Americans believe McCain will Win the War; Obama will Retreat
May 23rd, 2008 by David Anderson
Update: http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/americasupportsyou/index.aspx Please send an encouraging note this Memorial Day to our troops.
Americans believe that Senator McCain will win the War in Iraq, but only 20% believe Senator Obama will win it. That is a significant underlying disadvantage to Senator Obama and a major hidden strength for Senator McCain. It could help explain why Senator McCain is out performing the generic Republican by 16 points or more. When John McCain says I will win this war, half of Americans believe it.
So why is Senator Obama popular and competitive? Most Americans are tired of Mr. Bush’s War. A majority place a higher priority on the troops coming home than winning the war. I consider that a scary proposition. Nothing is more vital to American Security than coming home with honor. If American are perceived by the enemies of freedom to be beaten and defeated, we will not have peace for a very long time. We have targets all over the world and they will be hit. Our home land will come under increasing pressure. We will suffer losses. The good news is that Independent voters seem to be torn. Republicans and Conservatives want victory. Democrats and Liberals want the troops home. Moderates and Unaffiliated voters seem torn between the two. That is where the election will be won.
Nothing is more urgent than ending the war. It is not a question of if we should end it, but one of how we should end it. If Senator McCain can make that the question, he wins. If Senator Obama can make it an if we should end the war question, he wins.
Mr. Biden makes a compelling series of points on the war in today’s WSJ. It’s kind of long. So here’s the link.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121150000249615875.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Of course we can win any war if we are willing to turn their streets slick with blood.
That’s true, but wouldn’t it be a shame to massacre the innocent who may even support us with the guilty. Such an event could occur if we become truly desperate with malls and schools blowing up. That is what happen in Russia. We don’t have to go that way. We can win the war and set them back. Americans want to be the defenders of the innocent not their killers.
This is off topic. Has anybody looked at this. http://php.delawareonline.com/dpc/overtime.php
Is this for real? Someone should blog on this. Or Bill Lee should run on this nonsense.
David,
McCain has already given his answer to this…
It is not a question of if we should end it, but one of how we should end it.
In McCain’s view we should end it over a period of 100 years.
Good luck with that.
Oxymoron,
We can win the war and set them back. Americans want to be the defenders of the innocent not their killers.
Not unless we willing to ” turn their streets slick with blood.” There is no winning this war dummy. There is only how long will it take us to figure out that Bush lost the war on day one when he went in undermanned and underplanned.
You can get all the flag oins and car bumper stickers in the world and all the crazy slogans and country western music you want, but that will never change that fact that we fucked up.
Yes I said WE – because I’m an American too (as much as that pisses you off). We need to admit that we fucked up and get out.
Period.
John McMurder has the wrong attitude and wants to extend the war in all the wrong areas. We need to admit that the boogey man we turned AQ into is not so scary and as long as we keep our American values and do not adopt those of totalitarian regimes we can easily get rid of them, first we have to understand them without so much rhetoric.
Sorry you republicans, your party sat back and allowed a neo con (not a republican) to run roughshod over the Consitution, destroy the rule of law, ignore Geneva Conventions, kill at least 1.6 million Iraqis, asked no questions with that fool Bremmer let the army go, did nothing while they stole, robbed every artifact they could get their hands on. Did nothing to protect the piles of arms that the insurgents helped themselves too. Did nothing when Abu Ghareb and 16 other prisons were committing horrific torture of those pickedup in sweeps, never had a trial…gitmo etc, etc.
While McMad is lying his butt off with Joe Leiberman at his side…pushing yet another war for Israel…the republicand will expand the war in the middle east. The best think the republican party can do is distance themselves completely from the neo cons, start supporting the US constiution again. Republicans should be in front of calling the Bush regime what it is…a rogue, out of control, Texas sheriff mentality that has and never has any of the issues and platforms of true republicans. And David, sorry but only 28% support Bush if you can even believe that number…and McMad standing on Bush’s head, ain’t changing the fact the american citizens in all parties are fed up, disgusted and will vote democratic in 2008. Now, the real problem is that the same ole faulty voting machines are still out there. The Rep. Party is as we speak purging voter rolls in every state. The only way republicans can win is to steal another election. You need to sit this elecion out…and reform your party,by ridding if of the neo cons, who are a danger to the entire world.
On cspan right now, is the Libertarian Convention…now they actually make some sense on foreign policy, but fail on domestic issues.
I think Liz needs to adjust her meds. Her BSD is rearing its ugly head again. Note how she blames everything in her first paragraph on one person. That’s one powerful person!
And Jason, you really think that because some things could have been done differently in the beginning, we should just pack up and go home?
Face it. We are there and will be there for a while. We should all support the troops, give them what they need to win, and then think about bringing them home. Bringing them home unilaterally now is not the right thing to do. It will only lead to more bloodshed of the innocent – and not by the hands of U.S. forces.
Liz has it about right, in my view.
Our occupying army can not be victorious in the usual sense of defeating the enemy. Just like in Viet Nam, the question remains: Who is the enemy?
Turn it around: Would we ever allow an occupying army to be victorious. No, we would fight forever, if necessary, wouldn’t we?
It’s called nationalism. The Iraqis are no different.
Therefore, regardless, we need to withdraw gradually, in consultation with the elected Iraqi government and Iraq’s neighbors, as Obama proposes. Then it is up to the Iraqis to defend and police themselves. We can continue to assist them with reconstruction of infrastructure, IF they wish us to do so, as is our obligation for invading their country.
The only way will win in Iraq is to have a new government take over here. McCaine does not qualify!
Perry,
Why can’t we we be proud to add new territory to the empire? Oh I forget this is not Rome. Maybe it is becuase we are a constitutional republic? Hmmm. Would be nice if someone would crack open the constitution, federalist papers, etc. from time to time to remind ourselves that we are not the Roman empire. I know the Emporer Bush and John McWayne will not do that, they sinply go about shredding the principles and values that made this country great and trying to win support of the republican base AS LIBERALS. There is nothing, and I repeat nothing conservative about them except that they want to expand the number of support our troops bumber stickers sold. That is about as far as their support of our troops extends. Now that John McLame and his little T-rex arms has balked at the GI bill extension and other provisions….wonder why that was not reported? How can you say they support the troops?
Wow! and I thought Bush derangement syndrome was just a joke. Looks like Big Pharma needs to come up with something for Perry and Liz. Maybe Astra-Zeneca can come up with something. By the way, the black helicopters just circled for their final pass.
Jasssson of course it doesn’t bother me that you are an American–idiot. Just kidding on the last part, i was playfully retaliating for the dummy line.
I respect the disagreement many of you have. That is what elections are for. In America, we don’t suspend them during war time. You all know that having presence doesn’t equal war. You know McCain wants the war over in his first term so argue that his policy won’t work, but don’t misstate his policy.
Liz, we haven’t killed 1.6 million Iraqi’s or 1 million or anything close. Saddam was the one with the mass killing. His henchmen are still killing innocents. They did it before we came and are still doing it, how is that our fault. We are the one’s putting a stop to their murder. Get it right. I respect you but I have no respect for your liable on our troops and our nation.
“However, the survey also found that voters believe Obama is more likely than McCain to bring home U.S. troops from Iraq. If Obama is elected, 59% say it is at least somewhat likely that virtually all combat troops will come home from Iraq during his first term. Just 43% believe the troops are that likely to come home if McCain is elected.
“Most Americans—52%–say bringing the troops home within four years is a higher priority than winning the War. Thirty-nine percent (39%) disagree and say winning the War is more important. Men, by a 51% to 44% margin, say it is more important to win the War. Women, by a two-to-one margin, say it is more important to get the troops home.”
looks like that isn’t enough to win you the election.
I disagree. The situation in Iraq is positive overall and all of the defeatism put out by Senator Obama won’t hold water when the American people have to evaluate the consequences in the world. People want to come home, but they want to come home with honor. That is why I said which question dominates will determine who wins. Victory or withdraw?
We can’t afford retreat and defeat. Senator McCain can make that case well and people believe he can win. That is the case we need to make. It has not been fully engaged and yet the beginnings of it are what is making the race dead even.
I am not sure who will win. The fact that the economy is still chugging along is in McCain’s favor. The fact that energy prices are sky high benefits Obama even though the Democrats blocked an energy policy for years and implemented one which raised prices. Everyone feels the energy prices and many people are mad about them.
I would like someone to make real policy to get us on a sound footing economically, but no one has a proposal comprehensive enough to accomplish it.
David said: “The situation in Iraq is positive overall and all of the defeatism put out by Senator Obama won’t hold water when the American people have to evaluate the consequences in the world.”
Obama’s plan is far from defeatism. On the contrary, it recognizes that we are currently in a no-win position because we are and will always be viewed by most Iraqis as occupiers, just as we would here were we dealing with an occupying force on our land.
The idea of withdrawing our combat forces gradually over a 16 month period is to encourage the Iraqis to step up to their responsibilities to secure their own country and to develop their own economy. His plan includes having about 4 brigades remain to assist in the rebuilding of infrastructure and to continue training.
McCain’s plan to stay the course further commits us to a never ending war, because the Iraqi Government will continue to rely on our forces and suck our resources. Note well: The oil revenues that the Iraqis obtain, now at $130 per barrel, are not being spent internally for security and infrastructure, but ours still is.
Not only is this McCain-Bush policy no-win, it continues to kill and maim our troops, kill and maim Iraqi civilians including children, and drain our resources, not to mention that we are in recession at home and have many of our own here neglected and suffering. (The wealth of the top 1% exceeds the total wealth of the bottom 90%!)
How long can we continue like this?
PS: I believe Liz’s numbers come from the Johns Hopkins 2006 estimate which concluded well over a half million Iraqi fatalities, about 2% of their population.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6040054.stm
This would be the equivalent of 6 million American civilian deaths as a result of a foreign power invading our country.
Even if it is an overestimate, there have been far too many civilian casualties, and much of the blood is on our hands, not to mention how much suffering and deprivation we have caused, all because of the WMD and the nuclear cloud which did not exist/ have never been found. We have done terrible things over there, and some good too; but we had other alternatives short of war that we should have taken.
Perry,
“…and drain our resources, not to mention that we are in recession at home and have many of our own here neglected and suffering. (The wealth of the top 1% exceeds the total wealth of the bottom 90%!)”
A recession is defined to be a period of two quarters of negative GDP growth. We are not in a recession and so what if the wealth of the top 1% exceeds the total of the bottom 90%. I bet those 1% don’t spend their productive days posting on blogs or wishing for your socialist utopia where almighty gov’t doles out equal rations to the masses.
Hmmm. I seriously doubt that Perry wants a socialist utopia, but I would be that he would be very happy to know our Libertarian party delegate just voted for Ron Paul at the LP convention. Perry wants what we all want a level playing field. Big difference.
1. No corporate subsidies,
2. No subsides for other activity
3. Protection of the rights of each an every individual
4. Respect for the rule of law
5. No more malicious interference in the internal affairs of other nations
I am no mind reader, but if I was to sum up Perry’s point it would be that he wants to show that the savage project of neo-liberalism that is being implemented in America and around the world is a lie being perpretared by an elite to exploit the existing inequalities of the nation and divide us from one another. And for that proposition, there is a better way and we can prove it becuase we have done it in the past and can do it in the future, and if one day we have to go to the gates of hell for saying that neo-liberlaism has led to repressive states in the past and to defend the liberty of the people of Delaware, then so be it. The consitution of this state and this nation were written expressly to protect the liberty of the people and it is our duty to collectively defend and protect it if we want to maintain our liberty.
Chris claims: “We are not in a recession ….”
Tell that to the auto workers, Chris. Tell that to the entire nation most of whom worry about making their mortgage payments with food prices increasing rapidly and fuel prices going through the roof. Tell that to the home construction workers who are scratching for work.
The technical definition of a recession is when growth (the GDP) is negative for two successive quarters. Do you mean to tell me that families only begin to experience recession in thier personal lives at when that negative growth occurs? Come on, Chris!
Then this: “…so what if the wealth of the top 1% exceeds the total of the bottom 90%.”
Does it have to be spelled out to you, Chris? Or are you wealthy enough that you don’t need to worry? We have an income distribution, Chris. The average worker is working hard, working more hours, working more than one job, yet deeper in debt because wages have not kept up and probably because they have not sufficiently cut their spending. We have an income distribution problem due to a wage and tax system that favors the already wealthy. This is not sustainable, Chris. People will continue to get desperate, so stop and think what desperate people are doing. It will get worse unless some redistribution measures are put in place by employers (wages) and by government (taxes).
And let us not forget that workers have been losing their pensions and their healthcare.
And you are not concerned, Chris? It seems like you are not!!!
Brian, right, neoliberalism, of the George Bush variety, neoconservativism and neoliberalism all wrapped up in one neat bundle producing yet more suffering of more people.
But they don’t care, therefore we need to throw them out in November and bring in hope for change.
What we must strive for, to be better than we have ever been, is an environment in which there is an equal opportunity for all to excel. In recent decades, I have seen that environment deteriorating, even more so under the Bush-43 regime. I compare how it was for me to how it is for my grandchildren. The difference is like night and day. We are so far off-track.
I think your five points, Brian, are in need of critical attention by all Americans. Those are where the changes are that we need to make.
Hey Smitty or David, I submitted a comment, I hope you could make sure it comes through. thanks guys.
It certainly doesn’t absolve him of his actions, but there sure weren’t insurgents running roughshod all over Iraq when Saddam was in charge. Does anyone really believe that when the US finally “wins” the war (whatever that means, someone please explain how security in Iraq helps us in any of the other countries in the Middle East filled with people who despise the West), another insurgency won’t rush in as soon as the last C-130 clears Iraqi airspace? What kind of victory is that?
No matter what McCain, Obama or Clinton says, none of them wants to address the REAL reasons insurgents, terrorists and radical Islamists are after the West (and no, they don’t ‘hate our freedoms’): our cushy oil/arms relationship with the Saudi royals (see Bob Baer’s ‘Sleeping with the Devil: How the U.S. Sold Its Soul for Saudi Crude’) and our support for Israel. I’m not criticizing either (well, maybe the former, especially when you start to see who actually knows WHO in the oil business), I’m just saying you can’t view the situation fully without looking at ALL of the factors.
How does any of that translate to ‘We need to dethrone Saddam’? Even his neighbors in the Middle East despised him; how could he be the most immediate threat to US security?
The war was a mistake. Bush spent five years working up the courage to keep saying it wasn’t one. Whoever gets into office needs to have the courage to admit that maybe, JUST MAYBE, it was, and that bringing troops home and out of harm’s way is more important than saving the collective national face.
How does any of that translate to ‘We need to dethrone Saddam’? Even his neighbors in the Middle East despised him; how could he be the most immediate threat to US security?
Exactly. He was NEVER a threat.
The war was never about terror or al Qaeda, that was just the selling point to go to war. It’s about controlling the region and regime change. It backfired into civil war, which will continue under the surface until we leave. Then it will explode.
But the question that is never answered is what is winning?
Excellent insight, BadMon3333 and anon.
Yes, the Bush Iraq war was “about controlling the region and regime change”, otherwise known as imperialism.
Yes, “Sleeping with the Devil” and unbalanced “support of Israel”, otherwise known as an unbalanced, really stupid, foreign policy. And it goes back well before Bush-43.
We need a courageous leader who will lead us to change these behaviors! I don’t think McCain is the one!!
Brian said: “Hey Smitty or David, I submitted a comment, I hope you could make sure it comes through. thanks guys.”
Brian, I have learned that this happens whenever I have used more than one link. So if more than one link is necessary, post them on subsequent posts.
I have stated my opinion in support of going to war. I will not argue that point because it is not meaningful to this post. We are there. AQ has made Iraq and Afghanistan the point where we are to be joined. That gives us only two choices victory or retreat.
We have to look forward. You can’t drive looking in the rear view mirror constantly.
David,
Please define victory.
David,
I know it easy to discuss the methods of victory in this kind of war with the beleif that it is like other kinds of warfare, but that is not exactly the case. If you want to pacify an an enemy (not a nation) you need to understand them. Otherwise you wind up screwing with nation states and not making a dent in decreasing terrorism. This has been a truism for a long time. It should be the folks at our CIA and the DIA and others who go after rebel groups that could harm Americans. And we need multilateralism to do it effectively with other nation states, even ones we may have political disagreements with.
“So why is Senator Obama popular and competitive?”
Because he smiles a lot, has the backing of the ‘mainstream’ media, and promises everyone everything but the kitchen sink, courtesy of the ‘government.’ He doesn’t mention that the ‘government’ is broke. I guess he won’t be happy until the productive 50% of Americans who are responsible for 96% of tax revenues collected are broke, too. That’s that Harvard degree kicking-in.
“Why can’t we we be proud to add new territory to the empire? Oh I forget this is not Rome.”
Maybe we should return Hawaii, Alaska, California, Texas…………hell, the whole country.
Rick whines: “I guess he [Obama] won’t be happy until the productive 50% of Americans who are responsible for 96% of tax revenues collected are broke, too.”
And the meaning of the word “productive” is?
Rick apparently finds productive value in the oeuvre of Paris Hilton.
Anyway, if the middle class is going broke, why should the investor class be shielded from sharing the pain?
Not to mention that the top 1% is responsible for the current economic decline, so they should pay heavily to restore the economy.
I know conservatives like to complain that the deficits are caused by “spending” not by tax cuts. But isn’t it funny how the money borrowed by the US has found its way into the pockets of the top 1%, and now conservatives want the middle class to cut back their standard of living even further to pay back that borrowed money. That money represents the deficit that is driving down the dollar and driving up inflation.
Reason dictates that the value of things is defined by labor and not by things in themsleves in a free market system. When the value of things is decoupled from the value of labor due to a surplus of things or labor than dvelopment of free markets that expect fo attain any parity of civic freedom in the political economy is impaired. To correct this, citizens must actively find solutions to protect the civil liberties their ancestors won and to restore reason to the system.
This is my reading of Adam Smith.
Does anybody know what happened to Iraq oil revenue. When we invaded them oil was $30 now it’s $130. Iraq has 3 of the largest oil fields in the world. They are exporting 2 million barrels a day. A bonanza. Where’s the dough?
I would love to hear somebody explain where that money goes. VP Cheyney promised it would help pay for the American mission. I hate it when politicians promise things and don’t deliver. I guess we are just supposed to forget about that.
The best thing we could do for the people of Iraq is to let them know we have done our job – relieved them of the dictator, set them up with a constitution, an army, a government, invested $100′s of billions, and tens of thousands of American casualties. Now we are leaving.
The Obama message will give them more incentive to take care of themselves than McCain’s message that we will provide indefinite welfare there until things are all nice. Leaving Iraq will be neither retreat or surrender. We won the war. We gave a lot. We can leave tomorrow and it will be a Victory.
In direct contradiction to Republican principles, our indefinite financial and military support of Iraq is having the unintended consequence of creating welfare dependency. Obama’s strategy will give Iraq sixteen months notice that American welfare payments are coming to an end.
Right Don! McCain will counter this approach by playing the fear card over and over and over, exactly like Bush & Co did to justify their invasion of Iraq to begin with. Now we have insider Scott McClellan up front confirming all their lies. Will Bush get his licks in against Iran before he leaves office? McClellan’s revelations of the neoconservative tricks will make an invasion of Iran less likely, I hope!