Is sending more troops to Iraq a strategy or a tactic?

[Biernutz]

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.
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 ing tired of them.

Our economy is weakened because of all the s bags on wall street. ---

[ElNono]

Our economy is weakened because of all the s bags 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.

[AFBlue]

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.
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 ing tired of them.

The problem is perception. And both candidates will have to justify staying in Iraq (which both will do) by altering that perception.

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.

[Biernutz]

Not arguing that. But the wars are costing a bundle too, and it's mostly debt we're using to finance it.

How many years could we stay in Iraq for $700 billion?

[ElNono]

The problem is perception. And both candidates will have to justify staying in Iraq (which both will do) by altering that perception.

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.

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.
I respect your opinion, but perception has nothing to do with it.

[ElNono]

How many years could we stay in Iraq for $700 billion?

About 5

[AFBlue]

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.
I respect your opinion, but perception has nothing to do with it.

You're right (Obama tactic...j/k ), 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.

, 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.

[ElNono]

You're right (Obama tactic...j/k ), 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.

, 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.
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.

[AFBlue]

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.
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.

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 le there ) 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.