Digg this Blog
Share on Facebook
WatchMojo on Twitter
WatchMojo on YouTube
Add to Favorites
WatchMojo NewsletterFrom Peter Bergen:
Lost in this discussion [of the surge] was the fact that while the surge of some 30,000 American soldiers certainly put more American boots on the ground in neighborhoods from Anbar province to Baghdad to “clear, hold and build” them and was clearly an important element in the sharp decline in violence in the country, there are several other key underlying factors that tamped down the mayhem in Iraq that neither of the candidates addressed:
• First, the appearance in 2006 of the various “Awakening” movements, in which Sunni tribes once allied with al Qaeda turned against it.
• Second, the implementation of the Sons of Iraq program consisting of some 100,000 Sunni militants, many of whom used to be shooting at American soldiers, who are now on the U.S. payroll. Now that’s a surge!
• Third, the previous ethnic cleansings in Iraq and the millions of Iraqi refugees who have fled their homes, meaning there are fewer potential targets of sectarian violence.
• Fourth, the large size and increasing efficacy of the Iraqi army and police, some 550,000 strong, who are now beginning to operate with some level of professionalism.
• Fifth, the increasingly nonsectarian approach of Nuri al-Maliki, the Shia prime minister, who has taken on Shiite militias in Basra and Sadr City, an important signal that the government will act in something like the national interest.
• Sixth, the cease-fires ordered in the past year or so by the leader of those Shia militants, the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose position in Iraq has weakened significantly since 2007.
These underlying factors made the surge a force multiplier for the fragile peace we are seeing today in Iraq.
And now that the surge is over, it is those factors that might ensure that the fragile peace holds, yet neither Obama nor McCain discussed how these factors might change their own Iraq policies going forward.
A missed opportunity in the debate was also to hear from each candidate some specifics about his plans for the size of the future U.S. military presence in Iraq.
McCain, who once famously said that the United States could be in Iraq for a century if American troops weren’t being injured or killed there, never explained in the debate how he plans to ramp up significantly the number of American soldiers in Afghanistan — something he has promised to do, at the same time that he continues to favor a continuing substantial U.S. presence in Iraq.
As Obama noted during the debate, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, has said that given the present commitments in Iraq, it is just not possible to now send thousands more American soldiers to Afghanistan.
For his part, Obama was not asked about the specifics of his plan to withdraw from Iraq in 2010 yet at the same time maintain what he has frequently termed a “residual force” there that would handle key missions such as counterterrorism.
According to military officials I have spoken to, such a residual force tasked with counterterrorism, intelligence gathering on the ground, providing tactical support to Iraqi military operations and protecting U.S. facilities such as the largest American embassy in the world would consist of four to eight brigades.
Depending on the exact size of those brigades, that could mean up to 40,000 American soldiers based in Iraq for many years to come. For obvious reasons Obama has never spelled out what he estimates his residual force in Iraq would look like, as to do so would alienate the liberal, Moveon.org wing of his party, which is laboring under the delusion that come 2010, if Obama is in the White House, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq.
Obama was on firm ground when he attributed the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan to the diversion of American resources to Iraq. This is uncontroversial.
The initial U.S. deployment to Afghanistan was the smallest peacekeeping force, per capita, that America has sent anywhere since World War II, while a RAND study found that, “Afghanistan has received the least amount of resources out of any major American-led nation-building operation over the last 60 years.”
And today, there are four times more U.S. soldiers in Iraq than in Afghanistan, a country that is significantly larger in terms of both size and population.
via CNN.
From The Nation:
Myth 1. It’s a dangerous world. We face an array of serious national security threats that require an experienced Commander in Chief.
Myth 2. The surge has worked. To withdraw from Iraq now would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and embolden Islamic extremists.
Myth 3. We cannot allow Afghanistan to become a safe haven for terrorists. We therefore must redouble our military efforts there or face another terrorist attack.
Myth 4. Iran is responsible for much of the violence against US forces in Iraq; by using its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza, it threatens to dominate the Middle East.
Myth 5. To talk to the leaders of “rogue” states like Iran and Cuba without conditions legitimizes their position and weakens American leverage.
Myth 6. Vladimir Putin’s Russia is an authoritarian state pursuing an anti-American agenda aimed at reconstituting the Soviet Union in the form of a new Russian empire.
Myth 7. Because the American military is stretched thin by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must increase the size of our conventional armed forces.
Myth 8. A League of Democracies would create a global coalition for peace and freedom and would enable the United States and its democratic allies to intervene to solve humanitarian and other crises when the UN Security Council is paralyzed.
Myth 9. Globalization has strengthened the economy, and we cannot avoid it by hiding behind protectionist walls.
Myth 10. The world needs American leadership.
Interesting myths, no? To find out more about why they are myths, click and read The Nation:
Wow.
Republicans - in particular McCain and Palin - should not be allowed to run anything, not a lemonade stand, not a kiosk at a mall, and certainly not the USA. Why is Obama not up by 20%? Oh, right…
So here is the draft of the bailout, found via this site:
From Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi — Sept. 28, 2008
REINVEST, REIMBURSE, REFORM
IMPROVING THE FINANCIAL RESCUE LEGISLATION
Significant bipartisan work has built consensus around dramatic improvements to the original Bush-Paulson plan to stabilize American financial markets — including cutting in half the Administration’s initial request for $700 billion and requiring Congressional review for any future commitment of taxpayers’ funds. If the government loses money, the financial industry will pay back the taxpayers.
3 Phases of a Financial Rescue with Strong Taxpayer Protections
Reinvest in the troubled financial markets … to stabilize our economy and insulate Main Street from Wall Street Reimburse the taxpayer … through ownership of shares and appreciation in the value of purchased assets Reform business-as-usual on Wall Street … strong Congressional oversight and no golden parachutes CRITICAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RESCUE PLAN
Democrats have insisted from day one on substantial changes to make the Bush-Paulson plan acceptable — protecting American taxpayers and Main Street — and these elements will be included in the legislation
Protection for taxpayers, ensuring THEY share IN ANY profits
Cuts the payment of $700 billion in half and conditions future payments on Congressional review Gives taxpayers an ownership stake and profit-making opportunities with participating companies Puts taxpayers first in line to recover assets if participating company fails Guarantees taxpayers are repaid in full — if other protections have not actually produced a profit Allows the government to purchase troubled assets from pension plans, local governments, and small banks that serve low- and middle-income families Limits on excessive compensation for CEOs and executives
New restrictions on CEO and executive compensation for participating companies:
No multi-million dollar golden parachutes Limits CEO compensation that encourages unnecessary risk-taking Recovers bonuses paid based on promised gains that later turn out to be false or inaccurate Strong independent oversight and transparency
Four separate independent oversight entities or processes to protect the taxpayer
A strong oversight board appointed by bipartisan leaders of Congress A GAO presence at Treasury to oversee the program and conduct audits to ensure strong internal controls, and to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse An independent Inspector General to monitor the Treasury Secretary’s decisions
Transparency — requiring posting of transactions online — to help jumpstart private sector demandMeaningful judicial review of the Treasury Secretary’s actions Help to prevent home foreclosures crippling the American economy
The government can use its power as the owner of mortgages and mortgage backed securities to facilitate loan modifications (such as, reduced principal or interest rate, lengthened time to pay back the mortgage) to help reduce the 2 million projected foreclosures in the next year Extends provision (passed earlier in this Congress) to stop tax liability on mortgage foreclosures Helps save small businesses that need credit by aiding small community banks hurt by the mortgage crisis—allowing these banks to deduct losses from investments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stocks
More thoughts to come once I read this.
