposition to the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by byrontx
Unlike many in Washington who were drawn into the fray with the faulty intelligence and overstating of imminent threat, Obama predicted the distraction it would cause and clearly stated his opposition.
However, the problem is that the Iraq War did happen (thanks to overwhelming support by Republicans and Democrats alike) and is now a central battleground in the war on terror. We need a president that doesn't reflect on the fact that it shouldn't have but deals with the reality of what is.
Truth is, the next president will have to commit to preserving the stability of Iraq, and deal with the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, and engage Iran & North Korea on their nuclear programs, and somehow figure out how to work amicably with a regressive Russia.
I can respect that Obama took a stand and made a prediction (even if he didn't have to vote on it), but that says nothing for his ability to deal with the problems we have now. And if pulling out of Iraq without regard to the situation on the ground is his first measure of judgment...I'll stick with McCain.
I agree that we are to a large extent morally responsible for Iraq. As Powell ssaid "You break it, you own it." It would be a horrible decision to retreat from Iraq and then have Iraq descend into a full civil war with AQ taking advantage where it can.Quote:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/158/story/52170.html
Ret. Army Lt. Col. John Nagl, who helped craft the military's new counterinsurgency doctrine with Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus, said that while the drawdown is small, the U.S. is winning — but withdrawing too soon could undermine that success.
"The security gains are real and tangible but fragile," said Nagl, who visited Iraq last month. "If you declare victory too soon, whether in a province or the whole country, al Qaida can come back. And it is a whole lot less work and a whole lot less blood spilled keeping them out once you have cleared an area than it is pulling out prematurely and then having to go back and clear them out again."
My problem is that Iraq will be "fragile" into the foreseeable future (10+ years, IMO). Sunnis and Shias have hated each other for a long, long time, and can certainly wait for the US to leave to fight each other.
Can we spend $10B/month (or whatever outrageous sum it is) for an indefinite number of years to keep the Iraq pot from boiling over? This is even more of a problem given our financial woes and our unwillingness to pay taxes to pay for the government we want, much less the military missions. Oh, yes, Afghanistan is slowly spinning out of control while we stretch to keep troops in Iraq and keep their leaders from stupidity.
I don't like retreating from Iraq with the possible horrible consequences, but what are the realistic options?
The other reality is that our economy gets weakened and weakened the longer we stay there. There's a cost to waging these wars, and we're not fighting just two countries. They're being helped by Iran, Syria, Pakistan... This thing is very very messy, and I venture they're going to try to stretch this as long as possible and see if they can cause another Vietnam.Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
The other problem is that the war is as unpopular as it can be with the American people. If politicians keep losing elections, they're going to end this sooner or later.
That's why I couldn't believe McCain was talking up the wars last night. Even if he secretly supports them, people are fucking tired of them.
Troop levels have already begun to decline and I think they'll continue to be reactive to the level of violence experienced on the ground. Meanwhile, the Iraqi government is coming together and making political progress. Unfortunately it takes a while for new governments to begin functioning normally and reach a point where they're self-sustaining...especially when you have such a diverse group of people being brought together.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurster
Barring a major civil uprising or concentrated insurgent effort, I would expect the troop levels to continue to decline and see some of those forces redirected to Afghanistan to combat the Taliban and al-Queda.
I do think it's unrealistic to expect either candidate would pull all of the troops out of Iraq in their first term, though I don't think you'll see the same type of dollars flowing into Iraq as you saw at the height of the surge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Our economy is weakened because of all the scumbags on wall street. ---
Not arguing that. But the wars are costing a bundle too, and it's mostly debt we're using to finance it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biernutz
The problem is perception. And both candidates will have to justify staying in Iraq (which both will do) by altering that perception.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Here I'll frame it for you:
See, it's not how or why we got into Iraq that's important anymore. Because now we're now fighting a different enemy. In fact, we're fighting the enemy that we should've been fighting all along (i.e. the terrorists), only now that battleground is in Iraq as well as Afghanistan. So as long as there are terrorists in Iraq, we'll be here to fight them so we don't have to fight them on our soil.
And whether you accept it or not, we're going to be spending billions of dollars in the war on terrorism, whether that war takes place in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere. Again, it's all about perception.
How many years could we stay in Iraq for $700 billion?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I will disagree with you on this. It has nothing to do with perception. You're just trying to pass opinion for fact. We don't HAVE TO fight terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. We don't HAVE TO keep spending billions in these wars.Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
I respect your opinion, but perception has nothing to do with it.
About 5Quote:
Originally Posted by Biernutz
You're right (Obama tactic...j/k :lol), we don't have to fight the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq, but both candidates haven't backed off from continuing to wage the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Hell, Obama said he'd launch attacks in Pakistan without cooperation from the government if it meant catching high-vis targets.
Granted it might not be $10B/month, but this war, whether it's fought in Iraq or Afghanistan, will continue to be supported by either administration and backed by US taxpayer dollars.
So, I hear you saying we don't have to wage this war, but I don't hear the same thing from either candidate.
I agree with that. That's why I personally don't like either of these two guys opinion on the subject. That said, I see McCain as the more warmonger of the two. I think he's ready to go into Iran right now. Pakistan would follow, and eventually Syria would need to be 'freed' too.Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
If we're overstretched as it is now, how do we exactly plan to achieve that? And what will really be the cost? Obama had something right the other night: This is the same McCain that said the Iraq war was going to be a walk in the park, and that we would be greeted as liberators.
So, at some level, it does matter how the Iraq war started, if only to gauge the disconnect from reality of some of these guys.
And BTW, it's really a pleasure we can have this conversation even if we don't agree. With all the partisan hacks flying around the forum these days, this exchange is certainly refreshing.
I think I've said it somewhere on this forum today, but in my opinion the perception (sorry for using that word again) that John McCain is more of a warmonger seems overstated or exaggerated.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Yes, he has talked tough and loose on Iran, and yes he's a child of war. But, the military teaches its leaders more than just how to fight, and McCain has seen firsthand how administrations can muck up wartime situations. I think he's probably more hot-headed than Obama, but I don't see him rushing too quickly to judgement and putting servicemen and women in harms way without considering the alternatives.
Of course, I'm probably in the minority and admit it's a gut-feel...so take it for what it's worth.
You asked what McCain would do if the war on terror stretched into those other countries (doubt it'll go that far, but I'll oblige)....he'll increase the size of the military. And yes, he'll increase the budget for defense. He stated it the other night fairly clearly when asked his priority should he have to reign in spending due to the bailout...without hesitation he said "defense" and "veterans care".
Hey, at least the man tells you where he stands!
It's interesting that you brought up the Obama quote about McCain thinking it was going to be easy, because I picked that one up the other night too. It's funny because it was easy and we were greeted as liberators. I think it's factually inaccurate to state otherwise.
But, I do admit that when the insurgency began we were ill-prepared and ill-equipped to handle it from a strategic and tactical (see how I brought it back to the thread title there :lol) perspective, which led to the difficult times and the resentment from Iraqis that we stayed and the situation only worsened.
To your final point...I do think it matters how the Iraq war started. Mostly I think it matters so that we don't repeat the mistakes of the past. That we have a clear exit strategy and are more flexible to changing environments.
But again, I do respect Obama for calling it a bad deal when we went in and absolutely respect those who cite that as one of the reasons they feel confident in voting for him.