Barack Obama is more interested in meeting with our "enemies" than supporting our troops in Iraq.
Once upon a time, (okay it was about 871 days or so ago) in a galaxy far, far away, Barack Obama visited Iraq. He was there for two days. He saw nothing that made him change his opinion that the US needed to pull out of Iraq.…
Article comments
26 - Dave Nalle
Even when he finds himself under the command of the UN, underequipped with inadequate manpower and logistical support, intervening on behalf of brutal dictators in third-world hellholes where his men get captured and tortured and he doesn't have the backing or resources to keep them safe or alive, and his own superiors betray him and make deals to line their pockets behind his back? And then finally he finds himself ordered to turn a blind eye to inhumanity and genocide on the part of unworthy allies, or even participate or allow his troops to participate in atrocities?
That's his future under Obama or Clinton for that matter. If he's smart he'll retire now.
Dave
27 - SJ Reidhead
Dave;
That's the best commentary I've heard to date. I might steal it.
SJ Reidhead
The Pink Flamingo
28 - Dave Nalle
It's basically just a condensation of things I've picked up from a general, a colonel and a couple of sergeants I've spent time chatting with in the last few years. Certain common concerns for the future they expressed based on years of experience.
Dave
29 - bliffle
Speculative piffle.
30 - bliffle
Did those guys you cited ever relate to you any times when Petraeus struggled valiantly with his superiors?
31 - Clavos
Apparently, bliffle has taken to responding to himself when the rest of us ignore him:
#25: "Nobody who commands Petraeus will worry, hate or fear him. His well-known record has always been that he doesn't struggle with superiors. Like Condy Rice.He'll just carry out orders whatever they are, making sure he keeps his own skirts clean."
#29: "Speculative piffle."
32 - Christopher Rose
Clavos, just to keep the facts straight: wasn't Dave's flight of
paranoid excessfancy in #26 a response to bliffle's #25?And his #29 and 30 a response to Dave's #28? And then your comment a resonse to all that?
So he's not being ignored, let alone by some hypothetical "us"?
As to the author of this article's point, I don't see what is strange about Obama, who will possibly be President in a few months, meeting another country's President. That certainly seems more logical than meeting a US Army General.
Equally logical is that Ms Reidhead should attack Obama, as she is a committed Republican, although the attack in this article seems odd, based as it is on some entirely unfounded assumptions.
For example, Iraq isn't a "current battlefield" because the war is over; Iraq is not and never was a threat to the United States; even Iran is not a meaningful threat to the United States, the likelihood of Iran attacking or invading the US, let alone conquering it, is zero.
Similarly, and regardless of who wins the next election, it must, at the very least, be highly debatable that the US is going to resort to any meaningful military action against Iran, having already expended so much in Afghanistan and Iraq and achieved so little.
That means that dialogue with one of the major power brokers in the region is inevitable, it's just a question of when and how.
The Kennedy/Khrushchev thing is similarly flawed; if that meeting gave Khrushchev the impression that Kennedy was weak, he got it wrong, as subsequent events showed.
The author could have saved herself and us a lot of time by simply saying "my party, right or wrong".
33 - Dave Nalle
Speculative piffle.
Bliff, I guess I wasn't clear enough. All of those things are not just speculations on the future, they're all things American soldiers have had to put up with in the past - mostly under the Clinton and Carter administrations. The speculation is all of it coming together and being repeated in the future. But it's realistic concern.
Dave
34 - Dave Nalle
Chris, did you go off your meds? You actually said a couple of things which make sense.
For example, Iraq isn't a "current battlefield" because the war is over; Iraq is not and never was a threat to the United States; even Iran is not a meaningful threat to the United States, the likelihood of Iran attacking or invading the US, let alone conquering it, is zero.
All dead on. The people who keep saying that Iraq is an ongoing war are mainly doing it for political purposes. Did you read my article from a few weeks ago about why our involvement in Iraq makes no sense?
Similarly, and regardless of who wins the next election, it must, at the very least, be highly debatable that the US is going to resort to any meaningful military action against Iran, having already expended so much in Afghanistan and Iraq and achieved so little.
The US is currently incapable of invading Iran successfully even if we wanted to. Anyone who seriously proposes it is too dumb to be president.
Dave
35 - Cobra
SJ Reidhead writes:
"Barack Obama has not once talked to the Commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus."
I know that the news cycle on the Internet can be delayed at times, but perhaps I can get you up to speed on this little NATIONALLY televised event from April 8, 2008: "Obama Questions Petraeus at Senate Hearing Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Hearing on Iraq"
I know there's a lot of READING in this link to the transcript, so I'm going to be considerate and provide a video link as well.
I know, I know. Obama didn't fly over to Iraq, and pose for a photo op at a Bahgdad Market...
"Sunday 01 April 2007
Sen. John McCain strolled briefly through an open-air market in Baghdad today in an effort to prove that Americans are "not getting the full picture" of what's going on in Iraq.
NBC's Nightly News provided further details about McCain's one-hour guided tour. He was accompanied by "100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead." Still photographs provided by the military to NBC News seemed to show McCain wearing a bulletproof vest during his visit."
But there's no way in HELL one can say that Obama is not "willing to meet with General Petraeus."
--Cobra
36 - bliffle
Petraeus will do as he is told, regardless of who his boss is. That is his ecord. He has never offered a contrary opinion to a superior. It serves no purpose for anyone to meet Petraeus or to look for a discussion of possibilities. He is a climber so he seeks to assuage his superiors vanity, no matter who it is.
Notice that Bush did not meet with Petraeus before he invaded Iraq.
37 - Clavos
He has never offered a contrary opinion to a superior.
Unless you've sat in on all of Petraeus's meetings with his superiors during his entire career, that statement is, as you would quaintly put it, "piffle," bliffle.
38 - Zedd
Am I understanding this article correctly?
It goes.... Asking Obama to go to Iraq and meet with certain people is a political stunt. Obama has not gone and met with those people that his opponents want him to meet with and he has not said if he is ever going to do so. CONCLUSION: Obama will make a bad President because he will not do what his opponents want him to do.
Qu'est-ce que c'est?????
39 - Dan Miller
Zedd,
No, he should not go to Iraq to participate in a political stunt and no, he will not make a bad president because he will not do what his opponents want him to do.
I don't know whether he will make a good president or not. It certainly appears that he will have an opportunity to provide an answer to that question.
However, I think he should go to Iraq, and meet with General Petraeus and others, including some of the line officers and troops because, if he is to make intelligent decisions, both in the general election campaign and thereafter as president, he should have something better than the smattering of information he seems to be getting. He needs to know, firsthand, about the recent consequences of the surge and how Iraq is shaping up -- are we wasting lives and money there, or is it somehow worthwhile. Without this knowledge, how can he possibly have a reasonable basis for making decisions about what to do? And how can we, the people who will vote for or against him, have a reasonable basis for doing so?
Of course, he can just continue to spout the party line, but I could not bring myself to see that as admirable. My guess is that he would do his campaign a lot of good by going, spending half a week or so, evaluating the situation and considering what, if any, changes he should make in his stated views.
Dan
40 - Dan Miller
Cobra,
You note (comment #25) that Senator Obama questioned General Petraeus on 8 April during a Senate hearing. Do you really think that is enough? I read your link, and it seems clear tht Senator Obama spent a whole lot of time making speeches, and very little time dealing with General Petraeus' responses. But then, of course, that is the purpose of Congressional hearings. The purpose is not to get answers to questions, but to set forth one's own views.
In addition, the hearing was nearly two months ago. A lot has happened since then, and much of it has been for the better. Don't you really think that Senator Obama -- probably our next president -- would glean enough real information to make such a trip useful? I don't mean photo opportunities, I mean a fact-finding based trip, including discussions not only with General Petraeus but with his staff and with line officers and troops. Perhaps even some of Iraq's leaders?
The answer is self-evident to me, but perhaps you have a different view.
Dan
41 - Zedd
Dan,
I was being rhetorical or silly.
Petraeus will report to him if or when he is President. He doesn't need to go to Iraq to ask him how's it goin'.
This article is silly.
Do American Generals in the middle of war make it a matter of practice to brief candidates for office so that they can have better convincing stump speeches?
42 - Clavos
@#11:
Perhaps they don't, which would explain why we keep losing all our wars lately...
He doesn't need to go to Iraq to ask him how's it goin'.
He does if he expects to be able to lead.
You have an incredibly short-sighted and narrow viewpoint.
Stupid, even...
43 - Zedd
Clav,
What war are you refering to? Chuckle.
I will restate. Do American Generals in the middle of war make it a matter of practice to brief candidates for office so that they can have better convincing stump speeches?
44 - Zedd
Petraeus would be reporting to HIM. He will have the entire military at his disposal to get briefed minute to minute once he is President.
Going to the General prior to being in office is meaningless and simply a political ploy. Some of you like being played and actually require it. Others of us just want what will solve real problems. A trip from Obama to Petraeus will not make him any wiser. Petraeus give his report. He will not be giving Obama, Clinton or McCain the inside scoop simply because they are running.
45 - Dave Nalle
The issue here is not going to the general, it's making the effort to be well informed on the issues of concern to the voters. Without talking to those involved in the situation in Iraq how is he to hold an informed position?
Dave
46 - Clavos
Dave,
Wouldn't you think Zedd should have been able to figure that out on her own?
47 - Jet in Columbus
You're kidding-aren't you Clavos?
48 - Zedd
Dave,
Off course. That is why I say this article is silly. The author made an issue of going to Petraeus. My point is that that is NOT the important thing. It's this type of preoccupation that makes irrelevant matters the national obsession (including the media's). Patraeus gave his report and information pours out of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He can be informed without adhering to this meaningless criterion. This is a political ploy as the author said. My question was, if that is the case, why the article?
Clav,
Shush you.
49 - Clavos
Once again, the Supercilious Princess misses the central points, not only of the article, but of the commenters as well; Obama is ill informed as to Iraq and his refusal to actually meet with and learn from those who are conducting the war is arrogant.
Too bad, but par for the course for the Princess.
50 - Zedd
The author has not made an argument about Obama's lack of understanding relevant military matters. That should be the focus. Quite frankly, as tangled as the entire matter is because of this administration's deception and inaptitude, it would be difficult to determine who has the right plan because there is no real strategy afoot. There are hopes and dreams but the truth is everyone is in the dark and hopes that what they project and propose will work.
The sooner that the public becomes comfortable with that, the more affective the next President will be. Having unrealistic expectations from our leaders sometimes renders us with more complicated situations. Politicians end up making stupid, expedient decisions (quick fixes) just to please the public only to mess things up further.
Also having a public that has gotten used to being spun is dangerous. Everyone is a pundit. People think that everyone else wont get it so the politicians need to "play it" this way for the masses. Its so ridiculous that people will support who spins best and actually read the spin quality as a sign of capability, when all it is is a better ability to dodge, to waist time doing nothing.
We do need change. The change has to come from us however. We may luck out and get a candidate who is more evolved that we are as a society, however, that will be just luck. We will probably get much the same until we decide that we really value ourselves and our minds. That our liberty lies in our ability to process and evaluate. I am discouraged judging from what we have allowed to take place in our government and certainly judging from the comments on these boards. Not because of people disagreeing, that is always fun, but adults who simple CANT think and seem to be proud of it. People who think that they are engaging in relevant political ideas yet don't know how to process a thought all the way through. People who want a Hollywood story ending ALL OF THE TIME and seem devastated or perplexed by the notion that people are much more complex and interesting than themes and sayings. Maybe its just a bad month. We will see.
51 - SJ Reidhead
Zedd;
The author did not emphasize Barack Obama's lack of military experience because that was not the point of the article.
I completely agree with your final paragraph. Fortunately I think in John McCain we have an excellent candidate. People don't know how to think - and they seem to pride themselves in the lack-there-of. It's all about hype and who can make people get this warm and fuzzy feeling in their little hearts as they vote for "change" not realizing there are times when "change" is very bad.
SJR
The author of the above article.
52 - Christopher Rose
I haven't been to the USA for quite a few years and I've never been to Iraq. I don't see how that makes me uninformed about the situation there.
It shouldn't be happening but, now that it is, a rushed withdrawal of coalition forces would make a difficult situation worse.
53 - SFC SKI
Christopher, I left Iraq about 15 months ago, and I'd still want to meet with the commander in Iraq before I made any statements regarding troop wothdrawal. Things have changed tremendously there, and for the better in places like Ramadi, Mosul, Basra, even Sadr City.
For press coverage of Iraq, no news really is good news, because only bad news gets published.
In any case, what gets in the press is only part of the story, I'd expect both presidential to meet with the people they need to meet with in order to make informed decsions, not continue on with assumptions made years ago.
54 - Lumpy
Your failure to visit Iraq or the US doesn't guarantee that you are ill informed. You could correct your ignorance from any of a number of secondary sources. The problem is that you, like Obama, think that your arrogant ideological assunptions don't need to be informed by facts in any way, presumably because of a fear that facts might challenge those sacred but vacuous assumptions.
If Obama wanted to be informed he could get a briefing from Petraeus or anyone else, but he wnts to make his decisions on abstract principle (war is baaaad) not on troublesome and possibly inconvenient facts.
55 - Jet in Columbus
Chris, my opinion is that whether we rush out or stay months/years, the results will be exactly the same
chaos and embarrassment for the U.S. That's the shitty portion of this situation that can't be fixed-Bush is our president, our national leader, and the results of his bungling and bad decisions will be laid on our shoulders-because the world view is that we elected him our leader. (just barely both times)
A fucked up situation to say the least...
56 - Jet in Columbus
As for Obama, tragically since he looks more and more like the DNCs choice, I've been trying my best to warm to him, and was actually starting to get over his lack of any kind of political experience, his so-so impersonation of Martin Luther King... but then he threw his first pastor overboard, and now he's quitting his church of 20 years... all in the name of politics.
You all know how I feel about organized religion taking over politics, but quitting his church after 20 years like that sealed the deal.
Unless he takes Hillary as a VP I won't vote for him. I'd rather stay at home than vote for McCain too.
I didn't think I was that shallow, until I saw some astonishing polls on just how many Hillary supporters won't vote for Obama and vice versa.
The GOP must be laughing their asses off, because we've been divided and conquered by ourselves.
57 - Zedd
SJR,
Thank you for the unambiguous response. I don't think McCain is the right person for the time. I wish he had won the seat two elections ago. He would have been the perfect transition from Clinton. We would still be America. The one that we knew.
He would have done a phenomenal job at straightening out the Republicans. At a time when that party was bulleting through because of careless spin. This man stood firm and attempted to modify the greedy irresponsibility of the Rep spin doctors. I respected him for being vocal and being willing to be HATED by conservatives. He showed intelligence and purpose.
Obama is best right now on so many fronts. We need good PR. He sends the right message. We say we are egalitarian and claim that everyone gets a chance in America. Right now the world sees us as disingenuous and hypocritical. We have not had a minority to lead the nation. Those white male faces tell the world what we really respect and value. Also, the guy is refreshing and invigorating. We need that. He is smart. We need smart. We need to shed ourselves of the racial past. His candidacy has already stated to heal the divide.
Bush demonstrated that anyone can play the role of President. However, we need someone who will give us the biggest bang for our buck.
58 - bliffle
Obama has his policy and experience shortcomings, for sure.
So can we please stop braying about whacko christian ministers in Chicago and direct our Obama-interest and our Obama-time to his policies and his political history and stop wasting effort on his personal relationships, whether with Jermeniah X or with Petraeus?
59 - Dave Nalle
I'm pretty sure that picking our president based primarily on his international PR value is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Dave
60 - bliffle
OK, so let's skip over a candidates PR value.
I'll trade you that for skipping over his or her nutball acquaintances who shoot their mouths off.
How about policy?
How about plans?
How about executive experience?
etc.
61 - Zedd
Dave,
You must not read through your articles.
Every element should be considered when making a decision between several entities. WE NEED PR. Need it badly actually. Your inability to see that is rather problematic. Whats the point in going to conventions and engaging in political discourse all day if the significance if image eludes you, especially at this juncture? Politics is about image. Diplomacy is about perception. In order to lead the world we must set the example. We are not diverse, we say we are. We cant preach to Iraq about acceptance and inclusion when we don't really do it. We've had only one ethnicity in power since our conception. Did you miss that?
62 - Christopher Rose
SFC SKI, as I said, a premature withdrawal would be pretty bad for Iraq, just as any major and/or sudden change often is. It's not really necessary to know the fine detail of what is going on there to know that. I doubt there will be much significant change of US policy there, except maybe if McCain wins the election.
Lumpy, to take your remark seriously, you'd first have to convince me that you actually know what and/or how I think.
I fail to see how saying that the war in Iraq shouldn't be happening or that there should be no sudden withdrawal are "arrogant ideological assumptions".
Unless you have some top secret facts you'd like to share with us, my understanding is that the US was attacked by Al Qaeda, which was not significantly present in Iraq until after the US invasion, therefore there were no real grounds for the invasion.
All these years on, the leaders of Al Qaeda have still not been captured, a vast amount of money has been spent, a lot of people have died and the world has become more hostile and volatile.
Aren't these simply facts rather than "ideological assumptions"?
Perhaps rather than continuing your own little presumptious and ideologically loaded attitude, you could present us with the "real facts" as you see them...
Jet, I don't see the situation in Iraq as bleakly as you. Setting aside the rights and wrongs of being there, the general situation is showing signs of gradual improvement. Continuing to strengthen the Iraqis own institutions and working towards a gradual exit seems the only workable strategy.
As to Obama, I'm all for people throwing off the shackles of religion, so I don't see any problems with that myself. He seems like a smart guy and intelligence is an attractive quality to me.
63 - Jet in Columbus
Chris, I don't really see it as "Throwing off the shackles of religion", I see it as him dumping the church he's been worshiping at for 20 years because of political ambitions.
I just think that's wrong, and a little hypocritical, unless he was just looking for an excuse to leave his church.
I put that at as the same as my bank saying I'll get an extra point in interest on my checking account if I dump my best friend of twenty years... and I do it, that'd be damned shallow, and that's how I feel about Obama. it really has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with committment to something.
64 - Cobra
Dan writes:
>>>"You note (comment #25) that Senator Obama questioned General Petraeus on 8 April during a Senate hearing. Do you really think that is enough?"
It's certainly enough to debunk this article. Outside of that, I find it very interesting that some people here believe the spin, and think that going to the Green Zone, and then rolling out with a phalanx of troops and helicopter gunships to visit a market for a photo op is going to "inform" a person about what's really going on in Iraq better than actually asking the commanders.
The person who should have her keister in Iraq 24-7 is Secretary of State Rice, who should be working dilligently with Amb. Crocker to help the political reconciliation that MUST occur before anybody can even start to talk about 'success".
Now, if Petraeus is NOT being "accurate" in his sworn testimony to Congress, and there is some OTHER situation on the ground, then what does that make General Petraeus?
Dan writes:
>>>"In addition, the hearing was nearly two months ago. A lot has happened since then, and much of it has been for the better. Don't you really think that Senator Obama -- probably our next president -- would glean enough real information to make such a trip useful? I don't mean photo opportunities, I mean a fact-finding based trip, including discussions not only with General Petraeus but with his staff and with line officers and troops. Perhaps even some of Iraq's leaders?
The answer is self-evident to me, but perhaps you have a different view."
Well, it's the political silly season, so ANYTHING done by a candidate is subject to scrutiny and criticism. I'm not saying that a visit to Iraq itself is a bad idea, as long as there's a real purpose to it. If anything, I think the best type of visit there for a candidate is one that nobody hears about until he or she has touched down back in the US.
Of course, one can ask where is this sense of urgency from President Bush, the person RESPONSIBLE for this neo-con nightmare in the first place?
--Cobra
65 - Dave Nalle
All these years on, the leaders of Al Qaeda have still not been captured,
I refer you to this list of 20 major Al Qaeda leaders killed or captured. Of course, new people have been brought in to replace them, but that just reinforces the point that it is not the individual leaders whose capture or death matters, but instead that the real goal is disrupting and distracting the organization.
Dave
66 - Dave Nalle
Every element should be considered when making a decision between several entities. WE NEED PR. Need it badly actually.
I didn't say we needed no PR, just that our first priority in a president should not be our international image.
We should pick a president based on his positions and ability to lead. If he qualifies on those bases, then he will automatically generate good PR by doing a good job.
Your inability to see that is rather problematic.
The problem is only in your choice not to read or undestand what I actually wrote.
Whats the point in going to conventions and engaging in political discourse all day if the significance if image eludes you, especially at this juncture? Politics is about image. Diplomacy is about perception. In order to lead the world we must set the example. We are not diverse, we say we are. We cant preach to Iraq about acceptance and inclusion when we don't really do it. We've had only one ethnicity in power since our conception. Did you miss that?
I think that competence transcends ethnicity. Ethnicity is NOT a job qualification. It may be a nice bonus, but it shouldn't be what we pick our presidents on, either as a positive or a negative.
Dave
67 - Christopher Rose
Dave, you may think that list of people killed or captured constitutes mission accomplished but I don't think most would. That's like getting Condi when the target is Bush...
68 - Zedd
Dave,
Ethnicity HAS always been relevant in picking people for jobs in America. You cant be that disingenous. Ethnicity has most certainly been a criteria for President. You cant be serious.
Every quality or characteristic plays a roll in arenas where perception is crucial. Pretending as if that factor doesn't matter is childish or whishful. It matters. Always has. All of a sudden when we have to share the stage, its not an issue. Funny stuff. You know if Hillary was Black we wouldn't be having such a tight race. Her ethnicity is her only saving grace right now.
69 - Dan Miller
Cobra
If it were possible for Senator Obama to do as I suggested, without fanfare and without public announcement beforehand, that would be great and far more useful than doing it as a staged, publicity stunt. The difficulties in arranging to do it in secret would be substantial, since security would have to be tight, as for any other VIP, and the press would quickly get wind of it. Still, it's worth a shot.I think we may just be in basic agreement. You say,
Dan
70 - Clavos
Dan,
Difficult, but not impossible.
If memory serves, GWB has done it at least twice, and he's at least as high profile as BHO.
71 - Cobra
Dan writes:
>>>"I think we may just be in basic agreement."
Yes, I think we're on the same page. Of course I think that a President or a Presidential candidate should have intimate knowledge of urgent topics. I just don't believe it has to be a "made for TV docudrama" in every instance.
I mean, look at the behavior of the cable news channels during the June 4th "secret meeting" between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama at Diane Feinstein's house. It's as though they felt INSULTED that the two could get together unannounced, and without their official sanction.
Second, I think the general public doesn't have the appetite for minutia and policy wonk discussions, otherwise the ratings for CSPAN 1, 2 and 3 would be significantly higher. That also accounts for the rise of talk radio and cable news punditry who will take soundbites and b-roll and add their own opinions, tailored to whatever political affiliation their target audience most identifies with.
--Cobra