If Obama Wins

Sure, collateral damage has never been big in the general’s minds. Perhaps if it was things would be a little different. Not the bluff they are using in Iraq, I mean the real count.
 
Collateral damage has always been (at least in the more recent decades) in the minds of Generals. In fact it's been very important.
 
I agree with frank. When you're there to help the Iraqi civillians, their deaths count too.

Right now, depending on who you ask, there's between 50,000-500,000 civillian casualties to this war, which we're fighting to protect these citizens.

Slightly less than Saddam's numbers, I will note.
 
Of course civilian deaths count, nobody says they don't. You don't count them when you're referring to combatants' deaths however.
Back to the topic at hand. If anyone can tell me exactly what BHO's withdrawal plans actually are, it'd be the first time I'd be hearing it. Answers like "when conditions are right" are BS, IMO. That's just more "no exit strategy" to me. Maybe it's just me but pulling several Brigades out at a time is all well and good but, I'd hate to be in the last Brigade out of Dodge.
 
Not to mention the fact that if it's not done properly, probably be right back there anyway with a stronger, more organized and larger enemy/military to kiss us upon landing.
 
DTop said:
Of course civilian deaths count, nobody says they don't. You don't count them when you're referring to combatants' deaths however.
Back to the topic at hand. If anyone can tell me exactly what BHO's withdrawal plans actually are, it'd be the first time I'd be hearing it. Answers like "when conditions are right" are BS, IMO. That's just more "no exit strategy" to me. Maybe it's just me but pulling several Brigades out at a time is all well and good but, I'd hate to be in the last Brigade out of Dodge.
Click to expand...

Obama's plan is a full scale withdrawl within 16 months, during the time the effort would be focused on strengthening the weak Iraqi Government. Its a plan McCain would like to hate, but actually he has recently admitted to be amendable to it, provided the Generals in Iraq concur.
 
mmarsh said:
Obama's plan is a full scale withdrawl within 16 months, during the time the effort would be focused on strengthening the weak Iraqi Government. Its a plan McCain would like to hate, but actually he has recently admitted to be amendable to it, provided the Generals in Iraq concur.
Click to expand...
I suspect the only reason 16 months is being thrown out there is that it will give BHO 8 months to blame the ensuing chaos on someone else before his term ends. Otherwise, why choose 16 months?
As for McCain, he says:
It would be a grave mistake to leave before Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated and before a competent, trained, and capable Iraqi security force is in place and operating effectively. We must help the Government of Iraq battle those who provoke sectarian tensions and promote a civil war that could destabilize the Middle East. Iraq must not become a failed state, a haven for terrorists, or a pawn of Iran. These likely consequences of America's failure in Iraq almost certainly would either require us to return or draw us into a wider and far costlier war.
The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists. When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home.
Click to expand...
As far as McCain agreeing with BHO's withdrawal plan, the following quote from McCain seem to indicate a difference of opinion.
"Senator Obama will tell you we can't win in Afghanistan without losing in Iraq. In fact, he has it exactly backwards. With the right strategy and the right forces, we can succeed in both Iraq and Afghanistan."
"It is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan. I know how to win wars. And if I'm elected president, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory."
Click to expand...
SOURCE

"I called for a comprehensive new strategy - a surge of troops and counterinsurgency to win the war. Senator Obama disagreed. He opposed the surge, predicted it would increase sectarian violence, and called for our troops to retreat as quickly as possible,"
"The surge has succeeded. And because of its success, the next president will inherit a situation in Iraq in which America's enemies are on the run and our soldiers are beginning to come home,"
Click to expand...
SOURCE

Here's the transcript where McCain seems to agree with the time table of 16 months:
The transcript:
BLITZER: What if Maliki persists? You're president and he says he wants US troops out and he wants them out, let's say in a year or two years or 16 months or whatever. What do you do? Do you listen to the prime minister?
MCCAIN: He won't. He won't. He won't. Because it has to be condition-based.
BLITZER: How do you know?
MCCAIN: Because I know him. And I know him very well. And I know the other leaders. And I know -- I've been there eight times, as you know. I know them very, very well.
BLITZER: So why do you think he said that 16 months is basically a pretty good timetable?
MCCAIN: He said it's a pretty good timetable based on conditions on the ground. I think it's a pretty good timetable, as we should -- or horizons for withdrawal. But they have to be based on conditions on the ground.
Click to expand...
SOURCE
It sounds like he's not agreeing with set schedule of 16 months but rather with a withdrawal based on assessment of the conditions in Iraq by the commanders on the ground. Obama seems to be bent on getting out in 16 months come hell or high water. To me, there's a significant difference between the two.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top