That's probably because not as many Americans, or Iraqis for that matter, are dying in Iraq, and there are some areas that were once quite dangerous that are becoming relatively safe.
I agree.
You know what the problem with Obama on Iraq was? He let McCain basically determine the ground upon which Iraq would be debated (whether or not the Surge reduced violence, and whether or not Obama was wrong to oppose that).
Right. And, I think, Obama’s attempted “zing!” with the whole, “The real question is what kind of thinking led us to Iraq in the first place…” was handily parried by McCain’s, “Listen, we’re in the here and now, and you’re not addressing that.” Obama wanted to make the point that we already have evidence of McCain’s bad judgment; but, in not providing details as to his own intended track (which I doubt he even knows, without further consultation with experts and lots of comparison-shopping), he fell flat.
It is now, but it would have been nice for Obama to point out a more concrete example of why Al-Qaeda is still a problem for us. Point out that a number of post-9/11 bombings and attacks can be traced back to Pakistan's FATA.
I just don’t think that letting up in Iraq before things are brought to a better finish – including massive changes of culture in the Iraqi government and military – will do anything but give al-Qaeda a useful base.
Russia vis a vis Georgia was where Obama was the weakest in the debate. McCain articulated a clear, very aggressive, very anti-Russian policy while also saying "Oh yeah, we also want Russia to co-operate with us" - and what did Obama do after that? He simply repeated a heavily watered-down version of this. He could have argued the Russia-Georgia situation might have been averted had the US been willing to take a more balanced role instead of favoring Georgia one-sidedly, and criticized McCain for making aggressive statements not corresponding with reality (from neither candidates did you hear anything about how the Russian attack was a response to Georgian attacks to reclaim Abkazia, which included firing on Russian peacekeepers.
I think even Obama hinted that the Russian peacekeepers were a provocation – his reason for suggesting that somebody should have required their exit before the conflict.
Obviously, it was an intelligence failure, this not seeing that Saakashvili was emboldened by the NATO business and politically committed to stepping across the Russian tripwire. I think the U.S. did try to prevent him from his mistakes, though.
In any case, security gains (and, of course, a huge petrodollar reserve) mean, I think, that it should be less of a priority in our troop deployments and resource allocation than Afghanistan.
I don’t think Iraq is nearly as competent as we’d have liked; I’m skeptical even of McCain’s long-term commitment.
The security gains, I think, need to be reinforced with more troops so that we can bring this war to a more successful close using more aggressive tactics against holdouts. Things will also get messy later when we deal with how to reintegrate the military and, in some wider sense, the country.
"No." Obama could have used that question -- and "Did Iraq make us safer?" -- to great effect in the debate.
He mentioned it, once, but in passing.
I also think most Americans don’t often think about the fact that, under Bush, we didn’t suffer a second attack on our own soil.
There's two components to your argument here. First is that a good argument will never lose people. I disagree; in the current political climate, a reasonable argument, delivered with care, can be dismissed simply as "socialist" or "liberal". It's more about the impression people receive than about the argument itself, and if the argument is carefully made for a perfectly good nationalized health insurance plan, people will hear "nationalized insurance" and immediately label it as socialist; and if they don't do it, the right-wing spin machine will. Perhaps hiding how "left-wing" an idea is is part of how you couch the argument, but to get this sort of idea across you have to step on glass without breaking it, so to speak.
A good argument
shouldn’t lose people, because a good argument is tailored to respect the facts while still showcasing them in a fashion that is relevant and “friendly” to the dubious party. Making a message relevant and immune to misrepresentation is the difficult part. Language needs to be chosen that is simultaneously honest and neutral, to avoid giving the impression that one is about to talk about something that is “beyond the pale.” Basically, one tries to step lightly amidst the minefield of bias and prejudice. It happens on every side.
Second is that hyper-aggression, rudeness, and arrogance is a problem with the board culture. I personally enjoy watching it, even though I don't really partake as much as I used to, so I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
I think that it has contributed to some very negative outcomes.
Specifics never hurt. I prefer, like Obama, to always deal in the abstract, but McCain tied the debate down to the ground with several anecdotes. They left me rolling my eyes, but most people identified with it -- and that was probably the point: make Obama seem like an out-of-touch elitist, while making McCain seem down-to-earth and folksy.
Just like McCain was foolish to use the “Main Street” phrase (probably something unconscious) right after Obama did (it would have been fresh in his mind), Obama was foolish to be the parrot to McCain’s original bracelet story. It was obvious compensation.
Those forces committed in Iraq I think result in greater output per input than a fully-deployed Brigade Combat Team, responsible for a chunk of territory in Iraq. Indeed, as Iraqi units stand up, ours can gradually go from in-charge, to on-call, to completely handing-over responsibility with no strings attached. (except for residual organic support and advisers, but not full-up brigades)
"
- PeZook
