09-05-2008, 03:39 AM
What does McCain mean by "victory" in Iraq. Here's what his campaign page on the subject says:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issu...3F11D8.htm
But what happens if the Iraqi government insists that we leave before these conditions for "victory" are achieved? Would president McCain keep troops there anyway (and in spite of the UN mandate having elapsed that provides a legal justification for the occupation)? Or would he pull the troops out as the Iraqis insist and admit that since his conditions for victory have not been met that we have lost the war in Iraq? Or would he redefine his conditions for victory as the ones that happen to be the case at the time and declare victory and leave?
My point is that this whole "victory" thing is an emotional appeal and has little to do with the way the actual winding down of the occupation of Iraq is likely to unfold. It could be that the surge did help the process along, but that is far from certain. There is strong evidence that the Shiite governing powers are not seriously trying to make accommodations with the Sunnis, and since we have been arming the Sunnis to the teeth, it is a distinct possibility that what the surge will have accomplished is delaying what may be a nearly inevitable horrible armed clash between the two groups. I hope not, but it isn't a low probability. If it does happen, would a president McCain pick a side and keep us in the middle of what would be essentially a civil war for who knows how long or would he just get out? My guess is the former. And my guess is that Obama would do the latter. And I guess which option would seem best to you is going to depend on your predisposition. One thing I don't think you should do is ignore the distinct possibility that thing may unfold that way, though, just because we have gotten the impression that the surge has somehow created the conditions where it is highly unlikely such a thing will occur.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issu...3F11D8.htm
But what happens if the Iraqi government insists that we leave before these conditions for "victory" are achieved? Would president McCain keep troops there anyway (and in spite of the UN mandate having elapsed that provides a legal justification for the occupation)? Or would he pull the troops out as the Iraqis insist and admit that since his conditions for victory have not been met that we have lost the war in Iraq? Or would he redefine his conditions for victory as the ones that happen to be the case at the time and declare victory and leave?
My point is that this whole "victory" thing is an emotional appeal and has little to do with the way the actual winding down of the occupation of Iraq is likely to unfold. It could be that the surge did help the process along, but that is far from certain. There is strong evidence that the Shiite governing powers are not seriously trying to make accommodations with the Sunnis, and since we have been arming the Sunnis to the teeth, it is a distinct possibility that what the surge will have accomplished is delaying what may be a nearly inevitable horrible armed clash between the two groups. I hope not, but it isn't a low probability. If it does happen, would a president McCain pick a side and keep us in the middle of what would be essentially a civil war for who knows how long or would he just get out? My guess is the former. And my guess is that Obama would do the latter. And I guess which option would seem best to you is going to depend on your predisposition. One thing I don't think you should do is ignore the distinct possibility that thing may unfold that way, though, just because we have gotten the impression that the surge has somehow created the conditions where it is highly unlikely such a thing will occur.