Willful ignorance is the worst kind and as we are being sabotaged from within our own political and judicial structures, there is much more to follow before true Americans get the upper hand.

What was pissing the Iraqis off was AQ’s brutality when it moved into some of the provinces. The surge worked in large part because of willing cooperation from the local sheikhs and population. The belief that everything will be serene if we pack up tomorrow and leave those brave people to the tender mercies of the islamofascists and Iran isn’t based in logic at all. Fact is, people like you are AQ’s last best hope.

Which is one of the reasons I’ve wondered if the Surge would have worked if we tried it earlier. Sometimes things have specific times when they will work, and in this case I’m not sure it would have until the local population got a full and good taste of AQ’s tender mercies. Nothing will make you look less like an evil occupier than the occupation by other, far worse actors, which apparently has woken up the people to reality.

That’s the beauty of fighting Islamofascism over in Islamic countries. As long as it’s just Israel and “The Great Satan” getting their noses bloodied, you won’t get squat out of the rest of the Islamic countries for help, mainly lip service. Once their noses get rubbed in it and their societies see just how loving and tolerant these people are, we are finding a lot more allies. This is going to be a multi-generational war, and the more up close and personal it is for them, the harder it will be to sit on the sidelines and stay uninvolved or remain unhelpful. Misery not only loves company, it demands it.

I’m arguing that a stated policy of indefinite presence and/or permanent bases might just lead to it. Big difference.

And that’s where you’re putting words in McCain’s mouth. I didn’t see him say anything about remaining indefinitely, or remaining if the Iraqis (once they’ve had the time to establish a stable government and be reasonably free from terrorist interference) ask us to leave. You know you’re misrepresenting his stance, and you persist in it. That’s dishonest no matter how you try to spin it. And it’s really rich to hear a supporter of Obama, who has no substance at all, argue that McCain hasn’t been specific enough.

But the belief that we’re going to put down an insurgency without paying attention to what the heck is pissing the Iraqis off just doesn’t seem based in logic

What was pissing the Iraqis off was AQ’s brutality when it moved into some of the provinces. The surge worked in large part because of willing cooperation from the local sheikhs and population. The belief that everything will be serene if we pack up tomorrow and leave those brave people to the tender mercies of the islamofascists and Iran isn’t based in logic at all. Fact is, people like you are AQ’s last best hope.

As for your absurd idea of governing by poll numbers, NC Cop’s pointed out where that can lead you. Not much to add to that. He’s right. You’re wrong. That’s it.

Thinking this thru clearly shows that no matter what, our futures are tied to the Middle East. Let’s add that there is a good chance once bin Laden dies, that AQ will break up and become a footnote in history. Most of his senior leadership is dead or captured, there is just going to be no one who cares enough to continue carrying the torch for this movement. Especially once Iraq becomes more prosperous, which, with it’s natural resources, it will be soon enough.

No matter how you slice this tho, the very fact that so much time has been spent trying to stick words in McCain’s mouth, that he clearly didn’t intend, is pure foolishness. You would be better served to just agree to disagree than carry on your point. But whatever. – Lorica

If a 100 year presence in Iraq is fine by him, on the condition that the shooting had stopped, how much of America’s time, money and bloodshed would be acceptable to achieve that condition, assuming it’s possible?

That’s the point. He hasn’t said, so we’re left to assume that it’s the full 100 unless he clues us in.

What would you like ChenZen a casualty number at which time we will pull our troops out? Perhaps McCain should say “If we lose 5,000 soldiers we will pull out of Iraq.” That certainly wouldn’t cause any problems would it?

Perhaps a date: “We will leave by June of 2009.” Then Al Qaeda and the rest of the insurgents will sit around amassing weapons and making plans just waiting for the withdrawal, instead of getting killed by the thousands like they are now. Great idea.

How about a price tag? “We will leave if we have to spend another $100 billion.” I guess the bad guys wouldn’t use that against us either.

It would be pretty counter productive to build purple cars if survey and analysis told you that no one wants purple cars.

I would have thought it obvious that I was making an analogy, but I digress.

So the purple car thing was one of them thar analogies, you say? Thanks for dumbing it down for us, I appreciate it.

I think the analogy of comparing building purple cars to a subject as complex as foreign policy, international terrorism, and rebuilding a nation is a bit childish.

Not to mention the fact that Bush’s predecessor, Slick Willie, pretty much governed by public opinion. He did whatever he thought would make him more popular, not what was the right thing to do. He had several chances to kill Bin Laden before 9/11 ever happened, but he was afraid it would cause “problems” so he ignored the problem. Thanks, Bill!!

Governing by opinion polls is dangerous. Clinton was wrong. That’s it.

But the belief that we’re going to put down an insurgency without paying attention to what the heck is pissing the Iraqis off just doesn’t seem based in logic IMO,

So in any nation that we have troops, if people start suddenly blowing up things demanding that we leave, we should turn tail? If groups in Poland, Japan, Germany, Korea, Kuwait, etc start demanding we leave, even if their government isn’t, we should retreat?

So your proposal is to give every two bit dictator and terrorist a perfect blueprint on how to defeat the U.S.? Brilliant again!! I certainly don’t see any problems arising out of that.

After reading many of the articles against permanent bases, I’m not completely convinced that it’s the best idea, I will admit. I believe McCain was trying to say that we will support the Iraqis and not abandon them, rather than trying to put a dangerous timetable on our withdrawal.

I know from personal experience, not a poll, that the Iraqis have been afraid of our withdrawal since 2004. I can’t blame them since all the dems have been screaming since 2004 is “WITHDRAWAL!! WITHDRAWAL!!”.

They’re afraid that we are going to leave and the bad guys are going to start filling mass graves with those that befriended or worked with the Americans. And then you wonder why the Iraqis haven’t stepped up more? Priceless.

So now you’re making assumptions based on what he has not said?? Hmm..OK. Since Obama hasn’t said much of substance about anything, I suppose I can ascribe any sort of malevolent intent I want to him, and you’ll agree, right? After all, that’s your standard.

Why do you guys keep putting words in my mouth? I haven’t ascribed any “malevolent intent” to McCain. I’m just saying he’s wrong. Or confused. I’m not arguing that he wants 100 years of death and destruction in Iraq. I’m arguing that a stated policy of indefinite presence and/or permanent bases might just lead to it. Big difference.

So you think the nation’s public policy should be based on the same thought processes used by…an ad man??? Abso-freaking-lutely unbelievable. Here America is locked in a death struggle with islamofascists, and you want our course in the central front of that war to be decided with the same seriousness you’d put into choosing the color of your car. Here’s a hint: how we conduct the war on terror shouldn’t be decided based on who hired the best ad agency.

One thing I’ll say for you: your affinity for judging critical matters with no more deep thought than what paint job looks best does explain why you’re in the Obama camp. But I digress….

I would have thought it obvious that I was making an analogy, but I digress. The point being that when the success of a policy affects and is affected by the opinion of the people that the policy is directed at, you might want to gauge that opinion somehow and alter the policy accordingly (especially when that opinion is literally a matter of life and death i.e. support for attacks on our troops).

Now, you can certainly argue that polls conducted in a war zone may be tainted or unreliable. I’ll concede that point, and we can debate to what extent that may be true. Perhaps that extent would be taken into consideration. But the belief that we’re going to put down an insurgency without paying attention to what the heck is pissing the Iraqis off just doesn’t seem based in logic IMO, and if the aforementioned poll has even half validity, one has to think that just talking about permanent bases at this point is a bad idea and counter-productive to what we’re trying to accomplish over there. This isn’t a “left wing” or “right wing” idea either:

CentCom’s planning director, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, has said the building of permanent bases would not be in the US interest.

“We must continue to show that we will not become a permanent force of occupation… because we need to operate in that region in an environment of consent,” Jane’s Defence Weekly quoted him as saying.

It’s a tactically sound idea.

McCain is wrong. That’s it.

That’s the point. He hasn’t said, so we’re left to assume that it’s the full 100 unless he clues us in.

So now you’re making assumptions based on what he has not said?? Hmm..OK. Since Obama hasn’t said much of substance about anything, I suppose I can ascribe any sort of malevolent intent I want to him, and you’ll agree, right? After all, that’s your standard.

Or, I can simply conclude you’re more not the least bit interested in an honest discussion, only spewing whatever untruths you think will help your candidate. Yeah, I think I’ll go with option B.

The good portion of our economy is run on policy based on various forms of poll data. It’s called market research.

So you think the nation’s public policy should be based on the same thought processes used by…an ad man??? Abso-freaking-lutely unbelievable. Here America is locked in a death struggle with islamofascists, and you want our course in the central front of that war to be decided with the same seriousness you’d put into choosing the color of your car. Here’s a hint: how we conduct the war on terror shouldn’t be decided based on who hired the best ad agency.

One thing I’ll say for you: your affinity for judging critical matters with no more deep thought than what paint job looks best does explain why you’re in the Obama camp. But I digress….

If there are polls that leave the impression that we may never achieve peace if we build permanent bases in Iraq, I think it would be pretty irresponsible to just ignore them

So all we need is a good push-poll and your ideal president would change his mind, eh? Yeah, that’s certainly a definition of leadership. You also overlook the fact that polls can be influenced by slanted news coverage, and we’ve no shortage of MSM types who’ve been rooting for the US to lose the WOT since day 1.

As for the Iraqis wanting us to leave, I think NC Cop’s got your number there. I wonder how you’d vote in a poll or election if you knew the wrong response would get you beheaded.

I will point out that if you and others like you spent as much time investing in success rather than defeat – we’d be in a much different situation.

The enemy at times feel like they are this close “” to getting us to pull out based on opinion polls here. If only they can inflict more damage and kill a few more people….

There were 3 weeks in Iwo Jima that is extremely hard to stomach because of our losses which almost equal the 5 years spent in Iraq. The tears that have been shed because of those losses could fill Lake Tahoe. But what we have gained in the long run is no doubt many more saved lives and much more prosperity (better lives) because of the sacrifices. If you chen continue to focus on defeat like you do your lack of focus on what the future may hold with success is what gives you such LACK of perspective.

None of us ‘want’ to see death. All of us ‘care’. For you to think otherwise about us shows more about your lack of perspective about us than it reveals anything about us. Your rantings are lost on us BECAUSE you don’t relate to what we feel or know or believe.

Invalid conclusion. Again, McCain has been clear about the 100 year commitment applying only if the violence stops. But that doesn’t prevent you from twisting his meaning.

At the service academies, they define lying as saying anything that deliberately attempts to give the wrong impression. It’s a strict definition, and not for those with flexible moral standards. And by that definition, you are definitely lying. Case closed.

Holy crap, we are going around circles here. I’m going to try to put this in real simple language.

OK…And if the violence doesn’t stop? How long is McCain willing to give it?

If a 100 year presence in Iraq is fine by him, on the condition that the shooting had stopped, how much of America’s time, money and bloodshed would be acceptable to achieve that condition, assuming it’s possible?

That’s the point. He hasn’t said, so we’re left to assume that it’s the full 100 unless he clues us in.

As for your typical leftist tendency to base policy on poll numbers, that was debunked a long time ago.

Actually, I don’t think it has. The good portion of our economy is run on policy based on various forms of poll data. It’s called market research. Ex. It would be pretty counter productive to build purple cars if survey and analysis told you that no one wants purple cars.

Anyway, there’s also a distinct difference between basing foreign policy on domestic polls, and basing it on foreign polls.

If there are polls that leave the impression that we may never achieve peace if we build permanent bases in Iraq, I think it would be pretty irresponsible to just ignore them and declare “we don’t base policy on polls”. Not to mention the hypocrisy and arrogance of acting in defiance of the will of the very people that we are supposedly trying to grant freedom. (on a related note, I’ve long argued that best way out of Iraq is for the Iraqis to vote us out)

the kids will be forced to grow up and take some responsibility for themselves. I think that’s the basis for the rationale behind the phased, gradual withdrawal that Obama is advocating.

And if that course of action turns out to lead to genocide and complete chaos like many experts believe it will, then what? Will Obama send troops to go back in? Will he send more troops to fight and die to retake the same property that they previously had?

That sounds a bit naive.

But the one thing that Mr. Maverick doesn’t lay out in is 100 year vision is a prediction on how long it will take until we don’t see troops “not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed”. On the surface, it doesn’t matter, since he’s committed to have the troops there for however long that takes, and (again), beyond.

Invalid conclusion. Again, McCain has been clear about the 100 year commitment applying only if the violence stops. But that doesn’t prevent you from twisting his meaning.

At the service academies, they define lying as saying anything that deliberately attempts to give the wrong impression. It’s a strict definition, and not for those with flexible moral standards. And by that definition, you are definitely lying. Case closed.

As for your typical leftist tendency to base policy on poll numbers, that was debunked a long time ago. Consider this wisdom:

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
– Edmund Burke, Speech to the electors of Bristol, November 3, 1774

I just don’t feel that abandoning Iraq is the answer. I believe it would cause problems down the line far worse than anything we are seeing right now.

Or, to use an analogy, maybe once the realization that the allowance is about to be cut off sinks in, the kids will be forced to grow up and take some responsibility for themselves. I think that’s the basis for the rationale behind the phased, gradual withdrawal that Obama is advocating.

This, by the way, is another reason why I wouldn’t view it as a “surrender”. It’s not like we’d be literally dropping our guns and running all at once.

/Oops, I know I said the previous comment was my last word. Baklava can now rightfully all me a liar, I guess.

Is it safe for me to assume that those you interacted with on a personal level weren’t among those who approve of attacks on US forces?

No, actually at one of the police stations that I was assigned to, Tarmiya, several police officers were arrested for being a part of the insurgency. It’s a strong Sunni region and anti-U.S. and we got hit there on a constant basis. A friend of mine got hit so many times that he developed brain shear just from the amount of concussions from the IED’s.

Yet many times as we would walk patrols with U.S. soldiers and Iraqi soldiers the people would tell us that they were glad we were there, however, they were afraid to be seen talking to us in public for fear of retaliation. So, I just don’t think that you can take an accurate poll of what people feel about the U.S. in those conditions.

Have things gone perfectly according to plan? Of course not, I can’t think of a single war we’ve fought where everything did. I just don’t feel that abandoning Iraq is the answer. I believe it would cause problems down the line far worse than anything we are seeing right now.

NC-

Yeah, only 14 months worth, but I’m sure you and the rest of the left blogosphere know tons more about them than I do.

Is it safe for me to assume that those you interacted with on a personal level weren’t among those who approve of attacks on US forces? I have no doubt that what you say is true, and that there are plenty of Iraqis who are glad we’re there and everything, but it’s less likely that you spoke to those who would have have preferred to kill you (or would have told you if they felt that way). Yet those people are obviously there, as you found out the hard way. The point is, as skewed as the perceptions gleaned from a opinion poll may or may not be, it is just as easy to argue that opinions gleaned from someone wearing the US uniform would be just as skewed (or more so). I mean, you didn’t think that someone is going to tell you that they felt that attacks on you and your brethren were justified, did you?

Ah, I see. Just a worthless poll.

Pretty much and for the same reasons I already stated. It has nothing to do with who conducted it or why, it has to do with the reality of the situation on the ground. You know, reality, something the anti-war crowd deal with very rarely.

It’s totally counter-intuitive, after all, so these polls MUST have been responded to under duress.

By all means, please tell me how I was wrong, I’d love to hear it. If you were living in the same circumstances how would you respond to a poll. I recently spoke to a lady whose nephew was in the military in Iraq. He told her that the Iraqis have a special signal that they have been giving to the troops letting them know that they are glad they are there. They can’t openly interact or thank the soldiers and Marines so they give a signal, sounds like they might be afraid, doesn’t it? However, I’m sure polls conducted under such circumstances are highly accurate.

And I suppose you know this because of your many interactions with them?

Yeah, only 14 months worth, but I’m sure you and the rest of the left blogosphere know tons more about them than I do.

It’s their country, and I’m sure everyone was expecting us to leave at some point, right?

If the legally elected government of that nation asks us to, of course we will. You see, running a nation by polls, like most of the left want to do, can be very dangerous. Especially when you have a media like ours, much less like Iraqs.