|
 |
||
|
Latest Stories
Recent blog posts
|
July 22, 2008 - 10:22am.
 The indications are that Barack Obama is returning from his visits to Afghanistan and Iraq with at least a more nuanced view of Iraq. His view of Afghanistan remains unequivocal: It is the central front in the war on terrorism; he would deploy at least 10,000 more U.S. combat troops there; and he fears that a long-term military presence in Iraq will detract from that fight. The Democrats took control of Congress with the commitment to implement a specific timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. In the event, the Democrats weren't able to pull off the timetable, and the success of the surge has eased the pressure to fulfill that promise. But Obama appeared to echo the original commitment in his campaign platform: "So when I am commander in chief, I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this war." But his campaign Web site is more guarded, calling for "a responsible, phased withdrawal" in consultation with the U.S. military commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government. Oh, and there would be "a residual force" to conduct counterterrorism operations -- and how is this not combat? -- and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel, as of now our largest foreign mission. Obama did get to consult with the Iraqi government, and the upshot from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was not so much nuanced as simply confused. In an interview with a German magazine, al-Maliki seemed to embrace Obama's plan for a 16-month withdrawal, which would put a U.S. exit around May 2010. That was quickly amended -- perhaps after an angry call from the White House --to the hope that the violence would have subsided enough by 2010 that the United States could start leaving. That's a big caveat. And it should be seen in the Iraqi political context. Despite their factionalism, Iraqis have a prickly sense of nationalism and their politicians, regardless of what they may think privately, have to publicly favor an imminent, but not too imminent, U.S. departure. It is too much to say Obama is drawing closer to John McCain, who has some really serious caveats: No U.S. withdrawal until al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated and a capable government and security forces able to safeguard the people are in place. But a nebulous call for a U.S. withdrawal in 16 months may not be all that far from President Bush's even more nebulous "general time horizon" for withdrawal.
Capitol Hill Blue's columnists, blogs and reader comments Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site that belongs to no political party and subscribes to no political or philosophical point-of-view. Our columnists are welcome to their opinions but readers should understand that their views do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of this web site. We also welcome comments to selected opinion columns and in our popular ReaderRant discussion forum. Please remember, however, that we believe in civility on this web site and comments may be reviewed, moderated or removed if we feel they contain obscenities, racism, bigotry, anti-Semitic remarks or attack other posters. Our goal is reasoned discussion on issues facing this nation and we do not feel that goal is served by personal attacks and by seeing how many cute adjectives you can attach to an elected official or politician's name. Copyright © 2008 Capitol Hill Blue
|
User login
 |
Technorati Tags: 
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
I predict that Afghanistan
Submitted by Jeffers on July 22, 2008 - 11:07am.I predict that Afghanistan will become Obama's Vietnam.
Recall that many attacked Bush during the initial days of the Afghan invasion for the "quagmire" they saw before Tora Bora offered some promise.
Afghanistan and Pakistan are huge political obstacles to peace and the return of troops to American soil.
Jeffers
Peace without freedom is still slavery.
I am sorry but I have no
Submitted by Timr on July 22, 2008 - 12:19pm.I am sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about. Obama has been consistant when he (still) says 16 months to get our troops out of Iraq. 2 brigades per month. CENTCOM gets an al-Maliki aide to say-16 hours after the interview-that there were misintepretations made-but does not list them-so you use this to say that Iraq does not want the US to withdraw? Is that what you are saying? Well you have missed what happened next. The same aide stated the next day, after Obama and al-Maliki had their meeting-in english for all the monolinguists in the US-that the Iraq president stated correctly, Iraq wants all US troops out by 2010-which is the same thing that Obama has been saying for 16 months. Bushco and st john McCain sing a different tune, but they have not got a leg to stand on as they both have said-on tape, you can find it on Utube-that if the sovereign govt of Iraq told us to leave, well then of course we would have to leave. They never expected that the Iraq puppet would cut its strings, but now that it has, bush and McCain are saying that they know Iraq better, and that al-Maliki doesn't really mean it. Just because the MSM has been mindlessly repeating the republician meme that Obama's views on Iraq have/are changing, I have to go to the tapes of what was really said and when it was said. Go back and look at all the times in the last 16 months that Obama has had to answer the same questions on Iraq, every time the republicians put out talking points about how Obama has changed his position. And of course that same MSM-lazy asses-repeats everything that the republicians put out as some kind of revealed truth, something that points to Obama changing his mind-even tho he has not-the corporate owners of the MSM would much rather that their reporters use the daily rep. talking points, and the Drudge report, than-god forbid-they actually go out and find out what the facts are before repeating the drivel that the rep.s offer. You seem to have bought into that selfsame rep. meme.
I happen to agree that
Submitted by barak on July 23, 2008 - 3:22am.I happen to agree that Afghanistan should be the focus of our military action, and that we should withdraw completely from Iraq in 4 months, not 18. I don't think Afghanistan can be compared to Vietnam because I think we can, if we kill the leaderS of the Taliban, specifically Osama bin Laden and the next 5 men under him, end the Taliban's activity for all intents and purposes. If we need to pursue into Pakistan, so be it. Bin Laden should not feel secure regardless of where he is holed up, and I believe that with a concentrated effort and all the sophisticated resources at our command, we can prevail.
I think that Bush/Cheney diverted the Afghan effort and hunt for bin Laden in order to put big bucks into their own pockets and the deep pockets of their Oil buddies. NOTHING in the news before or since seems to contradict this view. I believe that George W Bush will emerge as the richest man in the world, even though much of his wealth will be hidden from prying public scrutiny. He has made enough people rich beyond their most optimistic dreams, and I am sure that none of them would be adverse to hiding a few hundred million for this dumb 'Decider.'
My greatest wish is that Bush and Cheney not be allowed to escape with the billions of dollars they are stealing from the taxpayers, and that they be made to pay for the lives lost in Iraq due to their fake 'war' against WMDs. I want them to be tried, for surely they will be convicted if there are 12 good men or women who cannot be bribed--IF. What a large word that is for only two letters--IF.
It seems to me that IF we can bring them to trial, and if we can find an honest jury and judge, there will be no "IF" when it comes time for a verdict. If I am correct, then these two traitors will find justice at the end of a rope, just as they administered this same type of justice to their pawn, Sadam Hussein.
I doubt that either Bush or Cheney will show the courage that Hussein showed at his execution, but most of all I would really like to see just what does happen.
What's that saying--you can fool some of the people some of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
Try em fair and hang em high...
1. Osama is not a leader of
Submitted by churlpat on July 23, 2008 - 8:08am.1. Osama is not a leader of the Taliban.
2. Haven't we learned our lesson about invading another country? And don't forget, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. If you think they would hesitate to use them you will end up with fallout in your britches.
3. Why should we be able to defeat the Taliban when the full might of the Soviet Union (minus only nuclear weapons) was fruitless? We should have learned something in Vietnam. Obviously we didn't.
4. As far as war crimes trials for Bush and his minions, that's just not going to happen. Certainly we can wish, but you know the saying about wishes and horses.
Churlpat -- a plutarch by any name is still a plutarch