yes mark

we lose the US Infantry ( no more rotations
because honorable medical discharges en masse)
and the effort
and later on our freedom fortune lives !

it is now time to come on the same page
engineer a plan that works and go for it !

plainfactor,

I do not feel that America has the wherewithal, the requisite understanding or desire to understand tribal societies.

I know that to you I must sound like a constant anti-American critic, but trust me, I am equally hard on myself. I want us to fix our house. Corney but true, but how can you tell another nation how to resolve its problems when we cannot resolve our own.

And how can America expect to deal fairly with a tribal nation like Pakistan, when America has never dealt fairly with or understood the tribal nations that once inhabitated this land.

We have a history of genocide, when it comes to dealing with tribal people. It would seem to me that America only makes more enemies for itself, therefore creates more problems for itself and its posterity.

Here is a radical suggestion. Why not have American officials go and sit down to speak with and learn from the tribal chiefs on American reservations? They might just be able to help America to learn how to make friends with the disparate Pakistani tribes - otherwise, we have removed the cork from yet another steaming teapot that is whating to explode.

It will be just one more place where America will have to station troops for '100 years' in order to prevent a nation from releasing out all of its steam out on the United States of America.

We cannot kill everyone, and neither should we! We cannot occupy every nation of the world and neither should we. Shouldn't we simply learn and admit to what we are doing wrong as a nation first?

Oocha-di

==I used the example of Pakistan to show that terrorism is NOT a direct result of American foreign policy.==

Terrorism is a tactic and there are examples of it long before the United States even came into existence. The entire Indian subcontinent sorry history is forever confounded with British colonial foreign policy, so your "example" is an example of trivial truism. There are also "examples" of religious wars, famines and earthquakes that are not a "direct result of American foreign policy", so what?

==We can see that the the nation of Pakistan had started terrorism against India well before terrorists began against Israel. Organized Islamic terrorism against the US is a much later arrival; that is my point.==

Again, terrorism is a tactic, used in asymmetric warfare since time immemorial. Proto-Israelis used it against the British in Palestine, Arabs against the Israelis all over the Middle East, Indians against the Pakistanis, Pakistanis against Indians, Shri Lankans against other Shri Lankans, etc. etc. etc. Once we began to flex our foreign policy more and more in the direction of global hegemony, we started to be the target of asymmetric warfare as well.

==In truth, Islamic terrorism has many fathers, and had become formulaic against the US before we created strong ties with oil producing nations - while at the same time we began to support Israel.==

Actually, we have had strong ties to oil producing countries since righ after WWII and strongly supported Israel since that time as well. Islamic terrorism against the US has started since the time we started sending soldiers into the Middle East. That is the conclusion of serious studies on the subject - terrorism is largely a response to military involvement.

==It seems that these oil-producing nations drunk with vengence, a lack of humility, and without any sense of egalitarianism that has given birth to moder-day Islamic terrorism. But we are hardly the first - or the reason of its origin. ==

Like I said - they got horns, too. But, "Mush", that's a different matter, he is a friend, right PF?

Hey Rev:

I used the example of Pakistan to show that terrorism is NOT a direct result of American foreign policy.

We can see that the the nation of Pakistan had started terrorism against India well before terrorists began against Israel. Organized Islamic terrorism against the US is a much later arrival; that is my point.

In truth, Islamic terrorism has many fathers, and had become formulaic against the US before we created strong ties with oil producing nations - while at the same time we began to support Israel.

It seems that these oil-producing nations drunk with vengence, a lack of humility, and without any sense of egalitarianism that has given birth to moder-day Islamic terrorism. But we are hardly the first - or the reason of its origin.

==You are timid.==

I am really shy, when it comes to killing people, by mistake or for evil ends.

Got me there.

Muslim terrorism is NOT a symptom of American policy?

Come on plainfacto,

Everyone knows that your position with regard to reactive Muslim terrorism is DOA. Going back to the Treaty of Versailles, America subsequently picked up where the United Kingdom left off - exploiting and meddling in the internal affairs of Muslim and Arab nations.

Not only is so-called Muslim terrorism a symptom of American policy, American terrorism itself (which some often overlook and rationalize), is a symptom and a plank in American policy...!

America's policies of greed, hegemony and systematic inteference in the internal affairs of other nations and confederations of nations and individuals all over the world, has caused other individuals and nations to respond in-kind. Those nations and people hate America given what America has done to them!

We will never get anywhere in terms of solving the east-west divide, until Americans are as willing to acknowledge America's flaws and its part in the matter, just as they are so willing to point out where other nations and people are purportedly flawed.

Individuals in Muslim and Arab nations are only behaving like the American Colonists did, when they were constantly being meddled with by the first English King George and the House of Lords!

Endogenous and Reactive Behavior,

From a clinical perspective these are the two major types of behaviors. The reactive behavior that comes from most nations and so-called enemies of the U.S.A. is in response to America's meddling in or stifling the eternal affairs of other nations.

America's allies have said as much, some to President Bush's face. When America learns to take responsibility for its own misbehaviors, just as America insists that other nations do - then the temperature around the world will lower.

We are not a perfect nation either - and all too often not a very honest nation, particularly, when it comes to our own misdeeds! The problem is not 'the rest of the world'. If we would only address our own misdeeds in the same manner that we demand that other nations and people do, then the reactionary temperature around the world would automatically be lowered!

Mccain is wrong about Pakistan too. Responding to Obama's willingness to attack al Qaida havens in Paksitan:

"You don't broadcast that you are going to bomb a country that is a sovereign nation and that you are dependent on ... in the struggle against (the) Taliban and the sanctuaries which they hold."

What does McCain think happened to Hamza Rabia and Abu Layth al Libi, al Qaida leaders killed in Paksitan? Does he think they died of natural causes or did some U.S. steel fall out of the sky?

That was from a Theodore Roosevelt speech, Sorbonne France -1910.

More importantly:
"For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and self-discipline." - 2 Timothy 1:7

//"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."\\

And so far your modus operandi is to pick on others - rather to be picked on yourself.
You are timid.

==Why don't you write something that I can critique? ==

Why don't you critique what is written?

So far, you modus operandi is to inject a series of contentous opinions of the day (usually different from yesterday's), then quip away as you run away.

It is tiresome to see you legging it away from argument and discussion. But perhaps that is your fate.

//I take these baseless quips as a sign I once again made sense and you have once again have no counter arguments to make.\\ -D...

You have written nothing worth arguing about. You voiced your opinion, and it was not either coherent or held any value. Don't flatter yourself.

Why don't you write something that I can critique?

"Pride comes before a fall" -Proverbs...

==Dumitry:
oocha-di!==

I take these baseless quips as a sign I once again made sense and you have once again have no counter arguments to make.

Try the tea.

Dumitry:
oocha-di!

==Let's remember that it was the Muslims that insisted to break away from India to create Pakistan, to separate their cultures, and to futher foment instabilities and terrorist acts against a peaceful India - once India had successfully broken away from England. ==

So they were terrorists from the getgo? Just the other month you were arguing for status quo in favor of "Mush", in order to fight terrorism...Should we dig up your old posts?

My understanding, is that Hindu nationalists had no real interests in coexistence and cultural preservation either, but were against essentially because they were in majority and not from any particularly peaceful motives. In fact, Ghandi was reviled by them, precisely because his attempts to secure an ecumenical balance.

==Ghandi pleaded with the Muslims for peaceful coexistance; but the Pakistanis wouldn't have it - who's fault was that?
They have never sought peace and are the victims of their own instability to this very day. ==

He also pleaded with the Hindus for the same thing, geez, what happened to him?

==Pakistan is a country that is so factioned and splintered - that it is extremely doubtful that it will ever be unified or ever have anything that comes to a peaceful coexistance among themselves or their neighbors. Pakistaini neighbors; now - that's an oxymoron!==

That would make Pakistan different from many countries created through the British colonial subjugation, exactly how? Iraq comes to mind, perhaps?

==I don't care what they say they want; because they have already demonstrated that they have absolutely no interest in attaining coexistance with themselves or anyone else for that matter - ever! And when one adds the element of pseudo-autonomy to their cause, they have only used it to attain the means to spread their anarchy and dissatifaction among would-be peaceful nations and bolstered terrorism as their legacy. They are proud of the very thing they should be ashamed of! ==

I hear they also have horns.

==Since the creation of Pakistan, their leaders have only sought to inflame and arouse the Hindus - to the point the Hindus/India had to accept a nuclear deterrent. ==

Unlike the peaceful Hindus, who do nothing but worship their gods and leave everyone alone. I seem to remembers some really nice choice attacks on Christian churches by enraged Hindu mobs just recently. And I won't even mention the train firebombings, anti-Muslim riots, continuious attacks on religoius cites that are claimed by militant Hindus as their own.

And your assertion that Pakistani attacks have "forced" India to "accept" a nuclear deterrent is a laughable full-out lie. India has been diligently working on a nuclear bomb for decades, stealing the first reactor technology from Sweden or Norway, I think, and never signing the non-proliferation treaty. Being the second largest country in the world by population, India has never faced an existential threat from Pakistan, yet it chose to develop and build nuclear weapons and delivery systems, all the while its people were suffering one of the world's worst standards of living for decades.

No wonder Bush Central Committee wants to make a special nuclear pact with India - they see someone they can do business with.

==Posted by: no obama | March 2, 2008 11:22 AM ==

Stop embarrassing yourself with this propaganda. You do your candidate, H. Clinton, no favors by mindlessly spewing anti-Obama nonsense.

//Plainfacto, Muslims did not kill Ghandi\\

Thats right. But Muslim leaders have misled their own and led them to kill each other and have sought to keep a peaceful existance from their own reach. Has anybody asked why? No...

Since the creation of Pakistan, their leaders have only sought to inflame and arouse the Hindus - to the point the Hindus/India had to accept a nuclear deterrent.

Pakistan is at the verge of breaking up into tribal regions with little possibillities of being self sustaining. Will their breaking into smaller parts make such a nuke state more stable? Most likely it will not; and it will only make India and other neighboring nations far more nervous and likely to attack.

Notice that these actions have nothing to do with American foreign policy; it is the foreign policy of Pakistan that is in question. That is my point.

Remember what Ghandi had proved in South Africa? Ghandi had the agreement of both Muslims and Hindus to change British law by peaceful non-cooperation. And it worked; didn't it?

So, whatever lesson of non-violence the Pakistani Muslim leaders have learned from Ghandi, they surely haven't realized its potential to overcome their own political woes or done anything to utilize that process. The Pakistani leadership has historically been found lacking as they do now...

Plainfacto, Muslims did not kill Ghandi. He was killed by a fellow Hindi.

War is too important to be left to the military to decide. Think of WWII. If left to the military, the Japanese would never have surrendered. Yes Mark, we have the ability to win. The question is how many people do you want to kill to do it?? 100K more? 200K? A million? Two million? How long do you want to fight? Two more years? Five years? Longer? How much more money do you want to spend on it? How much are you willing to raise your taxes to pay for it? How many of your children are you willing to put at risk to fight in the war?

Muslim terrorism is NOT a symptom of American policy; and anyone who thimks so is just blindly buying into pseudo-intellectual/pseudo-liberal short-sighted Bovine Scatology.

I guessing that everyone has forgotten what happened to India when Pakistan broke away when a peace monger 'Ghandi' was holding the reigns?
I can see what has occured there; can you?

Let's remember that it was the Muslims that insisted to break away from India to create Pakistan, to separate their cultures, and to futher foment instabilities and terrorist acts against a peaceful India - once India had successfully broken away from England. Ghandi pleaded with the Muslims for peaceful coexistance; but the Pakistanis wouldn't have it - who's fault was that?
They have never sought peace and are the victims of their own instability to this very day.

Pakistan is a country that is so factioned and splintered - that it is extremely doubtful that it will ever be unified or ever have anything that comes to a peaceful coexistance among themselves or their neighbors.
Pakistaini neighbors; now - that's an oxymoron!

I don't care what they say they want; because they have already demonstrated that they have absolutely no interest in attaining coexistance with themselves or anyone else for that matter - ever! And when one adds the element of pseudo-autonomy to their cause, they have only used it to attain the means to spread their anarchy and dissatifaction among would-be peaceful nations and bolstered terrorism as their legacy. They are proud of the very thing they should be ashamed of!
I feel both embarassment and shame for them...

If you don't belive me, have yourself a refresher course in twentieth century Indian history and watch the movie "Ghandi". If nothing else, this movie points out that the Muslim people have nearly always had horrible/inept leaders that have NEVER properly represented the majority of the Muslim peoples or their wishes. The only exception to this would be Turkey; and they don't like what they have seen other Muslim countries produce.
Word!

Terrorism is a symptom rather than the disease itself. The disease is hoplessness of a people who's lands have been raped, pillaged,used for political battlefields. People's who have been uprooted,had their countries borders redrawn and their cultures and ways of life destroyed.
If our forefathers had not done such a complete and thorough job of eradicating the American Indians one would be seeing comparable demonstrations of retaliation and terrorism within our own borders today.
If a Muslim army,fearing their national security, set up occupation anywhere on this continent,there is not one among us that would be sitting idley by. You can bet that even a right wing Christian extremist would find it acceptable to strap on a bomb to destroy the "evil" Muslim occupants.
People respond to aggression in varying degrees but they all respond. Why are we so surprised at the extent a person will go when they percieve a great injustice by a powerful entity.
If we continue to scold and best those who show violent reaction to our misplaced righteousness we had better resign ourselves to a world of eternal terrorism.
In a time when a weaker and smaller enemy can aquire nuclear or biological capabilities it may not be a forgone conclusion that we will be the enevitable victors.

What is Senator Obama going to say to republicans when asked why he favors granting drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants as Obama has admitted twice in debates? About Obama's present position that undocumented workers will not be covered in his healthcare proposal, yet when he was running for the Senate he said that children of undocumented workers should get the same healthcare benefits that citizens get? when they begin to ask him about negotiating in unstructured summits with the leaders of Iran, North Korea and Cuba without preconditions? What will Senator Obama say when Senator McCain asks him why he said in 2004 that he did not know how he would have voted on the Iraq war authorization and that his view of the Iraq war was not different from President Bush's? What will Senator Obama say when Senator McCain compares Obama's votes to fully fund the Iraq War in the Senate to Obama's rhetorical opposition to that war? What is Senator Obama going to say when Senator McCain questions Obama's claim to be "the most qualified person in America to conduct the foreign policy of the United States"? What is Senator Obama going to say when Senator McCain says that Obama is not one of the most qualified members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to lead this country in today's dangerous world but instead one of the most absent? Senator Obama has not conducted a single policy hearing as chairman of the subcommittee on European Affairs of the Foreign Relations Committee?We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, among party's most respected voices on foreign policy after 35 years in the Senate and stated that as a senator, Clinton joined the Armed Services Committee in 2003, a post that burnished her national-security credentials. She is conscientious, she took hold and showed a good understanding" of security issues, There is a very favorable response to her performance and experience. Obama said he felt his strongest foreign relations experience came from spending four years overseas as a child, Obamas has spent his short time on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on speeches and inspirational trips than on investigations and aggressive oversight. He is just now beginning to cut his teeth on foreign policy issues. Obama took charge of the European affairs subcommittee in early 2007, he didn't seize the opportunity to scrutinize the Bush administration. With his campaign in full swing, the busy senator did not lead a single policy hearing on ANY of the hot topics in the panel's jurisdiction: missile defense, counterterrorism and concern over the waning commitment of European countries to NATO etc... Obama cannot be trusted with the future of our Great but Troubled country! The debate showed Obamas extreme lack of foreign affairs issues, he agreed with ALL of Hillary answers, why? Because he just doesn't know the answers. Amazingly the question of Russia and Obama had no clue! Who the new up coming president of Russia and didn't even know the name of the guy? Hillary showed that she knew the upcoming president of Russia and the issues about him in addition to many others issues like Cuba etc...Obama fails in every debate why> because he is not good unless the speech is pre-written. Please we do not need a bobble head in the White House. We MUST have experience to deal with what we already know and of course what we don't know until Bush us out. I'm very fearful of an Obama/mccain race. Mainstream media is helping hide his corrupt campaign finance donors, awful voting record in the senate and true lack of experience with dealing with foreign leaders. Most all foreign leaders like the Clintons, on day one Hillary has a better chance of bring those leaders to talk than Obama. Hussen Obama is a media made fairy tale, which is a danger to our country and economy.

Obama Flip-Flops
1. Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support
2. Public financing Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.
3. The Cuba embargo In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change."
4. Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."
5. Decriminalization of marijuana While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.

By the end of election year 2008,

we will know whether or not the American people are naiive or not. If the American people elect another leader that will adhere to the same policies and pursue the same course as President Bush did over the past 8 years, then the American people are naiive.

Let's face it, none of these people who are running for office can put themselves into office. Well that may or may not be true!

When a segment of the American population stops being so greedy, paternalistic and hegemonistic, American foreign policy will likely change, and the world will be a safer place for everybody.

For sure the rest of the world will be safe from American style religious, militaristic and economic terrorism!

BTW -D; the 'You might be an idiot' tirade was put on a number of blogs,
'J' told me that the same was on a blog he frequents just last night.
Clinton propaganda is everywhere!
Isn't it - Comrade Dimitry Medvedev?

I can trust Dumitry to twist what I say to fit it to his own liking and design...

==YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)==

And you are, not might be, an idiot, for repeating mindless, embarrassing propaganda for H. Clinton.

==For all of the reasons that people have stated that the Iraq war is a bad war - it is not because it was ill concieved or not being won as it is; it is because it has become an economic drain on this economy.==

And who would be these "people", who like the reasons for the war and like that it is being "won", but are just too much of a tightwads to spend some money to get it done?

That wouldn't be the American people who have now for years responded with negative opinions about the reasons for the war and negative opinions about the prospects of "winning" the war.

You must be talking about the latest neocon talking point - lets get the price down, it's the economy, stupid. According to that crowd, Americans don't mind murder, mayhem and blood in their name under false pretense, it is the shekels they don't like.

Give it up!

For all of the reasons that people have stated that the Iraq war is a bad war - it is not because it was ill concieved or not being won as it is; it is because it has become an economic drain on this economy.

SO what needs to be made right, is that it continues ONLY if if can be done/finished with efficiency and at a much lower cost. It must have a balanced ledger.

SO - how would people feel if we win AND it was cost effective? Doubtlessly, they will find exception just to keep their mouthes moving...

John McCain is 20th Century. Old news. He fought in a bad war, bombed people anonymously from high in the sky, was taken prisoner and sat out the war. He didn't volunteer to become a POW and having been one doesn't make him a brilliant military strategist. Call him a hero if you must but his war was 35 years ago. You can only dine out for so long on one story. Iraq is a disaster from every perspective. Iraq was never about terrorism. The terrorist threat, while real and requiring vigilance and solid intelligence work, is being totally distorted and exaggerated by fear-mongers with vested interests.

One of the reasons that President Bush...

rushed into Iraq in the first place, I believe was to provide America with its current dilemma.

He knew that once he placed the troops into Iraq, that the American people would have little choice but to support them, no matter how short-sighted the reason was for their being their in the first place.

Well the troops have been supported over the past 5-plus years. It is time for the American people to wise up, or future Presidents will continue to use similar ploys to inveigle the American people.

Yes Obama, McCain, Huckabee or Hillary, one of you open becoming president, should began an immediate withdrawal from all 3 of the current war fronts - and at the same time go back to the drawing board!

What we are doing now is not working. And the only way to make the current policy work is to take the full might of American military power and destroy America's enemies - and that would essentially be unfair!

Candidates want YOU to think WHAT way? Don't listen to what they tell you to do; that is for YOU to decide.

Be suspicious of any candidate that tells you what and how to think!
Like Clinton...

If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think, if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."

-Bill Clinton, 2004
Shame on me to vote for Mccain , who is fearmonger as Bush following failed bush policy.

If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think, if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."

-Bill Clinton, 2004
Shame on me to vote for Mccain , who is earmonger as Bust following failed bush policy.

Arkin's blog, and any number of the comments below, illustrate the truth in one of the more memorable lines from Rob Reiner's 'This Is Spinal Tap' (1984):

"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever."

McCain has become dangerously delusional. He speaks in sound bites as if that is a substitute for real military and diplomatic strategy. Make no mistake- with McCain as President of the United States we will see a further decline in this country- economically, strategically and politically. It is now estimated that the Iraq war will cost the U.S. taxpayer over $5 trillion dollars (not to mention more Americans and Iraqis killed or wounded). The U.S. dollar is declining, we know part of the reason that the price of oil is so high is due to Iraq's inability to produce more crude oil, we know that we have more debt than at any other time in our country's history. Our country will pay for generations the reckless policies of Bush/Cheney. Voting in McCain only compounds the damage already done.

On John McCain's candidacy:

Yes, he served our country, and we are very proud of, and thank him for his service.

However, John McCain would be mistaken to assume that we owe him the presidency, given his military service. The presidency is another opportunity for us, Americans to serve our country, just like in the military and other areas of public service.

In this year's election, the American people are looking for change and new ideas and ways to get things done. Disregarding the rhetoric from John McCain and Hillary Clinton in this campaign, the reality is they have been in Washington for several years, and they have, each contributed all that they possibly can contribute, and hardly anything new or more is left for them to contribute. If they Hillary Clinton and John McCain had all these ideas, they now claim they have, why have they not contributed them to authorize a war in the wrong battlefield -Iraq, instead of Afghanistan where those who attacked us are known to be? Due to John McCain's and Hillary Clinton's ineptitude on national security, over four thousand our brave men and women have given their lives, and several hundred thousands are maimed and wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, fighting the wrong, and dumb war! Even John McCain has the unmitigated temerity to say, that our soldiers may be in Iraq for 100 years, how stupid and foolish, can he be? Does he not know that our soldiers are being killed and wounded, while fighting in Iraq and that war has drained our economy, dry, and we are on the brink of economic recession?

If they American people want to elect another drone, who operates in autopilot, and is out of touch with reality, let them elect John McCain.

For crying out loud, John McCain does not even know, why he wants the voters to elect him, or even, why he is running for the presidency. John McCain is not even sure of his own political philosophy. There was a Freudian slip and moment on the campaign trail recently, where John McCain identified himself as a conservative, liberal Republican. I wrote an article in the Washington Times blog, about two weeks ago, where I argued that, John McCain has lost his authenticity, as both a moderate and a maverick. He shriveled, sacrificed his moderate principles, and caved in, to win the support of the ultra conservative wing of the Republican Party. John McCain is now in a mix up, on issues pertaining to lobbyists, their corrupting influence on campaign contribution. John McCain has straddled several positions on the issues, that he cannot in good conscience claim to be neither a moderate, nor a conservative Republican.

John McCain's dwindling authenticity and implicit lack of credibility would haunt him the rest of this campaign. John McCain and the lunatic wing of the Republican Party hope to win the presidency by default -negative campaign against Sen. Obama, and critising Sen. Obama's policy proposal, rather than put his own proposal on the table. Well, let us see if they American people have not learnt any lesson with the experiences in a president, who they elected, based on similar tactics by the Republicans.

Ignatius Anyanwu
California

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)
In his article, Jacksmith writes exhaustively about being an idiot. I bet that Obama wouldn't follow his arguments. I couldn't either.
There is good reason: For the wise man hath said that it takes an idiot to know, or think he knows, one. And Jacksmith seems to excel at "idiot".

Yea; and you might be an idiot if you think Hilary doesn't have Bill's hand up her backside, like some kind of a sock puppet having a bad hair day!

Bill Clinton and Putin both have something in common; they both want to rule by proxy.

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

While reading all the comments, I think I have forgotten the content of the article itself that I would like to comment on. However, I would like to quote what Ronald Reagan told the then president Marcos of the Philippines when the unarmed civilians called the "people's Power" was closing in on him in the palace.. He said "it is time to cut, cut and cut clean". I hope Mr Mccain will do that with Iraq. The people's power was able to get rid of the dictator without blood shed. Note: I used the term dictator because it seem to be a one man rule but it wasnot, most filipinos like him so much that they say Yes to what he wants. He doesnot believe in lobbyist, he himself passes the white envelop to the senators and congressman if he wants the law to pass. He started with talk of change and hope and appealed to the young generation at that time. He stayed in power for so long that the new generation toppled his regime because they wanted change and new hope, while the generation who embraced him were the older generation at that time.

While reading all the comments, I think I have forgotten the content of the article itself that I would like to comment on. However, I would like to quote what Ronald Reagan told the then president Marcos of the Philippines when the unarmed civilians called the "people's Power" was closing in on him in the palace.. He said "it is time to cut, cut and cut clean". I hope Mr Mccain will do that with Iraq. The people's power was able to get rid of the dictator without blood shed. Note: I used the term dictator because it seem to be a one man rule but it wasnot, most filipinos like him so much that they say Yes to what he wants. He doesnot believe in lobbyist, he himself passes the white envelop to the senators and congressman if he wants the law to pass. He started with talk of change and hope and appealed to the young generation at that time. He stayed in power for so long that the new generation toppled his regime because they wanted change and new hope, while the generation who embraced him were the older generation at that time.

McCain is apparently naiive when it comes to a lot of things...,

He has already admitted that he does not know much about America's real problem, its shaky economy - so he cannot help us there. And with respect to the war(s), it appears that if he follows Mr. Bushes missteps and foibles, he will only cause the war to be expanded, internationally.

What good will it do to elect a President who is out of step with the needs of the country domestically, and one who has a retrograde desire to foment war abroad?

All due respect to Senator McCain and he deserves it given his service to this country, however, he does not reflect the thinking of enlightened individuals who are a part of the thinking of the New American Century.

The fact of the matter is that America needs new and enlightened leadership. So-called terrorism will persist until America changes its policies. The so-called terrorists are simply individuals who believe that America's policies are wrong, and they are willing to stand up to America, even though they do not have helicopters, guns, tanks, UAVs, Satellites, nuclear weapons or war ships.

They kind of put you in mind of the colonists who stood up to King George of England a few centuries ago!

America needs to enage in some deep introspection! What we are really fighting against is other people's freedom(s)!

McCain is apparently naiive when it comes to a lot of things...,

He has already admitted that he does not know much about America's real problem, its shaky economy - so he cannot help us there. And with respect to the war(s), it appears that he follow Mr. Bushes missetps and foible, and cause the war to be expanded.

What good will it do to elect a President who is out of step with the needs of the country domestically, and one who has a retrograde desire to foment war?

All due respect to Senator McCain and he deservices, however, he does not reflect the thinking of enlightened individuals who are a part of the thinking of the New American Century.

The fact is that America needs new and enlightened leadership. So-called terrorism will persist until America changes its policies. The so-called terrorists are simply individuals who believe that America's policies are wrong, and they are willing to stand up to America, even though they do not have helicopters, guns, tanks, UAVs, Satellites or worships.

They kind of put you in mind of the colonists who stood up to King George of England a few centuries ago!

America needs to enage in some deep introspection!

God opposes the proud; but gives favor to the humble...

Neo-cons always think they are right, the only ones who are right and they always think they should tell everyone else what to do. I am sick of all the neo-cons and all the haughty preachers of the world.

I see Northrup (bloodsucking) Grumman got the tanker deal with the Pentagon for $40 billion. I wonder how much bigger their bribe was than Boeing.

If you want to be a preacher Sunday is two days away.

For those who believe this campaign is using 'fear mongering' as a bluff, you must be getting high and hiding your heads in the sand. Terrorism is real, oil prices are real, and so are the numerous troubles that we have yet encountered but still face. Dreaming won't get it solved; being firmer and concise with our problems will at best hold these problems for another day. Fear God; it is the beginning of wisdom...

Attacking Obama's patriotism is the kind of pea-brained thinking that got us into Iraq.

McCain,

Would have been a great war-time President in the 1929 or in the 1940's. There are too many American's who like him want to relive those good old days.

However, we live in a new and enlightened day, a day that causes for new thinking. Today's more enlighted masses want to solve problems without killing people.

We need new leadership, we need a woman. The Rev supports Hillary - the men have screwed up enough. Let's try something new!

McCain is a fear-mongerer too.

I see Hillary is running fear-mongering ads. Just as I thought she is too scared to be president already.

//McCain is stuck in a false conception -- and an irresponsible scare tactic -- that an attack at home will certainly come if we back off one inch from Baghdad\\ -Arkin

And this is a false statement meant to propagandize the public. I think that any clear-thinking individual can realize that McCain doesn't want the US to lose their grip on Iraq and lose the gains we have made.

What is the real trajedy in Arkin's arguement, is that he minimized the number of 'about faces' the Obama will have to make if he should make it to office. Obama is selling dreams - however pleasant they may be.

But the reality of the office brings with it choices that may very well make him the butt of future blogs to come. 'Obama - our one hundred and eighty degree man'. That is - IF he wins he will be forced to concede his own presuppositions of change; his thinking and actions based upon the PDB's handed him will radically change his outlook - should he become the 'Man in the Oval Office'...

Senator McCain has been traumatized by his experiences that he endured during the Vietnam War. I am not being disrespectful just stating that he is in his own way trying to prevent what had happened over thirty years ago from happening again.
Quite frankly it doesn't matter what any of the candidates say. The new president will face the reality that is there in Jan 2009. If this person decides as President Bush has done to react emotionally and create another reality then we are screwed. If they carefully look at the situation and make a decision as how best proceed then while the situation will not be perfect it will hopefully not go further south.
There are a few fundamental truths they are current and while not change no matter who is sworn in on Jan 20th 2009:
1-Our military is exhausted and needs to be re-equipped and re-energized. The Army & Marine Corps have been used a political football by the Bush administration. The military cannot sustain this level of involvement over the next year.
2- Afghanistan & Pakistan- these two countries are where the next attack on US soil will be come from. We need to think outside of the box. Nato needs to be re-formulated and with more participation from Nato members. This means that the US has to start thinking of building a long term coalition to stem the tide of terrorism originating from these nations. After all Kabul is closer to Europe's capitals than NYC.. Also Afghanistan is not your typical country and trying to impose a modern state is not going to work. One of Mr Arkin's columns illuminated this.
3- Homeland Security- is a joke. The men & women who do the day to day work are not the problem. The problem is with upper management. While President Bush has squandered our treasury in Iraq our borders, ports and transportation facilities are basically naked. Who knows what came over the US/Mexican border at 3 AM? This nation needs a complete overhaul of homeland security including intelligence & FEMA. I think that we can secure our borders and have the intelligence gathering that we need if the government wants to do so. Unfortunately partisan politics continues to cloud the picture. I ask just how many lives could be lost to this ? If the government wants to protect us w/o shredding the Constitution it can. The question does it want to ? So far at least with President Bush the answer is no
4- The National Guard- the use of the National Guard as a "backdoor" draft has been of the most shameful aspects of this administration.To my knowledge there were no provisions made for the men & women in the National Guard. These people are not 24/7 military. They are civilians trained to guard the home front & act in a capacity of relief & maintaining order in case of a national emergency. God help us if there a massive earthquake in southern California or an epidemic somewhere. The question isn't if an earthquake will happen it is a matter of when. When it does happen it won't be just a tumble in the dryer. The same goes for a flu pandemic.
5-Veterans- the cost of this war has yet to added up. I hope & pray that the men & women who served in Iraq & Afghanistan will not be shafted as were the veterans of Korea, Vietnam & the Gulf War.
6- Refugees- The multitude of those fleeing from Iraq to Jordan & Syria are one of the untold stories of this war. We have yet to fully grasp the impact that this population dislocation will have on the region, Europe & the US over the next few decades. How will the refugees from Iraq impact the other countries that they have relocated to? I refer to Sweden which has taken in many middle class refugees. Will they become part of Swedish society or a distinct group left outside of the mainstream open to manipulation by radical influences?
If I were president my goal would not be "victory". Senator Mc Cain misses the point. The goal should be preventing the further destabilization of the region . The goal should also focus on decreasing the opportunities for the enemy to inflict yet more casualties upon US forces. I think that we need to begin to draw down our troop levels yet leave behind a ready strike force to slam down any activity by negative forces.
Unfortunately whether we like it or not President Bush has so mismanaged this war that we will have to have some military in the region. I wonder if if it was planned like this from the start. There are no easy answers -we need a president who will choose people to provide him or her with the best options based on reality not fantasy or stepped in political ideology that plays to the president's base. While I respect Senator Mc Cain for his service to our country I do not think that he can truly see clearly on Iraq. His use of the word victory is very troubling. As for Senators Obama & Clinton - I think that could handle what comes next because they will chose people to be in their administration who will provide the best options.The question that I have is how they handle telling the American people that unfortunately there will have to be some military in the region & that we can't withdraw as rapidly as many would like.I wonder how they will deal the truly enormous costs of this war and what it will cost to improve both homeland security & intelligence? I know that down on his ranch the former president will be smirking but if he lives long enough he may just see that smirk wiped off his face by the judgement of history. There is probably nothing worse than a leader who leaves his successor a no win situation no matter what decisions are made. It will just be a matter of how bad the blow-back will be.

I would say everybody has a bit of it right and some wrong. Barack is running on the platform that he opposed the war and will immediately bring home the troops. However as time has gone on, he has waffled on the timetable. He gives himself an out by saying we rushed in and we should NOT rush out. So the many that are supporting Barack are foolishly believing withdrawal will be quick and easy. The definition of victory depends on the person it seems. The original intent of the invasion was to get rid of SH and stop any efforts of WMDs being used again. So that has been accomplished. The problem being there was absolutely nobody to step up to the plate and govern Iraq. So chaos became the norm and many innocent civilians got got in the horror of war. I believe the US wanted to do a noble thing, but was so very naive about how that was going to be accomplished. Like Jolie at this point let's deal with what is the present reality and go from there. I believe the US will have forces there for some time. I equally believe the Iraqi people have to step up to the plate and take back their country as they seem to be doing. Rome was not built in a day. McCain will have to modify his position as will Barack because both have zero reality. For Barack to make the comment that he will send back troops if al Qaeda should get a stronghold in Iraq after our troops are withdrawn is positively the most out of touch reality position I have yet to hear. McCain was right in that al Qaeda has been there and is presently still there just in perhaps smaller numbers. The surge may have run the "bad characters" as Hillary Clinton likes to call them, out of town over to Barack's focus which is Pakistan/Afghanistan. Barack belives that al qaeda is not wounded and in fact stronger than ever. I guess time will tell. Since McCain has been to Iraq several times, been in the military himself, certainly has a ton of military friends, I would venture to say that he might have a better grasp of reality than say those that sit behind their desks and call others naive.

Thats for RichR

Frankly I will vote for Obama and the fact that you say not too only reinforces that intention. America will stand on its own regardless of how bad people like you try to scare us. I am tired of being told what to do by people like you no matter what and I am tired of everything that has happened under the Bush Adm.

I see the logic in bringing them home if the population is turning on us. If there life is hopeless and helpless they probably would attack those who brought them the problems. There is nothing else for them to do anyway except to live a miserable life in fear. And also people prabably react in a lot of different ways when you are under the kind of stress that the Iraqi's are. As a personal matter i know how I would react to someone occupying my land or country.

"Only Barack Obama has demonstrated good judgement when it comes to foreign policy matters...."

You don't negotiate w/nut cases , and withdrawing from Iraq too soon is stupid.
He's all fluff.
Three strikes he's out.

Can't leave 'till the Nation Building is done..
Iraqi's mad as fire ants, it's not just "insurgents" that are fighting our troops..the locals without water,and electricity more than half the time, there are widows and ophans and no jobs for the caretakers as the they look to see that big ole vadican looking thing, the US embassy and that has got them REALLY PO'd. They see our contractors over there living with all the comforts and working and they are not..All of this spending building our/a infastruction is also putting a huge strain on our economy here at home..sending our borrowed money over there.
Here we are paying so much inflation tax here at home, a hidden tax in every thing we purchase that we are feeling mad too, AND especially since we found out we were lied to going into Iraq.
BRING THE TROOPS HOME!!!

//That's why I advocate increasing our prison population in Iraq\\

Yes; that is also a good idea.
Commie!
Ha!

One commenter noted that we may have a war with terror forever. I have also noted that a lot of the people who say this often have connections with the defense industry, Israel, the military, or all of the above. Perhaps we will have a war with terror forever if the Pestinian conflict is not settled.

its the enviroment, stupid......

Only Barack Obama has demonstrated good judgement when it comes to foreign policy matters. He opposed this disgusting and rediculous war from the beginning, and has shown good judgement in his stance on meeting with foreign leaders, even our "enemies". Both Hillary and McCain want to set up all kinds of complications before they communicate with foreign leaders. No wonder this country is F*CKED UP.

==Considering inflationery differences of time, it still appears to me that if Iraq must have a nursemaid for the next ten years, then it must become necessary to do it without the exorbidant expense. We need to do it more efficiently if we are to continue.==

Right, you are!

That's why I advocate increasing our prison population in Iraq and forcing them through "we don't torture" coersive techniques to sit in front of broadband computers, hitting the ad-revenue-driven American websites, generating hits and ad income, improving our economy, while they learn about our culture and Britney Spears!

==Actually Dimitry there were insurgents in Japan. Small in number, and usually due to not believing that the Emperor had given the order for surrender. Minor compared to Iraq, however the political jockeying during rebuilding was somewhat similar to the current situation.==

Etremely minor. American combat casualties were essentially non-existant.

==And Germany had the Werewolves. Nazi and SS adherents who continued fighting and assasinated various collaborators and political figures for 2 years or so. Conceivably one could consider 20+ months to be a "few". However, the Werewolves were still relatively minor compared to the Iraq insurgency.==

Very minor. American combat casualties were extremely low.

==So if we were in Japan and Germany for decades stabilizing in a relatively easy situations, why does one think that we could just leave Iraq now?... ==

Because that's a lie. We weren't there "stabilzing" an insurgency for decades. We were there for political reasons that had to do with cold war, in a competely peaceful troop deployment. Comparing Japan/Germany to Iraq is like comparing them to the our campaign in the Philippines or Soviet campaign in Afghanistan - it may make a nice sound bite for the weak-minded, but is essentially a lie.

In Iraq, our very presence engenders the insurgency and always will. The ONLY way for Iraqi insurgency to die off, is for us to leave. However, the folks who brought us the Iraq war, really, really, REALLY don't want us to leave - they invested everything we had into a strategic calculation that we will STAY in Iraq. An Iraq fully under American political control, compliant and servile, ready to host large American bases and serve as a platform for further attacks, on Iran, on Syria, on Lebanese Hezbolah.

That Iraq is no longer possible, and it never really was a realistic scenario. But the people who dreamt it up, just won't give up their rainbow dreams of shocking and awing Arabs for decades to come from their friendly Iraqi hosts.

==Probably because they couldn't care less about Iraqis. Lovely.==

That's a really foolish comment. It was NEVER about any Iraqis at all - hell we killed them in droves and continue to to do so as we see fit. That appeal to emotion is meaningless to the people who started this war. Why try it no me ? I was always againt attacking and killing people to make a political point.

You?

McCain is not naive. Definitely one can envision a victory or a defeat scenario in Iraq. It's just a matter of Americans having enough resolve to follow through with anything they started or not. WWII was a victory; Korea was a victory; Vietnam was a defeat. Plain and simple. If anyone is not convinced about the difference between a victory and defeat, just look at the result; compare the conditions in Europe and South Korea to Vietnam.

Forget the argument whether the invasion of Iraq was right or wrong. That's done. Now we're faced with the question of what to do after we broke something. Do we run like an irresponsible coward or do we act like a gentlemen to help amend our mistakes no matter how much it costs? Colin Powell said it best, you break it, you own it, and that means McCain is right. We have to stay as long as necessary until we are sure the damamge is contained. That does not necessarily mean a complete wipe out of the terrorists. The key word is "contained".

Is it McCain that is naive on Iraq - or is it Arkin?
My money is on Arkin's naivity!

What we are doing in Iraq is no different than what we have done in postwar Germany and Japan. We expect the same results; but why is the cost of this war higher - per capita - to do the same thing?

Considering inflationery differences of time, it still appears to me that if Iraq must have a nursemaid for the next ten years, then it must become necessary to do it without the exorbidant expense. We need to do it more efficiently if we are to continue.

=="As they stand up, we stand down" is the correct strategy to pursue.==

How did the "surge" accomplish this simple strategy?

We have more troops after it than before it started and we are spending $0.5B/day propping up a shaky, violent status quo.

When do American people get to say how American foreign policy is to be run?

Apparently never, as Democratic interventionists aim to make the world safe for democracy and Republican warmongers aim to kill our "enemies" real and imagined, while enriching their friends in the war support industries.

why is it that most people instead of looking at facts choose to believe whatever they want to make the opposing political party look bad? why can't we accept that something might be going well, once in a while?

Dimitry: "There were no insurgency in Japan. There were some minor attacks in Germany, but they settled out in matter of months."

Actually Dimitry there were insurgents in Japan. Small in number, and usually due to not believing that the Emperor had given the order for surrender. Minor compared to Iraq, however the political jockeying during rebuilding was somewhat similar to the current situation.

And Germany had the Werewolves. Nazi and SS adherents who continued fighting and assasinated various collaborators and political figures for 2 years or so. Conceivably one could consider 20+ months to be a "few". However, the Werewolves were still relatively minor compared to the Iraq insurgency.

So if we were in Japan and Germany for decades stabilizing in a relatively easy situations, why does one think that we could just leave Iraq now?...

Probably because they couldn't care less about Iraqis. Lovely.

Straight arrow blames Bush for the economy...
The economy is in trouble because of the mortgage meltdown...Which in part can be traced to Al Greenspan.
Through most of Bush's presidency the economy has been doing quite well.
Hicupping after 9-11, recovered, and until recently was strong. It starting to have some problems now which also be partly be blamed on high gas prices.

This is for KELLY PIERCE. You said ' Obama is a good listener.' I understand why you said so. We were frustrated after 7 years with arrogant and yet stubborn Bush. Such as an important choice as this one now to choose our next president could not be relied on an emotional whimp which you seem to bear.
Often apparently, a good listener seems to try to cover up his incompetence by just listening rather than addressing with knowledge of "how to" fix the troubles in hand, so speaks loudly of sugar-coated promises and promises. A student who did not do homework can not answer to quetions in class, isn't it? When the new Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neil reported the National Finance to the new-elected Bush for TWO HOURS, Bush just listened to him without any question! For Damn Two Hours!
How is our Economy now? A good Listener?
We desperately need a knowledgeable and experienced person for the next president.

You're in denial if you can't admit the surge as part of the strategy to secure Iraq is working.

The awakening councils and the surge?
You say-"The surge is not working it's the awakening councils?"

The awakening councils are only part of the strategy involved in Iraq.

One of the complaints of the commanders has been they didn't have enough troops.

I disagree with the author; I do not think McCain holds the view that "absolute military victory" is necessary in Iraq. What he is arguing AGAINST is certain military and political defeat if we go the way Obama proposes.

Iraq remains a very important place in so many ways. To cut and run will satisfy the Nancy Pelosi crowd, but would any of us seriously entrust the nation's security to her? If we leave Iraq prematurely, the consequences will be dire, for the Iraqis, us and the world. And we will be back there within a few years, shedding even more blood and treasure to retake what we abandoned; our sacrifices to date will have been for naught.

"As they stand up, we stand down" is the correct strategy to pursue. We DO need to put a lot more pressure on the Iraqis to get on with it and get their political house in order. We must resign ourselves to the fact that we will be there for years to come, but hopefully in an ever decreasing capacity until the Iraqi political institutions and security apparatus are functioning at a sustainable level.

McCain is the realist on this subject, and Obama is confused, misinformed and inexperienced. Hillary is simply disingenuous (big surprise). I can appreciate that Americans are war-weary, but this war on terror is far from over. It may never end. We can't disengage from the world and we dare not become complacent. That is when we will get hit again. Just recall how awful things were after 9/11. (And that is a problem Americans have - we forget the bad stuff and numb our brains on American Idol and Britney Spears' latest misadventure!)

A free and secure Iraq is absolutley in our national interest. McCain will work toward that goal. Obama will abandon it, lob cruise missles at empty terrorist training camps, say he is tough on terrorism and raise our taxes to support his socialist economic agenda. Boy oh boy, that's what I am looking forward to!!

I was watching BBC World news recently and they were doing "man in the street" interviews. They asked a fellow in Brazil who he would like to see as the next president of the United States. He said Obama. When asked why he said "We in Brazil do not want the US president to be too strong or powerful. That is why we like Obama." That says it all! I think if Obama is elected terrorist organizations around the world will cheer ... and we will suffer because when a nation demonstrates weakness, that weakness is "rewarded." Personally, having been less than 1 block from the World Trade Center when the planes hit, and walking through the wreakage of lower Manhattan to escape, I know from first hand expereince that we cannot go through that again!

And by the way, Reader 451 is nuts .. typical "Hate America First" looney cazooney. Hey, 451 - T. Roosevelt was one of the greatest presidents in this nation's history. Far more accomplished than you, I'll bet!!

The problem of Iraq is not as difficult as the ordinary American is led to believe. So far America has pursued its "interests" all over the world against the hopes and aspirations of the people of nations around the world. In many regions where those "interests" are the people don't even know what America is after. They see that America forces on them leaders that don't care about their needs.

In Iraq the problem could easily be solved if the people are encouraged to form their own governments, choose their own leaders and have a federated Iraqi central government. When Sunnis are told to follow the leadership in Bagdad against their will that brings problems. The same is with other ethnic groups.

President Bush criticised Sen Obama for lack of insight, referring to Obama's willingness to meet with dictators such as Raul Castro. But the following link shows what President Bush did himself, just 10 days ago:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/02/images/20080219-9_p021908cg-0595-515h.html

President Bush is pictured with President Paul Kagame of Rwanda, in Kigali. Paul Kagame is a criminal. He, along with 40 of his most senior armed officers, are accused by the Spanish courts for masterminding and perpetrating a genocide against both people of Rwanda and people of the DR Congo. So where is the seriousness in President Bush's criticism? By the way why is Pres Paul Kagame's record is covered up and brushed aside in American medias?

Change in American foreign policies would bring hope and indeed change in world affairs. Barak Obama can make that happen, of course if he is surrounded by wise thinkers.

==Do you remember other countries that we occupied after wars? Japan? Germany? Do these ring any bells? Are you aware that the same thing happened there that is happening in Iraq. There were insurgents. There were people inhabitants that didn't like us being there. And that it took quite awhile for everything to settle down. But in the end, it did work. And it worked well. And shockingly, those two countries are rather decent allies now. Hmmm....==

There were no insurgency in Japan. There were some minor attacks in Germany, but they settled out in matter of months.

How come you are so ignorant of history?

And if you like Iraq occupation so much, can you please pay the $0.5B/day it is costing this country. I prefer that money to go to our children's education. Yes, even yours!

It is crystal clear that John Mccain if elected would be a complete disaster to the US.John Mccain is embarking on the old trick of scaring Americans.George Bush did so for eight years.These men are nolonger in touch with history,they have failed to realise the dynamics of change.Both Mccain and Hilary are counting on their experiences.George bush jr.was the governor of Texas;Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are both old war horses in politics,but they failed woefully.
The Republican Party have created the impression that they are stronger on the issues of National security and moral ethics.A careful study shows its all farce.
Now John Mccain has tried to use the current temporary and fragile Security in Iraq to his advantage.The fact is that all the armies in the World would not succeed in Iraq.Maintaining a heavy military presence in Iraq is disastrous to the US National interest.This wild goose chase is sucking the economy dry and at the same time straining the armed forces.It has been said over and over again by Military experts that the war in Iraq is undermining the US readiness for emergencies elsewhere in this troubled World.The communist China,Russia,Iran,and all Terrorists groups are glad to see the US bogged down in Iraq.The US cannot afford another Republican Party President.
If she does,then the dreams of its founding Fathers might have vanished.

It is crystal clear that John Mccain if elected would be a complete disaster to the US.John Mccain is embarking on the old trick of scaring Americans.George Bush did so for eight years.These men are nolonger in touch with history,they have failed to realise the dynamics of change.Both Mccain and Hilary are counting on their experiences.George bush jr.was the governor of Texas;Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are both old war horses in politics,but they failed woefully.
The Republican Party have created the impression that they are stronger on the issues of National security and moral ethics.A careful study shows its all farce.
Now John Mccain has tried to use the current temporary and fragile Security in Iraq to his advantage.The fact is that all the armies in the World would not succeed in Iraq.Maintaining a heavy military presence in Iraq is disastrous to the US National interest.This wild goose chase is sucking the economy dry and at the same time straining the armed forces.It has been said over and over again by Military experts that the war in Iraq is undermining the US readiness for emergencies elsewhere in this troubled World.The communist China,Russia,Iran,and all Terrorists groups are glad to see the US bogged down in Iraq.The US cannot afford another Republican Party President.
If she does,then the dreams of its founding Fathers might have vanished.

We have a surge in Iraq and we have deficit in Afghanistan. Most of the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi or biggest ally in the war on terror!! These 9/11 attackers were trained in Afghan Taliban training camps.

How did Iraq become the centre of 9/11 terror attack? Was al Qaeda in Iraq when Sadam was in power? al Qaeda is in Iraq now due to US action to invade Iraq(Mr. MaCain voted on), but they are not the dominant force in Iraq that fights US Troops. Mr. McCain the most experience war veteran running for office fails identify that we are neglecting the front line in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where there are al Qaeda camps. Mr. Obama was correct in pointing these issues, but hey he did not serve in the Army or have any Military expertise, so we discount his strategies?! Terrorism cannot be won by brute force and numbers. An example is Israel and Palestine conflict; do you see it ending anytime in our lifetime? NO!!!

Did you ever think for a moment, maybe Mr. Obama can educate US Military and rest of World on how to win a war, which cannot be own the old fashion way??!!!

America does not have to fear defeat in Iraq. The Enemy cannot defeat us there. We screwed it up by ourselves. We were our own worst enemy. Shall we continue to be so?

obama all the way

This guy has written a long-winded article because he has no idea what to think--a typical state of liberal minds. Let them smoke what they want but please we should not be the victims of the secondary effects. The risk of that happening is rising.

McCain is a hero, wonderful.Give him his purple heart and a pension just like all the other hero's and put him out to pasture. I am a Viet-Nam era veteran, who as a Yeoman had to write up papers to send our young men and a few women (nurses) to the battle. Many of those did not come back. But the one's who did were almost to a person, MESSED UP IN THE HEAD. And most of them were never even in a prison camp.

I am sorry Mr. McCain, I don't trust your "Devil be darned" attitude. Even some of his peers relate that he is hot-headed.

Everyone spouts about experience, then why, when I tried to re-up for Desert Storm did they tell me I was toooooo old. I was 40, with previous training. Experience doesn't count when your life is on the line???

We already had one President with Alzeimers, want to chance another. I am soon to be 60 yrs old myself, I say it's time for some young blood in positions of power, not just spilled on the battlefield

And like it or not, I am not a so proud American. When I joined the service in 1974, I was so patriotic, I would fight tears at muster. (when they raise and lower the flag.
Pretenda

Wow. Mr Arkin, once again you astound me.

We are not fighting a war in Iraq. We are occupying Iraq. We already fought the war and won handily. What is happening now is that we are stabilizing the country. And it will work. Will it happen next week? Next month? Next year? No. It will be at least a decade. I'm sorry if it doesn't fit in with your short attention span, but it is real life.

Do you remember other countries that we occupied after wars? Japan? Germany? Do these ring any bells? Are you aware that the same thing happened there that is happening in Iraq. There were insurgents. There were people inhabitants that didn't like us being there. And that it took quite awhile for everything to settle down. But in the end, it did work. And it worked well. And shockingly, those two countries are rather decent allies now. Hmmm....

This is mostly just more liberal banter. I'm from Texas. Go to a ball game here and people put their hands over their hearts and take off their caps. A war hero is someone who went to war fought and came home. The US is a country of opportunity and freedom. I will never vote for a candidate who wants to take my freedom of choice away by creating a government program that "solves" the problem. The problem with health care now is government regulation. The problem with gas prices and oil is government regulation. If you look at why the Constitution of the United States of America was written, it was written to create a country of, for and by the people with minimal government interferrence.

I don't want government checks and handouts, and be told how things are going to be. I want to be able to spend my money how I want.

By the way some of that money is on guns and 4X4's.

Advance forward does not mean to the victory in war. Advance backward does not mean to the defeated either. War tactics must use both of them for the final victory.
Iraq conflict, NOT A WAR, was started by a small group of dishonest men with their hidden agenda based on BIG LIES. Now, such arrogant and rogue Americans are stuck in self-inflicted Iraq war(?) conflicting between their BIG EGOs and reality of emptiness in it. There was nothing in Iraq to deal with Al Quaida! Their crooked leaders caused this conflicting dilema, and achieved huge profits from Iraq. Where is the Halliburton? In the meantime, Bin Laden produces more offspings with wealth, whose dad, Bin Laden Sr. sits with Bush Sr. in the board room of directors of the Carlyle Group. Of course, James Baker Jr. sits next to Bush Sr.. They manipulate all the situations with the media, which is corrupted-to-the-core and immoral,to save their sorry butts. When you broke a glass in a gallery, you do not leave simply paying off for it. You clean up what you messed up. McCain says "never mind, I have money to pay for it and clean-up", and stay on, regardless the awkward situation he caused. Slick-tongued Obama, who can sing whatever you want to hear, quickly calculates what would make him look nice for his political stand and for his dummy supporters regardless reason.
To make sound judgments we analyze the situations with knowledge and experience.
Does he have any of them? Mr. Arkin, thank you for your honest and sincere statement.

niqueie. what in the world are you talking about? of course Obama respects the flag, the troops, and America. if patriotism is a lapel pin than this country is in big trouble (and that is what you are talking about, despite the fact that you don't mention it, a lapel pin).

your kind of flag worshiping is a breed of nationalistic idolatry that quickly slides into fascism.

"Loyalty to the people always, loyalty to the government when it deserves it." -- Mark Twain.

So, you believe John McCain, the man who described himself as a war criminal for bombing civilians; the man whose only executive experience is commanding a handful of pilots; the man who's ready to keep my son and grandson and great-grandson in Iraq for 100 years; the man who sings cute little songs about bombing Iran; the man who's proud of his ignorance of economics; the man who cheated on his first wife while she was recovering from a monstrous car accident--and made it all better by dumping her and marrying his mistress; the man who has been a pawn of the telcom industry since he arrived in the Senate; the man who loses his temper at anything and anybody; the man who thinks the ability to suffer pain is the only quality necessary for high office would make a good president?

Would you mind sending me a package of whatever it is you're smokine? I want get this out of touch with reality.

All the Surge has accomplished is a temporary reduction in violence and nothing more. If you think otherwise, you are either ignorant, delusional or both.

The Surge itself is temporary. It cannot be sustained.

Iraq will be a failed state for a long, long time to come. Whether we stay or go will ultimately make no difference to the outcome. Humpty Dumpty has fallen.

All this talk now just really comes down to how America can cover it's behind on the way out, and to reduce further damage to its moral, armed forces and credibility.

It is a very very sad situation. No amount of political policy or wishful thinking will make it otherwise.

"a little longer ... light at the end of the tunnel". We heard that many times during the Vietnam War. It was an ill-conceived war. Is the idea of immediate withdrawal from Iraq THAT bad? Should we have withdrawn from Vietnam sooner?

Mr. Arkin writes: "The brilliance of the surge, and I'm not saying that this was intended, is that the United States military has "proven" that with the right leadership, the right strategy and adequate resources, it can do the job."

With this he seems to be saying that the "surge" has met the military and political goals set out when it was announced and in that way has been a "success". Of course the definition of "success" for the "surge strategy" (read: escalation) has morphed from the talk of creating "security space" so that the fractions in Iraq could achieve political unity to a more imprecise "US and civilian casualties are down dramatically" formulation.

Granted US causalities are down -- to the levels of 2006, which at the time were considered disastrous. And while there is the impression that civilian deaths are down, accurate figures are extremely hard to come by. The figures the US military and government give out seem to be essentially made up. In addition, there have been no credible reports of any significant ground action by US troops in which forces opposing the US and its allies were decisively defeated. And it is basically impossible to make a serious case for how 30,000 additional US ground forces could have (or did) make any important difference in the balance of forces on the battlefield. Of course it is also true that the use of US air power seems to have almost doubled between 2006 and 2007/8 and this may play some role.

But what appears to account for the reduction of US losses are two major factors that for the most part are mentioned in the mainstream reporting on Iraq in only a confused fashion and are in general little understood. They are:
1. The US has organized, empowered and is paying what is essentially a Sunni militia totaling 70,000 to 100,000 men. These are the same people who just a few months ago were being described "al Qaeda in Iraq". Now they have become "concerned citizens" -- part of some "awakening movement" which has united with the US to oppose "al Qaeda". What this narrative leaves out is that they are also opposed to the Iraqi government. In other words the US has cut a deal with a big section of the Sunni insurgency and turned over local power to these groups -- over the objections of the "elected" and ostensibly "democratic" central government that the US is purporting to support. The net effect is to further weaken that already feeble institution thereby increasing the need for a robust US military presence to keep it in power; and
2. Muqtada al Sadr has for the last 6 months instituted a unilateral ceasefire and called on his forces to cease attacking US troops. A 6 month extension of this cease fire was announced within the last few days. The reason for this cease fire and its extension is not known. We can only speculate as to whether it is a result of Iranian pressure on al Sadr, due to some secret deal the US has cut with him, the result of his own calculations or some combination of these factors. The bottom line here is that it is definitely not the result of US battlefield "successes". In addition, the US and its British allies have essentially turned over Basra, Iraq's second largest city, along with a big section of southern Iraq to al Sadr and other Shiite fundamentalist forces. In the areas they have been given they have imposed a fundamentalist Islamic regime that is even more draconian than what currently exists in Iran. Finally, how long this ceasefire will hold is also an unknown.

Examined from this perspective it is clear that the "success" of the "surge" is no less a mirage then the declaration of "mission accomplished" and the "end or major military operations in Iraq" that Bush declared on May 1, 2003.

Under its present structure the US military cannot sustain its current troop levels in Iraq nor the casualties it is experiencing.

The current situation in Iraq is not viable over any length of time. The "success" of the "surge" has resulted in there basically being only 3 options for the US at this point: 1. withdraw from Iraq; 2. drastically increase troop levels so that the occupation holds much more territory than it does today -- which would require a reactivation of the draft; 3. attack Iran and hope regime change there will enable the restructuring of the region that the Bush regime has outlined as its goal.

If this is what "success" looks like, then I can imagine that those who still support the US effort to dominate the Middle East and Persian Gulf live in mortal fear of "failure".

The success of the surge is largely a myth. Bombings and other attcks against US force and the Iraqi government have decreaed because of the "Sunni Awakening"--basically a truce in which the US agrees to arm and tolerate Sunni militias if they agree to enforce order in their home areas and not cooperate with Al-Queda. The effect of all this is to REDUCE the Iraqi Government's control of the country by creating independent military forces beyond its control. As John Robb, author of the book BRAVE NEW WAR and the weblog "Global Guerillas" has obseved, the US is now in the awkward position of leading both the insurgency and the counter-insurgency.

I've yet to hear any of the candidates address these facts, and I wonder if any are aware of them. This includes McCain, who like many older leaders has the experience necessary to fight the Cold War over again, but not necessarily the war against loose global networks of rapidly evolving terrorists.

if Bush and his adminstration had heeded the advice from the top military officials in the first place in 2003 (they called for a significantly larger number of troops on the ground than were actually deployed)then the 'surge' would have never been necessary. the war policy is a failed one and the surge is a moot point.

Ya talk about wars . Well how do we afford these wars? Borrow the money from china or some other country? I'd rather have a pay as you go plan even if it meant more taxes then do it republican style of " borrow and squander". It seems everyone wants to keep spending but don't want to have to pay. One has to realize that sometimes you have to do without . some people are probably learning this lesson in the housing disaster.

I don't think anyone can or should doubt the loyalty or patriotism of any of the candidates. It would have been made pretty clear by now if there was any hint of socialist leanings or suggestion to have to government direct all ascepts of daily life. Conservatives use the phrase, "tax and spend" when referring to liberals, but instead of taxing, they borrow what the US is not able to repay, thus driving up the national debt. At some point, taxation will have to occur, or services will have to be cut to save money. This simple logic serves the individual and family, so it holds true for the government. So, the promise not to raise taxes doesn't hold water, regardless who says it. The other issue is that republicans keep saying that the liberals want to withdraw troops "immediately", which is not true. As stated earlier, the president has to make his case to the Congress and military leaders of his vision, including his advisors as to its plausibility, and make the case to the public. This will also be a moment when the Iraqi leadership will be faced with some serious questions. They need to begin taking care of their own security, and put in place any tools to minimize terrorist activity. It can't be eliminated altogether (read: KKK), but it can be monitored and documented. America's credibility has been shot by this idiot of a president, and his legacy will be one of the worst of this nation, including Wilson, Jackson, T Roosevelt, Polk, Buchanan (need I go on?). Regain America's moral authority? Are you kidding? We never had any moral authority! No one can name a single period in American history when it was looked upon as the shining light or morality to the world. Before America can begin to point fingers at other countries for the way they treat its citizens, we need to clean up our yard first. One step in that direction would be to elect someone other than an old white man to the Presidency.

How can any newspaper column that attempts to critique Mccain's position on Iraq and fails to mention the names of the Iraqi factions be taken seriously?

These factions make alliances depending of the situation on the ground in Iraq which will be reversed if Obama started a half baked civialian-politician driven withdrawl. AQI will IED, snipe and mortar reduced and weakened US forces all the way to Basra a total bloody humiliation.

Do you really think the Sunni tribes of Anbar or Diyala would help the US in a neat tidy parade ground withdrawl after President Obama publically abandons them? THATS Naive.

You are a fool if you think Powell had any imput into the practical running of the Iraq war. Have you never heard of the Powell doctrine?

Let me give you a clue: its the exact opposite of the Rumsfeld doctrine of sending a numerically weak light cavalry force backed by airpower alone into an AQI IED mincing machine.

Obama, Rumsfeld and Bush II are dangerous civilan idiots.

The sooner Mccain gets the Commander in chief job the soon er the war can be won.

If Iraq is a US victory, the Iraqi oil economy will grow phoenix like in the medium and long term with increased foreign investment. That will ease the energy crisis and allow time for the US to switch to Nuclear power and renewable energy.

A few things about John McCain convince me he is a true Hero.

1) He refused to break under torture and betray his country for a long while and was nearly killed until the N. Vietnamese discovered he was the son of an Admiral.

2) He refused to leave prison and torture when the N. Vietnamese offered his release in an effort to score PR points and break the other prisoners by showing how the son of an Admiral left them behind. His reasons... He wouldn't leave his men behind and he didn't want to aid the North Vietnamese. He paid for his decision with years of further torture.

3) He refused to meet with any Americans who were on Anti-war missions to Vietnam. Many did so they could see Americans and maybe secure release. He held to his values.

4) He raced into the fire on the Forrestal to save another pilot. A bomb blew him 10 feet back and tore up both legs and an arm.

There are many other examples of how this man went above and beyond the call of duty to honor his country and his soldiers. Just look it up on Wiki and you can actually learn something about the man before you put something into print which only shows how you fail to do your research before submitting opinions.

xxxxxx

everyone knows we are there to secure the oil fields,that was the justification for the invasion although to say so publically would have allerted other arab nations as to what we were really up to .in short mcain was actually being honest when he said we would remain for 10 to 100 years since the country that controls the oil controls the world.all militaries cannot function without petroleum & saudi arabia has banned us so iraq was the only option.we now have a public outcry not to allow the systematic slaughter of iraq's should we pull out,however this was a byproduct of the war, not initally givin much forthought before the invasion. not that it would have mattered to the administraton who's mind was made up ...secure the oil any way possible & at any cost.