[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Smells like war (click to view)
Date: September 7, 2010
Seven years after "Mission Acomplished," President Obama ushered in his own formal end to the Iraq war last week. Speaking to the nation in his second-ever Oval Office address, the President declared the combat phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom to be officially over, and reminded the country that since his election, the US  has "removed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops from Iraq," as well as closing hundreds of American bases and moving "millions of pieces of equipment" from the region. With more to follow.

But not too much more. Though he never mentioned the figure in his speech, the President's pullout plan will still retain 50,000 American troops in Iraq for at least one more year, for the purpose of, in Obama's words "advising and assisting Iraq’s Security Forces; supporting Iraqi troops in targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our civilians." The strategy evokes memories of President Nixon's 1969 "Vietnamization" plan, which did not particularly speed up the US withdrawal from that war, as we may recall.

Obama was destined, on some level to become a "war president" in the same way Nixon was. Both inherieted unpopular wars from their predecessors, and both were expected to decisively conclude them. The main difference is that while Nixon was fascinated with foreign policy and didn't seem to mind the obligation, Obama just wants to forget the whole mess as quickly as possible.

Yet even as a cutter-and-runner, his overall war philosophy is a bit incoherent. After all, this is the same man who dramatically ratcheted up the American presence in Afghanistan — a "surge" style strategy which he explicitly opposed for Iraq while in Congress — and the same man who has already killed far more suspected enemy combatants in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan via robot drones than his warmongery predecessor.

So what kind of president does Obama actually want to be? Is he serious about ushering in the new era of peace he talked about in his Nobel Prize speech? Or does he fully intend to continue prosecuting the War on Terror as vigorously as possible, just in a somewhat less politically divisive, more out-of-sight-out-of-mind kinda way? I know this President likes to think that if you piss off both sides equally "you must be doing somethin' right!" and that may indeed be true a lot of the time. But sometimes pissing off everyone simply means that you're governing so strangely and erratically that no sane human can make heads or tails of your supposed agenda.

And that's a criticism that can't be shrugged off quite so easily.

Comment on Facebook.

[bootlegga]

Well given the preposterous claims from Dubya and Co that invading Iraq wasn't going to cost very much (as well as the sudden disbanding of the entire Iraqi security apparatus), I'd say the steps in Iraq by Obama are a good thing.

For me, it's not so much about pulling the troops out as it is about the Iraqis starting to do some work in taking care of their own country. Iraqization (or whatever you want to call it) has to happen eventually, and sooner rather than later I'd say.

The key is in the tightrope between Iraqi capability and the strength of the insurgents.

[BartSimpson]

Obama is going to be a one-term President. Why? Because to his detractors he's weak and to his core supporters he failed to end the war according to the timetables they wanted. Basically, that all puts someone else in the White House on January 20, 2013.

[The_Doctor]

Afghanistan was the only justifiable war. I admit I did support the Iraq war based on my old feelings as a right wing neo-conservative. Yes, I was proud to call my self a neo-con back then. Now after 7 years of war. Iraq was a waste of American resources. We could have helped Afghanistan, but we ignored it for 7 years, so Bush can have Iraq that is more friendly too the United States.

[CanadianJeff]

BartSimpson wrote:

Obama is going to be a one-term President. Why? Because to his detractors he's weak and to his core supporters he failed to end the war according to the timetables they wanted. Basically, that all puts someone else in the White House on January 20, 2013.

Isn't it a bit much to declare someone as already lost the next election only halfway through their current term?

Not to mention won't Obama being reelected depend just as much on who chooses to run against him?

I think your jumping the gun a LOT here to try and prove a bias. Not that I'm a huge Obama supporter but still.

edit: Technically since it's where the majority of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia would be the most justifiable war if looking at 9/11 as a good reason. However going to war where the Muslims hold their most holy of sites is why this didn't happen. It really would have turned into a jihad.

[PostFactum]

BartSimpson wrote:

Obama is going to be a one-term President. Why? Because to his detractors he's weak and to his core supporters he failed to end the war according to the timetables they wanted. Basically, that all puts someone else in the White House on January 20, 2013.

Agree with you. I think in addiction Iran can be the next. He still has time.

[Psudo]

CanadianJeff wrote:

won't Obama being reelected depend just as much on who chooses to run against him?

That's true. The Republican Party could pick some horrible candidate named John and lose the election by winning the race to the bottom.

[The_Doctor]

Heck if Palin runs and win the GOP nomination. It will be an easy win for Obama. Who really wants to see Palin running the White House?

[Psudo]

Not enough people for her to win the nomination, that's for sure.

[Zipperfish]

Oh, I don't know. I could see Palin getting in as President quite easily, actually.

[Psudo]

This is mostly related: a criticism of "Peacekeeping" as a concept:

Curzon of ComingAnarchy.com wrote:

I recently met and spoke with a British military officer who is on the verge of retirement after more than 38 years in the service of Her Majesty. [...] The officer also had a harsh critique of “Peacekeeping,” which would continue to survive because it was so politically tasty and publicly acceptable, but which was in fact a nightmare for the boots on the ground, doing work that they were not trained for in environments that demanded much more concentration on opaque local affairs that soldiers simply would never master.

Is peacekeeping really so unmanageable?

[Teikiatsu]

The_Doctor wrote:

Heck if Palin runs and win the GOP nomination. It will be an easy win for Obama. Who really wants to see Palin running the White House?

And who really wants to see Obama 'running' the White House anymore?

But back to the topic.

Obama rode in on the plans Bush set in place to withdraw troops from Iraq, and at the same time sends more troops into Afganistan like cannon fodder without any apparent plan. He doesn't trust marine cadets to wear swords in his presence at their graduation. He's snubbed multiple Medal of Honor events. It seems as if he just sees the military as tools and not people; he has no respect for their voluntary service.

Quote:

Both inherieted unpopular wars from their predecessors, and both were expected to decisively conclude them.

I wasn't aware *any* war was popular at the time it was being fought. I'd prefer they be fought as quickly and brutally as possible to end them as soon as possible. I'm not happy with how Bush or Obama handled it, they both tried too hard to look like a compassionate Commander in Chief.

Also,

Quote:

Seven years after "Mission Acomplished,"

One of the greatest media distortions of the decade. That banner was for the servicemen on the aircraft carrier to congratulate them for completing their specific assignments in the combat zone. The media on site knew that but painted their own narrative anyway.

[CanadianJeff]

Psudo wrote:

CanadianJeff wrote:

won't Obama being reelected depend just as much on who chooses to run against him?

That's true. The Republican Party could pick some horrible candidate named John and lose the election by winning the race to the bottom.

Let's just hope that both parties put forward the best possible candidate. I'm getting quite tired of partisan candidates.

[The_Doctor]

Teikiatsu wrote:

[
Obama rode in on the plans Bush set in place to withdraw troops from Iraq, and at the same time sends more troops into Afganistan like cannon fodder without any apparent plan. He doesn't trust marine cadets to wear swords in his presence at their graduation. He's snubbed multiple Medal of Honor events. It seems as if he just sees the military as tools and not people; he has no respect for their voluntary service.

You are quite wrong. Almost every President has respect his military. Also note that Bush never really had plans for Afghanistan or Iraq. We should never went to Iraq the first place. Obama has to fix Bush's screw up in Afghanistan since Bush ignored Afghanistan and when for his prize "Iraq."

Quote:

I wasn't aware *any* war was popular at the time it was being fought. I'd prefer they be fought as quickly and brutally as possible to end them as soon as possible. I'm not happy with how Bush or Obama handled it, they both tried too hard to look like a compassionate Commander in Chief.

This is not WWII. We have something called the mass media. Also we don't do total warfare anymore. We don't have to be brutal to win. Look at Iraq we invaded a nation with little casulites compared to our island hopping in WWII.

Quote:

One of the greatest media distortions of the decade. That banner was for the servicemen on the aircraft carrier to congratulate them for completing their specific assignments in the combat zone. The media on site knew that but painted their own narrative anyway.

I agree, the media did turn that around, but it didn't help Bush image wise for the war.



Since that time we thought the war was over and we have peace in Iraq.

CanadianJeff wrote:

Let's just hope that both parties put forward the best possible candidate. I'm getting quite tired of partisan candidates.

I wish it was possible to have third way or moderate leaders now. The only hope I have is the Modern Whigs.

[Psudo]

The_Doctor wrote:

We don't have to be brutal to win.

The popular perception is that we are neither brutal nor winning in Iraq and Afghanistan. That doesn't technically dispute your statement, but it's sure not proving it.

The_Doctor wrote:

Look at Iraq we invaded a nation with little casulites compared to our island hopping in WWII.

That proves that overwhelming force works better than compassionate, long-term reconstruction programs. That's evidence in support of total war.

CanadianJeff wrote:

Let's just hope that both parties put forward the best possible candidate. I'm getting quite tired of partisan candidates.

I don't care whether the next President is partisan so much as I desperately ache to have someone capable for a change. Even if they disagree with me on the 15% of issues that are partisan, they'd at least be effective at implementing policy on the 85% of issues that aren't really under dispute.