NYT editorial: Iraq and Afghanistan: Where Do We Go From Here?

[DeepModem Mom]

Where Do We Go From Here?
Published: July 7, 2008

The alarming resurgence of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan makes it even more imperative for the United States to begin planning for a swift and orderly withdrawal from Iraq.

For far too long President Bush’s disastrous war of choice in Iraq has leached resources and top-level attention from the war of necessity in Afghanistan. A grim new statistic underscores just how badly things are going there: 46 American and allied forces died in Afghanistan in June, more than during any other month since the war began in 2001. And for the second straight month, combat deaths in Afghanistan exceeded those for American-led forces in Iraq, where 31 troops died.

The recent decline in violence in Iraq is very welcome, but it has yet to be matched with essential political reforms. Instead of planning for a serious drawdown of American troops, the White House is using its self-proclaimed success as one more excuse for staying on. Mr. Bush’s successor will almost certainly inherit an Iraq with at least 130,000 American troops still fighting there.

Until now nearly all of the presidential debate has focused on whether and when a withdrawal should occur. Senator John McCain says he will stay on until “victory” is achieved. But he has not fully explained what that means or how it can be accomplished, much less how it can be accomplished while simultaneously routing militants in Afghanistan.

Senator Barack Obama is right when he says the United States must withdraw from Iraq so it can finish the fight in Afghanistan. But after promising to immediately begin drawing down troops by one or two brigades a month, he is now giving himself wiggle room by suggesting he will let military commanders set the pace.

What is needed is a far more serious, public discussion by the two candidates about how they plan to meet their commitments and also ensure that Iraq’s chaos does not spin further out of control or spread even further over its borders....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/opinion/07mon1.html

[TwilightGardener]

1. I must be the only person to believe that quiet and relative order in Iraq

is GREAT news for Obama. If it looked out of control, then the majority of voters might be nervous about turning the situation over to a "newbie" and turn to Mr. Military Hero instead, even if they don't approve of staying in Iraq indefinitely. Polls taken in the GOP primary actually showed that the more GOP voters hated the war, the more they voted for McCain, on the presumption that he would somehow end it competently, even though he has no such plans. Scary.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. You may have a point, wienerdoggie. nt

[jaxx]

3. Why are they getting by with this?

Senator Barack Obama is right when he says the United States must withdraw from Iraq so it can finish the fight in Afghanistan. But after promising to immediately begin drawing down troops by one or two brigades a month, he is now giving himself wiggle room by suggesting he will let military commanders set the pace.

That isn't what he said, jeez will any of the MSM get it right?


<snip>


"Apparently I was not clear enough this morning," he said. He blamed any confusion on the McCain campaign, which he said had "primed the pump with the press" to suggest "we were changing our policy when we haven't."

"I have said throughout this campaign that this war was ill-conceived, that it was a strategic blunder and that it needs to come to an end," he said. "I have also said I would be deliberate and careful about how we get out. That position has not changed. I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position."
He promised to summon the Joint Chiefs of Staff on his first day in office "and I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war, responsibly and deliberately, but decisively."

He said that when he talked earlier about refining his policy after talking with commanders in Iraq, he was referring not to his 16-month timeline, but to how many troops may need to remain in Iraq to train the local army and police and what troop presence might be needed "'to be sure al-Qaida doesn't re-establish a foothold there."


"I will bring our troops out at a pace of one two brigades a month" which would mean the United States would be totally out of Iraq in 16 months. "That is what I intend to do as president of the United States."

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080704/D91MRI000.html

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jaxx]

5. They're hoping the uninformed read their smears and take them as gospel.

I'm posting that update all over the place and sending email.

[bemildred]

6. Home? Why not go home?

Why continue with an unmitigated disaster? There is no reason to think that the US now is in a better position to make a "success" of it than it was 5 years ago; so there is no reason to think that it is a better idea to stay now than is was to invade in the first place 5 years ago. All the advantage of "shock and awe" is gone, our enemies know us and our capabilities well now. It will only get worse the longer we stay, you can bet the farm on it.

The only reason the weasels in Washington want to procrastinate is because they are (almost) all guilty, complicit, both with the stupidity of the effort and with the consequent war crimes. So much for "serving the public good".

[DeepModem Mom]

7. Thanks for a simple one-word answer, bemildred: "home." nt

[ihavenobias]

8. Interesting n/t