News Obama to appear on Bill O'Reilly's The Factor this evening (FOX)

[Greg Bernhardt]

Assassinations and kidnappings are still all too common.

You could say that about Mexico or Columbia too

 

[russ_watters]

I don't get your point. There is no doubt that given enough troops, the situation could be controlled. The question was whether or not this was the best or only option.

It may or may not have been the best, but that's the beauty of speculation - you can speculate all you want about things that never happened and you can never be wrong. But he'll have a hard time convincing people that his fantasy could have been a reality and I doubt he'll try, in any case - it would be a mistake for him to argue what you are arguing. The fact of the matter is that the surge worked: violence is down since before the surge.

That doesn't make a person who looked for 'other options' wrong, but it does make opposition to the surge on the grounds that the surge wouldn't work wrong.

How many insurgents or terrorists have simply gone into hiding?

Perhaps a lot, but that's not the primary reason for the drop in violence, the primary reason is the end of the civil war between Islamic factions. Ie:

It is also a fact that the Sunni awakening played a large role in improving conditions in Iraq. This had nothing to do with the surge.

I would say that the Sunni awakening played a large role in improving conditions in Iraq. This had a lot to do with the surge.

Anyway if the insurgents are in hiding, I guess you are implying that they might come out of hiding. But there's a problem with that: stability is self-sustaining. The decrease in violence enables the Iraqi government to gain strength and the Iraqi military to gain recruits and train-up. So even if you are right in your insinuation that there are more insurgents out there who will soon start attacking again, the Iraqis will be better able to handle it than they were a year ago.

I agree with others that the drop in violence in Iraq is a major problem for Obama. He opposed the surge and the surge worked and nitpicking what-if fantasies isn't going to convince people that his policy wasn't a mistake. What Obama's Iraq policy looks/ed like to me is 'yank our troops out and screw the Iraqis'.

But beyond that is the 'what do we do now?' question. Now a 'yank our troops out' policy isn't even useful anymore - we're pulling our troops out at an accelerating rate anyway (big announcement coming next week on this and you can bet the farm on what Bush is going to do), which makes the positions of both candidates irrelevant at this point. But McCain's is irrelevant because his previous policy worked while Obama's is irrelevant because his previous policy was ignored. That makes the current situation in Iraq a big, big bonus for McCain, that will only increase up to the election unless we see a big turn-around in the stability before then.

 

[LightbulbSun]

But Russ, a troop surge is not a long term solution. The long term solution is to make Iraq a sovereign nation.

 

[LowlyPion]

But Russ, a troop surge is not a long term solution. The long term solution is to make Iraq a sovereign nation.

A better solution may have been not to go there to begin with. Then a troop surge wouldn't have been needed and 3 thousand Americans wouldn't have perished.

Maybe that Bush vision thing wasn't working at the start is the real problem?.

 

[russ_watters]

But Russ, a troop surge is not a long term solution.

No one ever said it was -- and it wasn't: it's already ended.

The long term solution is to make Iraq a sovereign nation.

The surge won't cause that on its own, but it has an awful lot to do with the progress Iraq has made toward being a sovereign nation. Stability is a prerequisite for sovereignty.

 

[Gokul43201]

The fact of the matter is that the surge worked: violence is down since before the surge.

The latter doesn't imply the former. And neither implies that it wasn't a stupid idea.

 

[Gokul43201]

What Obama's Iraq policy looks/ed like to me is 'yank our troops out and screw the Iraqis'.

Did Bush's policy look to you 'take the troops in and screw the Iraqis'?

 

[mheslep]

...Iraq is still far from being stable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Sattar_Buzaigh_al-Rishawi

Assassinations and kidnappings are still all too common.

You could say that about Mexico or Columbia too :wink

And Chicago, Illinois, 125 shot dead this Summer.

 

[russ_watters]

The latter doesn't imply the former. And neither implies that it wasn't a stupid idea.

Even assuming that your implication that the surge had nothing to do with the downturn in violence is correct, how do you think Obama will be able to argue that to the voters? That is what this is about, Gokul.

Did Bush's policy look to you 'take the troops in and screw the Iraqis'?

These little one-liners are really silly, Gokul. Besides not having anything to do with anything, that isn't anywhere close to how Bush's actions were initially generally received.

 

[mheslep]

Both candidates for the Presidency of the United States call the surge in Iraq a big success. If one thinks otherwise you might consider backing a 3rd party.

 

[russ_watters]

You're right - I just went looking around and found it in the transcript:

I think that there's no doubt that the violence in down. I believe that that is a testimony to the troops that were sent and General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated, by the way, including President Bush and the other supporters.

So this argument about the surge not doing anything is really just a non-starter. Obama said it worked, so the question of if it worked or not isn't even on the table. It's good of him to admit that, but the point remains: this is a big problem for him and it is going to keep getting worse as we keep pulling troops out and handing over more territory to Iraqi control.

[edit] O'Reilly annoys me. He likes being the attack dog, but when you have the upper hand, you still have to let your opponent speak. There's no way to trap him if you don't let him speak and O'Reilly really could have pounded on this issue if he were a better debater.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You're right - I just went looking around and found it in the transcript:

So you have been debating without even watching the interview? I thought we all knew this.

So this argument about the surge not doing anything is really just a non-starter. Obama said it worked, so the question of if it worked or not isn't even on the table. It's good of him to admit that, but the point remains: this is a big problem for him and it is going to keep getting worse as we keep pulling troops out and handing over more territory to Iraqi control.

The fact is that he has called for a timetable all along. Only now is everyone else catching up.

 

[Gokul43201]

Even assuming that your implication that the surge had nothing to do with the downturn in violence is correct,

I didn't imply that. I only implied that the downturn in violence may have had nothing to do with the surge, but it is easy to conflate coincidence (events happening simultaneously) with causation. But it would be be a bad idea to try and make an intelligent point to an unintelligent audience. And that was only one of the two points I made.

how do you think Obama will be able to argue that to the voters? That is what this is about, Gokul.

How will McCain be able to argue to voters that his position in support of the war and that his assessment that it would be short and deliver an overwhelming success were sound? They've both got difficult jobs convincing the people of such (and other) things. What will be important is not how they convince the people of the basis of their positions but rather how they convince people that the other guy's blunder was the bigger one.

These little one-liners are really silly, Gokul.

The point was to show how silly an assessment you voiced over Obama's position in your one-line summary. I guess the point hit home.

Besides not having anything to do with anything, that isn't anywhere close to how Bush's actions were initially generally received.

I expect you to have a more informed and intelligent picture of things than the average John Q public. You were talking about how the policy "looks/ed like to me", which, I hope, is different from how they looks/ed to the average person. So I don't understand the change in direction.

 

[chemisttree]

Part 2 of the interview is tonight. There will be an installment Tuesday and Wednesday as well.

Will O'Reilly drop a gem like Obama's Iraq answer each night? Wow! Talk about a nightmare for the Obama campaign! A nightly disaster that goes on for 3 days and discussion of them and his decline in the polls that lasts through the weekend.

O'Reilly might have just given McCain's campaign an Obama http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm10.html"