July 15, 2008
Framing Obama
Matthew Yglesias wants to get into a framing discussion and attempts to argue than an ABC poll was unfair to his man-crush/candidate.
Without nailing down the dishonesties in Yglesias' attempts to recast McCain's position, let's get into the specifics of what will be lost by Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan.
Logistically, it is deemed quite improbable, verging on impossible, for U.S. combat forces to perform an orderly withdrawal in 16 months. A withdrawal of personnel is possible, but at the cost of leaving behind hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars in taxpayer-purchased equipment that would have to be repurchased stateside, increasing future government debt, promising us yet another tax increase courtesy of Obama.
A commenter of his (Allan) claims that "Obama supports removing our troops from Iraq in an orderly process," but that is the height of fantasy; those who work in logistics have noted that his plan would promote chaos and unnecessary stresses on the supply chain and limited port facilities that have to process, decontaminate, pack, and ship outbound equipment and supplies.
This is simply the logistical argument, ignoring the dangers of a too-quick handover in provinces where Iraqi forces are still not deemed capable of taking the lead. Considering the stellar progress and trajectory of security gains and government progress in the last year, it is possible that in 16 months that the Iraqi security forces can take the lead in the eight remaining provinces where the U.S. is in charge of security, but it would be foolish and counterproductive to predetermine the removal of the safety net U.S. forces would still provide as Iraqi forces become more competent and confident.
Unless, of course, you have some vested interest in defeat.
Then there is the simple common-sense matter of which troops Obama wants to remove (combat forces). As a Iraqi war soldier or Marine (I forget which) remarked last week, who's going to be left in Obama's Army in Iraq, cooks and truck drivers?
Who is going to protect our remaining troops and positions and backstop the Iraqis if Obama pulls out our combat troops? Supply clerks? Dental hygienists?
Obama's plans for Iraq, like all of his other plans, are formulated with the impulsiveness and lack of concern for the unintended consequences of international affairs we'd expect from a neophyte government official not even one term removed from an inconsequential and lackluster state government stint, and a responsibility-free community organizer job before it.
Like so many things attached to the name Obama, his withdrawal plan for Iraqi is based upon irresponsible promises divorced from what he can actually deliver without causing far more hurt, a truism of his campign that can just as readily be applied to his domestic and foreign policy perscriptions.
I thought the Dalai Obama was going to formulate his Iraq plan in consultation with commanders on the ground. I haven't seen any evidence of consultation. Why is he announcing a plan in advance of his visit? It seems like more empty rhetoric from an empty suit.
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 15, 2008 09:45 AMPosted by: daleyrocks at July 15, 2008 09:45 AM - "I thought the Dalai Obama was going to formulate his Iraq plan in consultation with commanders on the ground. I haven't seen any evidence of consultation. Why is he announcing a plan in advance of his visit? It seems like more empty rhetoric from an empty suit."
Hussien's supporters just wouldn't accept his meeting unconditionally with US military commanders, as this type of treatment is reserved specifically for democratic allies (such as Iranian nutjob - Amadinejad). Nancy Pelosi fully approves, as she gives Amadinejad full credit for the fruits of US soldiers blood sweat and tears - in making the surge a success.
Announcing a plan prior to actually visiting Iraq is just further proof of the Obamessiah's omnipotence, and not part of the empty suit's regular song and dance! Ummm boppa oooo mauh mauh... uh uh uh oh.... Obama lama ding dong! OOoooooo!
Little known fact:
When George Washington was a boy, he got a new hatchet and was eager to try it out. He went to the prized cherry tree and began whacking. (the tree that is)
When his father discovered the cherry tree’s absence, he asked George, “George, what happened to the prized cherry tree?” To which George replied, “Father, I cannot tell a lie. I chopped down the cherry tree.” To which his father replied, “Then you shall have 10 lashes boy.” To which George replied, “Perhaps I was inartful in my truth-telling. What I meant to say was that my friend Benedict told me that it was not a cherry tree and it would be a good tree to practice with my new ax. So I chopped it down thinking it was not the prized cherry tree. So in effect, I did not chop down the cherry tree. I’m reshuffling my friends at this time.”
Posted by: Neo at July 15, 2008 04:50 PMAnd the logistical argument is a good one to use as it isn't an attack on his person, but an attackon his experience and judgment. How you get form here to there (and vice versa) is something very few take into account.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at July 16, 2008 05:31 PM