According to Barack Obama’s Co-Chair, retired Air Force General, Merrill A. “Tony” McPeak, Iraq is “going remarkably well”. This follows yesterday’s controversy in which McPeak compared Bill Clinton to Joseph McCarthy. Seriously, is this guy working undercover for John McCain? He is literally the gift that keeps on giving. McPeak should understand that the majority of Barack Obama’s supporters would rather have root canal without novacain than hear anything positive concerning Iraq. Positive statements or views on Iraq are simply not tolerated in the universe of the far left. Check out Keith Olbermann’s nightly ode to insanity for confirmation.
In fairness to McPeak, he does have reservations in regards to America’s policies in the mid-east. Here is an excerpt from the Oregonian:
Gen. Merrill A. “Tony� McPeak, retired former chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force, said Wednesday the Iraq war is “going remarkably well.� But the military’s rapid progress toward Baghdad has done little to ease his deep reservations about U.S. policy in the region.
McPeak, who headed the Air Force during the first Iraq war and now lives in Lake Oswego, said the United States will pay a political price for the Bush administration’s “maladroit� diplomatic efforts in the region. Turkey’s refusal to become a staging ground for the U.S. military hampered war plans, and he predicted a long and turbulent U.S. occupation of Iraq and perhaps other countries in the region.
“We’ve been in Europe now since 1945. We’ve been in Japan since 1945, been in Korea since 1950,� said McPeak, one of the United States’ most outspoken retired generals. “We haven’t had a Middle East occupation force, so this is a start of that. This is the way great powers operate; it’s the way Rome operated.�
(…)
Is there an alternative to urban warfare in Baghdad?
We could put Baghdad under siege and sit on the outside.
Would you really think so three years down the road, with stories from Baghdad of people dead and emaciated kids?
Yes. The impact on world opinion is an argument against that approach. It’s an argument for finishing this thing quickly. But, nevertheless, it’s a decision we can make. And we’ve already made decisions that said, ‘World opinion’s not very important to us.’
Is Iraq the last country we confront in the Middle East?
Who wants to volunteer to get cross-ways with us? We’ll be there a century, hopefully. If it works right.
I’ll tell you one thing we should not hope for (is) a democratic Iraq. When I hear the president talking about democracy, the last thing we should want is an election in Iraq. We’re not very popular. So I don’t think we’ll see any open elections in Iraq for a long time.
Hopefully over time they can be brought along like Japan and Germany — Japan and Germany were relatively easy, I think, and South Korea.
I suspect that there will be a help wanted ad in the near future for the position of Co-Chair with the Barack Obama campaign. This is the last thing that Obama needed especially since he is losing support with the moderates and Reagan Democrats as a result of the Reverend Wright fiasco. Now Obama will once again have to convince the far left that he is indeed still committed to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. General Tony McPeak’s positive views on Iraq were most definitely not “on message” as they say in politics.
March 23rd, 2008 at 2:57 pm
The article you quote is from March 27, 2003, a point in which most everyone would have agreed that the Iraq was was going remarkably well.
So I’m at a complete loss as to what point you are trying to make in posting a five-year old article as if it is current. Did you not realize that these statements were five years old?
March 23rd, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Thank you Bob. And besides, Obama has been saying for a while that the “surge” has been a tactical success but part of an overall flawed strategy (namely the illegal invasion of Iraq).
I am glad that on this Easter Sunday, we find that MDefl, Bob, myself and Obama all agree.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:50 am
Heck, even Petreaus admits the political goals of the surge have failed.
So where we are today is that the Bush followers want a never-ending blank-check for Iraq, while the Democrats want to force the Iraqis to reconcile via U.S. withdrawal.
Think back to all the Conservative arguments over welfare reform which were predicated on the idea that folks needed a deadline to get off welfare. Yet when it comes to Iraq, conservatives want to give Iraq what amounts to never-ending welfare in the form of U.S. dollars and the lives over our service members.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:08 am
I don’t think any reasonable conservative is aruging for a never-ending blank check, but I do think we are saying that it may take more the 5 years. Remember, we have Iran looking over our shoulders and Iraq would be a nice prize to control. In much the same way that we had a significant presence in Germany until the collapse of the USSR, we need to have the same kind of presence to ensure that Iran does not control (either through the Sadr militas or directly) the assests of Iraq. All we are saying, is give peace a chance man!
March 24th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Sounds like Bob is arguing for never ending bloodshed. 1960’s liberals have a lot of blood on their hands, and they don’t seem to have learned the lessons of Vietnam.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Actually, I’m arguing for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
There will be bloodshed if we stay or go, but if we go, ours won’t be shed.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:17 am
That is a perfect synopsis of today’s liberal, “I don’t care if 2 million Iraqi’s die” position!
I thought you guys were for the downtrodden everywhere?
March 24th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Bob, are you saying that the bloodshed will be equal whether we stay or go? If so, what is the basis for believing that?
MDefl, you got it. The liberal Bobs hooted and applauded when we bombed Kosovo.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
The bloodshed might be worse, it might not be. I don’t know. All I know is that there is no obligation to send our military to their deaths because the Iraqis won’t work out their problems. The purpose of our military is to defend the United States of America, not to police other countries.
And for the record, I opposed our action in Kosovo.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Mdefl, your view is that “I don’t care if 4,000 Americans die”. Another 600-1000 will die in the next year, and you don’t care.
Just out of curiosity, if you care so much about the Iraqi people, why aren’t you in Iraq?
March 24th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
You know what I’d like you guys to do - define, in one sentence or less, our mission in Iraq.
And don’t be wishy-washy. Don’t give me “to create a stable and functional democracy” because there’s no way to define or measure success.
Give me something like FDR gave - unconditional surrender of the Nazi & Japanese empires.
I’ll let you in on a little secret, I served in the U.S. Army for nine years as an officer, and frankly, I have absolutely no clue what our soldiers have to achieve in order to be able to go home. The original mission was clear - disarm Saddam, remove him as a threat, and stop his WMD programs. We achieved that in 2003 and now we’re stuck in an endless, undefined, vague mission to “build a nation”.
Does anyone remember when this president argued “against” nation building?
March 24th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Kick Ass and show the region that we mean business.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Bob,
Your right - Bush ran against nation building in 2000. For the first 9 months of his Presidency, the liberals were raging that Bush was not involved enough in world affairs. Then 9/11 happened. The liberal’s complaints changed. There were even some, Donahue, Tim Robbins etc.., that were against Afghanistan.
In retrospect, it was a mistake to go in. Of course, we were relying on intel from Germany, France, Israel and a Clinton appointed, Carter and Toricelli guted CIA. Don’t even get me started there. I could do 10 very long posts in regards to how Carter and Toricelli (who turned out to be a corrupt scumbag) are ultimately responsible for the lack of quality intel gathering pre-9/11.
Now the very same people who questioned our intel on 9/11 are the SAME PEOPLE shedding crocodile tears against waterboarding. I have seen a ACLU lawyer say we should just talk tough and that would break them down. Unbelievable!
March 24th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
So that’s just it then, you don’t have an answer. You know, every time I discuss the war with the few believers left, they are unable to coherently state the mission. They resort to childish insults, accusations, and idiocy.
I suppose the reason is that if one were capable of logical, reasonable thought, they’d be part of the 75-80% of the country that realizes the error of our ways.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
MDefl, I think you are ignoring the fact that Cheney and Rumsfeld were part of a neo-con group that as far back as 1998 had argued for the need to overthrow Saddam. That we went in because of “bad intel” is a dishonest argument. Remember, in late 2002 UN inspectors had unfettered access to Iraq. There was absolutely no reason, no immediate threat, or any other justification to invade. However, as the Bush administration noted, WMDs made for a good marketing campaign.
If you are honest with yourself, you’ll admit the underlying reasoning behind the invasion was because Cheney et al really did believe we’d be greeted as liberators, that Iraq would quickly coalesce around Chalabi, and the U.S. would be able to quickly leave.
WRT to your red herring about water boarding, we’ve already been through this - water boarding as an intelligence gathering tactic doesn’t work according to the experts. Perhaps you can prove me wrong and tell us how water boarding would have stopped 9/11?
But we’re long past arguing whether it was right to invade or not. The question now is “what’s next?”. Petreaus has admitted the surge has failed in reaching its political goals. The milestones Bush set forth in January of 2007 when he announced the surge haven’t been met. Political reconciliation hasn’t happend, nor is it likely to happen any time soon, and now even Petreaus is saying that there’s a real concern that we won’t be able to hold our gains in Sunni areas as the 80,000-strong Sunni militias realize that the Shiite government isn’t going to negotiate with them.
So again, now what? Do we just keep throwing bodies onto the pile, or do we say after five years enough is enough? We gave the Iraqis every opportunity to build a country, but they failed to get it done. There’s nothing more we can accomplish, it’s time to bring our people home.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
For Pete Sakes, Bob, the mission in Iraq is to win. It is the same mission as WWII. Why is this so complicated to liberals? You asked what is “winning” on another thread and it was answered. You became silent. There aren’t a bunch of shades and nuances about Iraq. It is just like any other war, except in this war the liberals are flattered with a lot of questions. Get over it.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Iraq is to win
How do you define “win”? How will we know when we’ve “won”? How long will it take?
The mission in WWII was clear, total and unconditional surrender of German and Japanese forces. What’s our mission in Iraq?
March 24th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Bob, you are a broken record without a part 2. Your question was precisely answered on another thread for which you became silent. Don’t ask questions if you are unable to confront the answers.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:40 am
Yes McCain, I saw your answer “A democratized Iraq that serves as both a base to spread democracy in the middle east, and a beacon for neighbors to emulate”
Have you ever served in the military? That isn’t a clear, definable mission.
And let me ask you, remember the purple fingers? After that election wasn’t the mission accomplished? Why are we still there?
March 25th, 2008 at 4:42 am
BTW, check the news today - Basra is coming apart at the seams. Perhaps we’ll see you guys post a front page article on the fighting?
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD8VKEMRO4
March 25th, 2008 at 4:53 am
That story is precisely why we cannot leave Iraq now, even if we wanted to. Al Sadr = Iran, and if we leave, you can bet that these jokers are just waiting in the wing and Iran will become the proxy controller of Iraq in five years. Mark my words.
March 25th, 2008 at 6:27 am
BTM - Again, if only it were that simple. Iran is a strong backer of the current Al-Maliki government. Al-Maliki, in case you didn’t know, is an Iranian exile. Did you miss the Iranian president making a very public visit to Iraq a few weeks ago (compared with the highly secretive visit made by Cheney last week?)
In Basra, the fighting is between government-backed forces (supported by SCRI) and Sadr’s Medhi army (which largely opposes Iran).
Which side do we take?
And, contrary to the idiocy uttered by John McCain, neither side has anything to do with Al Qaeda (a Sunni organization).
There is no achievable mission in Iraq for the United States, we are stuck in the middle of multiple groups, many of which are hostile to us. Meanwhile, 1-2 American service members per day are dying and we’re spending $12 billion a month. For what?
March 25th, 2008 at 6:54 am
Alright, Bob - *poof!* you are now CINC. What is it you do?
March 25th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Bob, the objective is to win. Winning is defined as I gave it. As an instructional exercise, please define winning WWII any way you like and apply that to Iraq. Note that the definition of winning in WWII includes military bases 60 years later in Germany and even some Japanese insurgents, an apt comparison methinks.
The objective of war is not to withdraw, which is where our good liberal friends get off track. Losing requires a timetable and withdrawal. But Bob, the proper objective is to win. Isn’t it?
March 25th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Bob, the objective is to win. Winning is defined as I gave it.
Yes, I know the objective is “to win” but the definition you give for “winning” is not achievable by military means.
In January of 2007 Bush laid out the tasks that he wanted the Iraqi government to accomplish, and he said we wouldn’t give them a blank check, that there were limits on our commitment. It’s now 14 months later and Iraq has failed to meet any of Bush’s objectives.
Why do you insist on giving them the blank check that Bush once argued against?