US General Election: McCain vs. Obama

Remove all ads!

I wonder why you think that. Securing borders is not a partisan issue. All republicans and all democrats want to see our borders made more secure. The real debate isn't how to keep illegals out. The debate is about what to do with the illegals who are already here.

 

Chandos, I'm not sure if Iran taking over Iraq would be worse than Iraq becoming a breeding ground for Al Qaida or other terrorist groups, or if the people of Iraq simply wiping each other out isn't bad enough.

Drew, I'm sorry that you think that. If you really believe that everyone wants to see the borders secured, look at that last immigration bill that got everyone excited and then got everyone up in arms. It was killed for a reason (and by those that do want to see the borders secured). Now I'll agree this is far less of a partisan problem than, say, the War, but I don't think either Obama or McCain have it on their top priorities.

 

Chandos: First of all you're absolutely right about the oil issue. Support of the Middle East has always been about maintaining the oil imports to the US. We already sent in the fleet. I've said several times I did not agree with the reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq. However, now that we have completely destroyed every bit of infrastructure in the country (including public works, education, and food distribution) we have a responsibility to make sure everything is working before we pull out. I believe great strides are being made in restoring the infrastructure in Iraq, but the government is still quite fragile. Early pull out of forces would expose the Iraqi government to crisis they are simply not ready to handle alone. The Iraqi government needs to focus on rebuilding the entire nation, not just defending the nation against radical groups. IMO, the US forces are needed to help the Iraqi's defend themselves while they rebuild.

The consequence of failure to give adequate aid to Iraq is failure of the Iraqi government. The resultant power vacuum would be detrimental to the region -- at least as far as the US is concerned. It would ultimately be replaced by a government hostile to the US.

 

OK, I'm not sure what's so politics as usual with Obama, but what I really want to comment on is the political paradox that is John McCain. The John McCain now is not at all like the John McCain of 2000. Why so many people seem so ill-informed about this is baffling to me. As Drew mentioned, a lot of evangelical Christians do not like John McCain, and yet, 95% of his votes in the Senate over the last two years have mirrored the current administration's policies. If you're an Evangelical Christian, and the John McCain of the last two years is the real John McCain, this is EXACTLY the guy you want in the White House. Conversely, many independents think of McCain as a middle of the road, moderate, known for reaching across the isle. That was true of the 2000 McCain, but not of the current McCain. If you're a moderate independent, and the John McCain of the last two years is the real John McCain, this is EXACTLY NOT the guy you want in the White House.

Will the real John McCain please stand up?

 

That is a noble sentiment, but I fear you are overly optimistic. Can-do-spirit is admirable, but sometimes there is no remedy for blunders made and damage done. You should take the possibility into account that it is beyond US power to correct the damage cumulatively caused by 15 years of US bombing Iraq, the subsequent war and the eventual chaos and the insurgency - or to reconcile the Iraqi factions and provide the calm necessary for reconstruction.

 

Bull****. It was "killed" by those that didn't want to provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the country with no criminal record who are willing to pay a fine, learn English, and get in the back of the line for citizenship. The idea that this bill was somehow dropped because it did nothing for border security is laughable. Even if it did nothing for border security (for the record, the bill actually proposed quite a few measures for exactly that), that would still be no reason to vote the bill down. Congress passes quite a few bills each and every session, so this idea that we can either take measures to secure our borders or address the issue of the illegals already in the country is a fantasy. We can do both quite easily (as this bill did), and we should. If we can't agree on how to handle the immigrants already in the country, it is no big deal to just write two separate bills.

 

"15 years of US bombing" implies the bombing was continuous -- that's quite an exaggeration and completely untrue.

So, if I can extrapolate what you are advocating in your post, you support a complete pull out of forces and allow the region to come to it's own equilibrium.

Personally, I would like to see the UN step up here -- I think the entire process is much longer and more difficult if the US does it alone. But I do not believe the UN is willing to commit enough resources to the task.

 

T2Bruno, what is the real difference between us doing it & the UN doing it. It is still mainly U.S. forces that have to be at the forefront. I love how everybody says let the UN handle it but without the U.S. military backing up the UN they can't get crap accomplished.

 

Martaug, check your numbers. There's a HUGE difference between the US doing it and the UN doing it, due to the fact that the USA has a grand total of THIRTEEN troops in the UN out of a total of 75000 (yes, that's less than 0.02%. The numbers are here for those interested). The USA has never been fond of working within the legal confines of the UN when waging their wars, hence the creation of NATO in the first place (which, unsurprisingly, always has a US general leading it). The UN doing it means that there will be zero US troops at the forefront (well, they may end up sending those 13...), and more to the point means that the US will no longer have absolute control over Iraq.

That would be incredibly ironic. The UN warns the US that attacking Iraq will lead to destabilisation in the region. The US doesn't listen, goes in anyway, makes a huge mess of the country, and then asks the UN to clear it up themselves.

In any case the issue is moot. As long as they're oil in Iraq the US will not let anyone who isn't under their direct control take a hand in the country. While it is nice to imagine that Obama will magically fix the problem when he becomes president, I doubt all those who have interests in Iraq (the oil companies, the reconstruction companies, Blackwater, etc) are going to sit back and watch him take such a gold mine away from them.

 

murtaug, Ziad is right. There is only one country that has been involved in every UN action -- France. The US typically has only token forces who do not like to take orders from other militaries. NATO relied extensively on the US Military, the UN does not.

The 'real difference' is the attitude of the people in Iraq and the Middle East. The US is the invader -- progress will be slow until the majority of US forces are out of the region. However, military forces are required to keep the region stable. So, as I see it, you either choose slow progress or instability. A Hobson's choice.

Ziad: Ironic is not the word I would have used. The Bush administration basically told the UN to piss off. I doubt the UN would consider any form of assistence until after the next president takes office. IMO, McCain will ask the UN to help, Obama will force the UN to get involved by pulling out too soon (and leaving the UN with another Somalia).

 

Those figures are a bit misleading ziad as a large number of UN operations have NATO troops which has a lot of U.S. backing(just look at the bosnia operation). As far as the list you linked to, if you noticed the countries that provide the most troops to the UN are also some of the poorest. Since the UN is paying these countries $1000/soldier/month + equipment lets look at a few shall we.
India per capita income $2700, 8,000 troops, govt makes 64,000,000 dollars
Pakistan per capita income $3000, 10,000 troops, govt makes 90,000,000 dollars
Bangladesh per capita income $2300, 8000 troops, govt makes 77,600,000 dollars
All of these countries are basically running mercenary groups. So how can they complain about companies like blackwater working in iraq?

 

They aren't. Americans, who are paying the bill for Blackwater and Halliburton -in a cost-plus contract, no less- to do jobs that the Army could have done itself for a fraction of the cost, are the ones complaining. Some foreign nations rightfully criticize our use of contractors due to the near-complete lack of accountability for their own conduct that these companies have enjoyed in Iraq (unlike KBR or Blackwater, state militaries are almost universally subject to something akin to our UCMJ), but for the most part, they could really care less how we choose to staff our front lines.

 

How on earth does this support your earlier position that the US provides most of the UN backing?

Anyway, T2 is right - it's all about optics. The US has no credibilty in Iraq, as it was the cause of the current situation. The UN has no such baggage, and so supposedly could be more accepted as a rebuilder of Iraq.

 

Not it is not untrue. You're just blending out something. So the air strikes against targets in those no-fly-zones did not happen? I just don't think you can factor that out. Were those HARM missiles, bombs and cruise missiles carrying rose petals or tungsten pellets? For more than a decade there has been a continuous air war being waged against Iraq by the US, under a bipartisan consensus, under the bipartisan consensus goal of regime change. This air war damaged Iraq. Now don't you tell me that just happened in self-defence. Clinton made political points (and hay) with his trademark cruise missile strikes. It is for example pretty clear that Bush apparently intensified the campaign for no other thing but to 'lay the foundations' for allied victory according to Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley. What I want to say is simply that for the question of the extent of the damage caused it is beside the point (my point here, for that) why exactly the US did bomb. Bombing they did. Just accept it as a fact.

As for US withdrawal, I am pretty convinced that the US has no choice but to withdraw, and that they would be well advised to do so. It is a silly idea for the US (or any other western nation for that) today to have a de facto colonies in Iraq (where the UN mandate is running out, the US want to stay, now you sovereign Iraqi government DO sign this SOFA, or else ...), or Afghanistan (where the US, farce of farces, is even allowing it's ex-ambassador to run for president). I just think the time for something like that is over. The only thing the US will achieve is continued radicalisation and instability in the Middle East. In the Middle East resistance to occupation will always manifest itself as a 'holy war', much like US wars in the Middle East always serve high minded goals as fighting tyranny and spreading freedom (snark alert). The US presence on the ground there is part of the problem. As long as the US are there, they will face terrorism from the region. The security dimension aside, I see that this bears substantial problems for the US domestically, namely in the realm of the political climate and the rule of law.

To get to that other point, the why: I think that regime change is a foreign policy goal that is foolish, and inevitably causes problems for the administration that pursues it as international law does not support such demands. Inevitably the result is 'doublespeak' about the intents and purposes of policy (it's all about WMD ...) which I consider unhealthy because it obfuscates and obstructs public debate on foreign policy. It also practically prevents any engagement of the targeted government because the price extracted from the average US politician domestically is too high. The US bipartisan consensus in this respect is as persistent and doctrinaire than anything the Kremlin was able to put out. It is worth keeping in mind that it took Nixon to go to China.
A policy of regime change is, when regime change fails to manifest, simply a guarantee for enduring political and diplomatic paralysis, and the US stance towards Iraq (and now Syria and Iran) is a striking illustration of its shortcomings. When regime change fails to manifest, the only options are more of the same - pressure - or to eventually use force. It is in my view very unwise to limit one's options in such a way. One definition of insanity is 'doing the same thing over and over again, hoping to get a different result'. Saddam was begging to surrender for nearly a decade, but the US didn't let him, because it would have meant to leave him in power. That was unacceptable, after all the US had persuaded themselves that this was the crazy butcher of Baghdad, unworthy of US engagement, so they rather kept confronting, and bombing him under the pretext of disarmament, hoping that this would subvert his power base and result in his fall. Alas, it did not. Failing to produce regime-change it did produce real damage to Iraq, and political highlights as damaging to the US in the Middle East as Madeleine Albright's statement that 'it is worth it'. That is one of the US political quotes every Middle Eastern school child knows. It is not helpful.

 

The Michael Moseley link produces a 404 error.

 

Ragusa, do you know why the UN imposed no fly zones to Iraq? If you're going to include this in your 'acts of war' the US inflicted upon Iraq, I'd like to know your reasoning.

Although it would be fine if you answered in the Iraq thread to shift this.

 

T2- What you are speaking of is a moral obligation to rebuild Iraq - something like the Marshall Plan after WWII. It is a noble idea, as Ragusa comments, and a pratical idea as well. Our worst enemies - Japan and Germany - are now good friends as a consquence of how we helped in the rebuilding. But we are really comparing apples and oranges here.

GWB's idea is to take an Eastern culture, steeped in thousands of years of history and tradition, and superimpose a Western, Chrisitian style culture over it, which in the opinon of many is wholly unworkable. We are seen as worse than occupiers by many in the region. The results of the hatred towards the so called American "contractors" is another point and is quite evident. Thugs like the Blackwater contractors must be held accountable and removed from the equation if we are going to make any friends there. Unless there are some radical changes to our "exit strategy" in Iraq, we will never win the "hearts and minds" of the people there anyway. So why be there at all?

 

Much as I hate to return to the subject of this thread... There is a fairly devastating post on U tube entitled McCain v. McCain, Which consists simply of videos of McCain's statements on various prominent issues at various times in the last few years. It's difficult to escape the conclusion that McCain feels that the best way to deal with any given issue is to surround it and attack from all sides.

 

Well, as for the war in Iraq, all I have to say is the soldiers I've talked to report a very different situation on the ground than what the news reports. The Iraqi infrastructure today (with the exception of police and law enforcement) is better than it was before the war, better than it was before the first war, better than it has ever been. While groups like Blackwater are generally despised, the actual US troops are respected in many regions. The bulk of the insurgency appears to come from Iran-funded terrorists.

As for Obama and business as usual, I think it's been a long look at his spin talk on religion and his 'spiritual advisors' as well as a few other items I've seen, such as his gun control history and current claims.

Does anyone know who, if anyone, is running independent this year?