McCain to send more troops to Afghanistan

[bascule]

Or at least, that's what I'm gathering from his latest speech:

 

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/the_debate_of_the_day_is_iraq.php

 

It is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan. It is by applying the tried and true principles of counter-insurgency used in the surge -- which Senator Obama opposed -- that we will win in Afghanistan.

 

I can't help but be reminded of Futurama's Zap Brannigan:

 

How did I defeat the killbots? Simple! I sent wave after wave of my own men knowing full well that eventually the killbots would reach their kill limit and shut down.

 

But seriously, where does McCain expect to get these soldiers? Are we just going to take the troops used for the surge in Iraq and make them do another surge in Afghanistan?

[Pangloss]

From troops that were planned for Iraq, which no longer needs them. Iraq is gradually drawing down and they now expect to ship 2-3 brigades home this fall. Basically it means Afghanistan will get a surge around mid-winter.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=5363453

 

I think it makes sense. It worked for Iraq, and I hope they get someone as good as Petraeus to do it. The problems of Afghanistan are very different from Iraq, but the Afghani people have the exact same motivation that the Iraqis have, and there's every reason to be optimistic.

[bascule]

From troops that were planned for Iraq, which no longer needs them.

 

Not seeing anything in your source corroborating that...

[Pangloss]

It was a two-page story. Their web site is a bit heavy on advertising, IMO; sometimes it's hard to see the second page link.

 

... a reduction of combat brigades in Iraq would free up troops that could be sent to Afghanistan....

 

Note that Obama has also called for two additional brigades to be sent to Afghanistan since August of last year.

 

http://www.nysun.com/national/mccain-will-call-for-a-surge-of-troops/81861/

 

Senator Obama has since August 2007 called for the deployment of at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan and has said he will work to cajole the Pakistani military into fighting again.

 

So if you're wondering where McCain thinks we're going to get them from, you might also pause a moment to wonder where Obama thinks we're going to get them from. Just a thought.

[john5746]

I think it makes sense. It worked for Iraq, and I hope they get someone as good as Petraeus to do it. The problems of Afghanistan are very different from Iraq, but the Afghani people have the exact same motivation that the Iraqis have, and there's every reason to be optimistic.

 

I hope so, but I just get this feeling we are taking the pacifier out of one mouth and sticking it in another. Sometimes you need to let babies cry a little so they can figure out how to calm themselves down.

[DJBruce]

My personal opinion is that if Afghanistan is falling apart then we should increase the troop levels. It has worked before and I have no doubt that it would work again. But I also feel that we need to work with Pakistan to root out the terrorists hiding in the Pakistani mountains.

[Pangloss]

And if Pakistan won't work with us, then we should send troops to Pakistan over their objections.

[bascule]

Note that Obama has also called for two additional brigades to be sent to Afghanistan since August of last year.

 

Yes, he's also called for ending the war in Iraq.

[Pangloss]

Yes, he's also called for ending the war in Iraq.

 

Your point being, what, that he says one thing about Afghanistan but will do another?

 

I think you're wrong, but more importantly I think you need to be wrong about that in order for Obama to win in November. That kind of perception may be helping him maintain the fanatical base, but it's hurting him with moderate swing voters. Nothing will put John McCain in the White House more surely than convincing people that Obama has a hidden pacifist and/or far-left agenda.

 

So I'm telling my far-left friends to lay off the wink-wink/nudge-nudge, and I'd do the same if I were you. There are two sides to not being a Soros sock-puppet, and you might as well just get used to the fact that not everything the Obama White House does is going to sit well on the MoveOn.org forums.

[bascule]

[liberal talking points]

 

[conservative talking points]

 

These conversations are always fun.

[Pangloss]

These conversations are always fun.

 

Rofl! Well you know better than that -- I'm not a partisan, and I'm not the only one talking about this issue. Obama has run into trouble with swing voters and independents, even right here on this forum, over his perceived FISA and campaign finance flip-flops, not to mention his perceived-as-questionable positions on free trade, faith-based programs, foreign policy and more.

 

Swing voters currently account for as much as 23% of likely 2008 voters, and Obama runs neck-and-neck with McCain in that area. In that same Gallup poll, published just two weeks ago, of those swing voters, only 13% viewed Obama favorably and McCain unfavorably. I'm not saying Obama isn't doing well, mind you -- he is. I'm saying that if he doesn't please these people he's not going to win in November.

 

Adding to that from my personal experience, I spend time on moderate conservative forums (where the Rush Limbaugh types are run out on a rail) and I see a LOT of angst and uncertainty over Obama. It's quite a bit above the level of trumpeting his middle name or faking Photoshops, but it is very much malleable and subject to unreasonable suasion like the fact that the far left supports Obama unquestionably.

 

I also spend time on moderate liberal forums (where the Al Franken types are run out on a rail), and I see a lot of angst and uncertainty over Obama there as well. These people aren't represented by MoveOn.org, and while they don't really object to them, they are concerned about perceived flip-flops like FISA, Iraq and campaign finance.

 

So I say it again: Nothing will put John McCain in the White House more surely than convincing people that Obama has a hidden pacifist and/or far-left agenda. Nothing. That is just my opinion, of course, but it's hardly the "conservative talking points" view.

[ParanoiA]

These conversations are always fun.

 

I always enjoy your exchanges. You two make good, catalytic posts.

[bascule]

This was an interesting story... soldiers are sick of Iraq and want to go fight the real war against the Taliban in Afghanistan:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/17/iraq.afghanistan.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

[iNow]

Could you imagine how demoralizing it must be to fight in a war that you agree is stupid and practically pointless for so many years? I am not surprised at all that our brave soldiers want their efforts to matter. Thanks for sharing the article.

[Pangloss]

Could you imagine how demoralizing it must be to fight in a war that you agree is stupid and practically pointless for so many years? I am not surprised at all that our brave soldiers want their efforts to matter. Thanks for sharing the article.

 

iNow, the CNN story bascule linked says nothing about opposition to the war in Iraq from the troops. The story was about inexperienced troops itching for a fight, as contrasted with war-weary troops who know how awful war (in general) can be.

 

It's a nice piece; appropriate and sobering and respectful, all at the same time. Frankly those kids sound like the emails I've been getting from my nephew, who's been in Iraq for 12 weeks. I worry about him every day, especially with that gung-ho attitude of his.

 

I know you meant no disrespect and I'm sure there are some soldiers over there who feel as you suggest, but I've never seen any evidence that a majority of them (or even a big minority of them) are opposed to the war in Iraq, and I think it does them a disservice to suggest otherwise.

 

Thanks.

[iNow]

You are correct that I meant no disrespect. I also did not intend to purposefully misrepresent the situation. However, I think the soldiers who think their efforts in Iraq actually matter (save an extraordinarily tiny percentage who actually do) are too blinded by nationalism and patriotism to accept the truth of the situation.

 

A good soldier is one who follows orders, whatever they may be.

A soldier who questions his mission is a weak link in the chain, and is really no soldier at all.

 

However, to negate your point, Pangloss, I could probably do so successfully by sharing the psychological profiles of the men and women who return from tours in Iraq. They are not the proud, shining memories of heroes to which we've grown acustommed of hearing after some of our past wars.

 

They are largely composed of stories of severely depressed, alcoholic, mentally unstable, dangerous people, who were none of those things before being shipped out.

 

The above are opinions, and I don't expect you to blanketly accept them. In fact, I'm sure you'll counter a few of them, and I'm glad about that. The challenge here is that there is not any good data set about the beliefs of soldiers since surveying these beliefs is so difficult, and getting honest sincere responses out of our soldiers during such a polling process is doubly so.

 

Cheers.

[Pangloss]

I think the soldiers who think their efforts in Iraq actually matter (save an extraordinarily tiny percentage who actually do) are too blinded by nationalism and patriotism to accept the truth of the situation.

 

What "truth" might that be? That the surge worked? That Al Qaeda in Iraq and the insurgency were defeated? That the Iraqi army is starting to stand on its own two feet? That Iraqis have a brighter future because of the efforts of the vast majority of our soldiers?

 

Or do you mean the "truth" that a tiny percentage of American armed forces broke rules, committed brutal atrocities, and/or stole from the Iraqi people? Is that the "truth" of the situation as you see it, that the acts of the well-intentioned many are overshadowed and unmentionable because of the acts of a few cowards and criminals?

 

Well I for one don't want any of our citizens thinking like that, much less our soldiers. You wanna know why I'm so harsh on ideologues and partisans, there it is in a nutshell, right there.

 

-------

 

But getting back to your point, okay, they may not be straight up with the first reporter they meet, but do you have any evidence that soldiers are too "blinded by patriotism" to honestly and accurately respond to, say, an anonymous research poll? You seem to think so:

 

The challenge here is that there is not any good data set about the beliefs of soldiers since surveying these beliefs is so difficult, and getting honest sincere responses out of our soldiers during such a polling process is doubly so.

 

This poll would suggest otherwise. It's a Zogby poll that actually seems to support your point -- it shows 72% of troops supporting a withdrawl from Iraq within the next year. That certainly seems to suggest that it is indeed possible to get "honest sincere responses out of our soldiers", wouldn't you say? I suppose that would seem to counter my earlier point that they aren't opposed to the war in Iraq, if it's an actual statement of political opposition (as Zogby seems to think), as opposed to just a non-political plea to be brought home. But it certainly supports the notion that soldiers are willing to look beyond gung-ho support for the war and President Bush.

 

And that poll doesn't help you in the "situation on the ground" department, because guess what? That poll was taken in 2006. When the situation was nearing its lowest point, before the surge, before the defeat of the insurgency, and before the Iraqi forces began to stand on their own.

 

 

 

However, to negate your point, Pangloss, I could probably do so successfully by sharing the psychological profiles of the men and women who return from tours in Iraq. They are not the proud, shining memories of heroes to which we've grown acustommed of hearing after some of our past wars.

 

They are largely composed of stories of severely depressed, alcoholic, mentally unstable, dangerous people, who were none of those things before being shipped out.

 

This study suggests that only 17% of Iraq veterans actually experienced a mental health disorder. This in spite of the fact that as much as 86% of them actually met the enemy in combat.

 

I'm not suggesting that it's a good thing that we've created 30 or 40 thousand mentally-unstable Americans thanks to our unwarranted and illegitimate action in Iraq. What I'm suggesting is that across-the-board condemnations coming from ideological wellsprings don't help matters, they hurt them. The quote above is unwarranted, disrespectful and damaging, and as far as I can see it seems to have been made for partisan reasons and out of a partisan predisposition for judgment.

Edited July 18, 2008 by Pangloss

[ParanoiA]

Or do you mean the "truth" that a tiny percentage of American armed forces broke rules' date=' committed brutal atrocities, and/or stole from the Iraqi people? Is that the "truth" of the situation as you see it, that the acts of the well-intentioned many are overshadowed and irrevocably unmentionable because of the acts of a few cowards and criminals?

 

Well I for one don't want our citizens thinking like that, much less our soldiers. You wanna know why I'm so harsh on ideologues and partisans, there it is in a nutshell, right there. [/quote']

 

Maybe he just means the "truth" of the situation with respect to the larger "war on terror", not necessarily anything about atrocities. Many of us don't believe that a stable Iraq has much to do at all with defeating terrorism. (I would only dispute that due to the inherent focus on Iraq because of war. In other words, Iraq didn't have much to do with terrorism, but now it does. )

 

I do like that top paragraph though. It's akin to the larger "America can't be proud of a damn thing - nothing!" syndrome.

 

Just try making some post about one great thing america has done - just one. And watch as post after post of replies completely trash it to hell. Part of modern day intellectualism is holding on to the negatives, throwing out the positives - self loathing is particularly attractive. You're not smart if you're optimistic, rather you're delusional. You need to know that you are shit, your country is shit, your past is shit, your future is shit - but the rest of the world is great, wholesome, altruistic, smart...blah blah blah.

 

Sorry, seems I'm in my own bit of a cynical mood today.

[iNow]

Pangloss - I must say I couldn't even have begun to anticipate the tone and harshness in your response. I'll try to go all managerial on you and summarize my points bullet-point style (although, much will get lost by doing so) since we're so clearly speaking orthogonal from each other:

 

 

• Soldiers want the risk they take to matter
  
• Our continued presence in Iraq causes us to miss more important matters as defined by most citizens in the country and soldiers
  
• The opposition of soldiers to their mission is hard to quantify
  
• That opposition is implicitly demonstrated by their mental state and behavioral problems (coping skills and the subject of said coping) when they arrive home
  
• The missions they've achieved have been enormously successful, but the overall arch of the missions they've been assigned is lacking
  

 

 

There was a lot of emotive aggression and bolded terms in your response, and frankly, I don't see anything at all partisan about what I'm saying, so please stop reading into it that way.

 

They risk their lives, and are doing so for questionable outcomes, and they'd prefer the value placed on their lives by those decision makers who are putting them at risk was higher.

 

All I'm saying is that it must be demoralizing, and I can appreciate why they'd want to take the fight to the actual enemy instead of continuing their risk in the face of questionable gain.

[Phi for All]

Part of modern day intellectualism is holding on to the negatives, throwing out the positives - self loathing is particularly attractive. You're not smart if you're optimistic, rather you're delusional. You need to know that you are shit, your country is shit, your past is shit, your future is shit - but the rest of the world is great, wholesome, altruistic, smart...blah blah blah.

 

Sorry, seems I'm in my own bit of a cynical mood today.

I think this is how modern day intellectualism *looks*. There is so much that needs repair in the US that it's easy to let our "handyman's perspective" take over. We have a great system but it's still a system and so it needs maintenance on a regular basis. We should acknowledge what is working well but more often it's just easier to notice the kinks.

 

Perhaps part of the problem is that complex concepts carry different interpretations. In my family, we were discussing "respect" and I came to find out it had wildly differing meanings between the three of us. Now imagine how hundreds of millions of Americans define "liberal", "conservative", "progressive", "patriotic", "left" and "right". We argue these concepts when it's our interpretations that keep us from being on the same page.

 

I'd like to see "intellectualism" be synonymous with "smartness". No more wars without effective goals and exit strategies, no more subsidies that promote lazy market practices, no more killing a great future because it competes with a profitable present. And above all, we need to keep sight of what does work so we can finally admit that the baby is cleaner and healthier than we think, but this bathwater is dirty and it's GOT TO GO.

[Pangloss]

This is what strikes me as partisan, iNow:

 

They risk their lives, and are doing so for questionable outcomes, and they'd prefer the value placed on their lives by those decision makers who are putting them at risk was higher.

 

All I'm saying is that it must be demoralizing, and I can appreciate why they'd want to take the fight to the actual enemy instead of continuing their risk in the face of questionable gain.

 

The outcomes aren't questionable, they're real, which they know because they are the ones who achieved it, and not some "tiny percentage" --they ALL contributed. They don't want to leave Iraq because of "questionable outcomes" or because their bosses don't value them, they want to leave because there isn't any combat there.

 

The implication that their bosses don't value them is completely unsupported, so far as I can see. And to the extent that it is demoralizing, it is so because war is demoralizing, not because the Iraq war is demoralizing.

[iNow]

So, you're calling me "partisan" because I've called the outcomes questionable? You're also arguing against me because I didn't provide concrete evidence of their mindset on how they perceive their value and their missions? Sorry dude. I'm not buyin' what you're selling.

 

I tried really carefully to present my thoughts in an open way, REPEATEDLY conceding that it was opinion and that I wasn't sure if it was valid... so if you feel the need to keep attacking, carry on. I'm done.