Why McCain is Wrong on Iraq

[midcan5]

Honest Mistakes or Simply Lies? By William S. Lind

"Senator John McCain’s position on the situation in Iraq is wrong on two counts, which means his criticism of Senator Obamais also wrong. The twin pillars of McCain’s assessment of the war are a) the surge worked and b) because the surge worked we are now winning. Neither of those views is based in fact.

The first represents the long-recognized logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc, i.e., because one event occurred after another, it was a consequence of the first event. Because the cock crows before sunrise, he thinks he makes the sun come up. Because violence in Iraq dropped after the surge, McCain claims the surge caused the reduction in violence. He is quick to add that he supported the surge at the time, which Obama did not. In the real world, neither rooster nor Senator has quite so much reason to strut upon his dunghill.

The reduction in violence in Iraq, which is likely to prove temporary, has four causes, the least of which is the surge.

In order of importance, they are...."

http://www.counterpunch.org/lind07302008.html

[avatar4321]

I get it "McCain is wrong because I say so."

Id love to see some actual substance to your cut and paste jobs.

[midcan5]

I get it "McCain is wrong because I say so."

Id love to see some actual substance to your cut and paste jobs.

Do you need help understanding them?

[avatar4321]

Do you need help understanding them?

No. i understand it right well. Do you have a problem understanding why "John McCain is wrong because I say he is" isnt a very convincing argument?

[manu1959]

1) Al Qaeda’s alienation of much of its Sunni base, a consequence of its attempt to impose its Puritanical version of Islam before it won the war and consolidated power. This is a common error of revolutionary movements. The smart ones back off and take a “broad front” strategy until the war is won, at which point they cut their “moderate” allies’ throats. Al Qaeda’s non-hierarchical structure, coupled with the message it employs to recruit, may prevent it from adopting a broad front strategy. If so, that may prove a fatal weakness.

2) A change in policy by the U.S. Marines in Anbar Province whereby they stopped attacking the Sunni population and started paying it instead. As the FMFM 1-A argues, in 4GW, cash is your most important supporting arm. The Marines’ new policy, which has now spread to the U.S. Army and beyond Anbar, enabled the locals to turn on al Qaeda and its brutally enforced Puritanism.

3) General Petraeus’s decision to move U.S. troops off their FOB’s and into populated areas where they could protect the population instead of merely protecting themselves.

4) Last and least, the surge, which made more troops available for #3. Absent the other three developments, the surge would have achieved nothing.

without the troops 2 and 3 would not have been possible so the surge is responsible for 2/3 of the success.....

and the increased troops and preassure on aq cused them to make the tactical mistake of 1....

so that is 3 for 3......

[Yurt]

1) Al Qaeda’s alienation of much of its Sunni base, a consequence of its attempt to impose its Puritanical version of Islam before it won the war and consolidated power. This is a common error of revolutionary movements. The smart ones back off and take a “broad front” strategy until the war is won, at which point they cut their “moderate” allies’ throats. Al Qaeda’s non-hierarchical structure, coupled with the message it employs to recruit, may prevent it from adopting a broad front strategy. If so, that may prove a fatal weakness.

2) A change in policy by the U.S. Marines in Anbar Province whereby they stopped attacking the Sunni population and started paying it instead. As the FMFM 1-A argues, in 4GW, cash is your most important supporting arm. The Marines’ new policy, which has now spread to the U.S. Army and beyond Anbar, enabled the locals to turn on al Qaeda and its brutally enforced Puritanism.

3) General Petraeus’s decision to move U.S. troops off their FOB’s and into populated areas where they could protect the population instead of merely protecting themselves.

4) Last and least, the surge, which made more troops available for #3. Absent the other three developments, the surge would have achieved nothing.

without the troops 2 and 3 would not have been possible so the surge is responsible for 2/3 of the success.....

and the increased troops and preassure on aq cused them to make the tactical mistake of 1....

so that is 3 for 3......

great analysis to show causation when it comes to the surge :clap:

[actsnoblemartin]

i still think it took guts for him to put his view point accross, especially because its not exactly the most popular view point, and most of us cut and paste, so lets not degrade him for a valuable tool, thats just not right :poke:

[emmett]

i still think it took guts for him to put his view point accross, especially because its not exactly the most popular view point, and most of us cut and paste, so lets not degrade him for a valuable tool, thats just not right :poke:


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Someone wake me up when Martin wakes up!

[actsnoblemartin]

um, :dunno: what


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Someone wake me up when Martin wakes up!

[emmett]

Honest Mistakes or Simply Lies? By William S. Lind

"Senator John McCain’s position on the situation in Iraq is wrong on two counts, which means his criticism of Senator Obamais also wrong. The twin pillars of McCain’s assessment of the war are a) the surge worked and b) because the surge worked we are now winning. Neither of those views is based in fact.

The first represents the long-recognized logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc, i.e., because one event occurred after another, it was a consequence of the first event. Because the cock crows before sunrise, he thinks he makes the sun come up. Because violence in Iraq dropped after the surge, McCain claims the surge caused the reduction in violence. He is quick to add that he supported the surge at the time, which Obama did not. In the real world, neither rooster nor Senator has quite so much reason to strut upon his dunghill.

The reduction in violence in Iraq, which is likely to prove temporary, has four causes, the least of which is the surge.

In order of importance, they are...."

http://www.counterpunch.org/lind07302008.html


Ok, let's go over this again. All this logic is confusing me.


Correct me if I am wrong. GWB after recomendations from the ground commanders wished to institue a surge of ground forces to accomplish pushing back insurgents out of areas they had come to sort of control, it was allowing them safe havens to bnuild roadside bombs, plot strategy and co-ordinate strikes against allied forces.

Most liberals, almost all democrats (except the realists), Harry reid and Nancy Pelosi STRONGLY opposed this action and said we had lost the war and needed to immediately retreat from the country. That opinion was concurred with by John Murtha, John Kerry, Barack Obama and many other "leaders".

The surge was an instant success and began to immediately make a difference in the safety of American forces, Iraqi civilians and Allies. Roadside bombings are almost non-existant, soldiers have stopped being killed by advancing insurgent forces and people are taking their children to parks in areas where one year ago it was unsafe to walk.

Hmmm!!!!! Do I have this right or is more of your logic formula required to spin it into something it isn't?

Don't waste time blaming the right wing for my observation, I'm a Libertarian and believe we shouldn't be there but obvious is obvious. That is my logic!


THE SURGE ACCOMPLISHED IT'S OBJECTIVE! John McCain was indeed correct, President Bush was correct and the aforementioned Democrats were wrong. Now spin it!

[actsnoblemartin]

The surge was as successful as the messiahs devoted sheep following :laugh2:


Ok, let's go over this again. All this logic is confusing me.


Correct me if I am wrong. GWB after recomendations from the ground commanders wished to institue a surge of ground forces to accomplish pushing back insurgents out of areas they had come to sort of control, it was allowing them safe havens to bnuild roadside bombs, plot strategy and co-ordinate strikes against allied forces.

Most liberals, almost all democrats (except the realists), Harry reid and Nancy Pelosi STRONGLY opposed this action and said we had lost the war and needed to immediately retreat from the country. That opinion was concurred with by John Murtha, John Kerry, Barack Obama and many other "leaders".

The surge was an instant success and began to immediately make a difference in the safety of American forces, Iraqi civilians and Allies. Roadside bombings are almost non-existant, soldiers have stopped being killed by advancing insurgent forces and people are taking their children to parks in areas where one year ago it was unsafe to walk.

Hmmm!!!!! Do I have this right or is more of your logic formula required to spin it into something it isn't?

Don't waste time blaming the right wing for my observation, I'm a Libertarian and believe we shouldn't be there but obvious is obvious. That is my logic!


THE SURGE ACCOMPLISHED IT'S OBJECTIVE! John McCain was indeed correct, President Bush was correct and the aforementioned Democrats were wrong. Now spin it!

[manu1959]

one other thing......i seem to recall the dems screaming that there were not enough "boots on the ground" to "win the peace"......

so bush puts more troops in and then they say.....more kids will die and it won't work....


dem = movie critic

[actsnoblemartin]

so true

cant they make up their minds?

are their not enough or too many?

:laugh2:


one other thing......i seem to recall the dems screaming that there were not enough "boots on the ground" to "win the peace"......

so bush puts more troops in and then they say.....more kids will die and it won't work....


dem = movie critic

[Joe Steel]

I get it "McCain is wrong because I say so."

Id love to see some actual substance to your cut and paste jobs.

"(P)ost hoc ergo propter hoc"

Look it up.

[midcan5]

“But I believe, Katie, that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators.” [NBC, 3/20/03]

“It’s clear that the end is very much in sight.” [ABC, 4/9/03]

“There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiahs. So I think they can probably get along.” [MSNBC, 4/23/03]

“This is a mission accomplished. They know how much influence Saddam Hussein had on the Iraqi people, how much more difficult it made to get their cooperation.” [This Week, ABC, 12/14/03]

“I’m confident we’re on the right course.” [ABC News, 3/7/04]

“I think the initial phases of it were so spectacularly successful that it took us all by surprise.” [CBS, 10/31/04]

“I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq. Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course. If I thought we weren’t making progress, I’d be despondent.” [The Hill, 12/8/05]

http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2008/06/mccain-quotes-on-iraq-war.html

I was reading through the comment's above from McCain and the one that struck as the least insightful was the comment on the early success. That was truly dumb from a person who is supposed to understand the military. Iraq had no real army after its war with Iran and annexation of Kuwait, if they had stood up and fought as they did in the past they would have been slaughtered that is too obvious. Our military technology is incredible.

Bush's illegal invasion and the many made up reasons brought Al Q into Iraq, and it isn't even clear what role they played in the insurgency as news from there is at best partial and biased.

Actsnoblemartin,

You have to stop taking these debates so serious or personal. It's just a give and take, I have no trouble reading the mostly nonsensical revisionist stuff they think contains insight. I try to see if anyone can challenge my view, so far only one person has made me reconsider a viewpoint. One could easily pick apart any of their arguments as MFM does so often, but can you ever really convince a crazy person they aren't crazy. No.

"I don't know what's the matter with people: they don't learn by understanding; they learn by some other way, by rote, or something. Their knowledge is so fragile!" Richard Feynman

this contains too much jargon but hints at the why of the quote above
http://jtp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/454

[manu1959]

“But I believe, Katie, that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators.” [NBC, 3/20/03]

“It’s clear that the end is very much in sight.” [ABC, 4/9/03]

“There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiahs. So I think they can probably get along.” [MSNBC, 4/23/03]

“This is a mission accomplished. They know how much influence Saddam Hussein had on the Iraqi people, how much more difficult it made to get their cooperation.” [This Week, ABC, 12/14/03]

“I’m confident we’re on the right course.” [ABC News, 3/7/04]

“I think the initial phases of it were so spectacularly successful that it took us all by surprise.” [CBS, 10/31/04]

“I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq. Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course. If I thought we weren’t making progress, I’d be despondent.” [The Hill, 12/8/05]



some did see the us as liberators....

it depends how far one can see....

sunni shia violence was proxied by aq......

optimism is such a horrible trait in a leader......god i hope obama can change that......

[midcan5]

optimism is such a horrible trait in a leader......god i hope obama can change that......

Funny you ignore his poor judgment on Iraq military capability and then praise him for the same thing you criticize Obama for!

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9111.html

[red states rule]

"We cannot support the increase in troops unless George Bush disavows the NeoCon strategy and presents a new strategy. George Bush has been using the troops for the past four years trying to divide the country between those who support the war and those who do not. President Bush is trying to divide us again with his expected call this week for a 'surge' of up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops into Iraq. What the surge would do is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut the morale of U.S. forces and risk further alienating elements of the Iraqi populace." -- Wesley Clark


"I think that the reports that you (David Petraeus) provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief. In any of the metrics that have been referenced in your many hours of testimony, any fair reading of the advantages and disadvantages accruing post-surge, in my view, end up on the downside." -- Hillary Clinton


"(The) idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong." -- Howard Dean


"We don't need a surge of troops in Iraq--we need a surge of diplomacy and politics. Every knowledgeable person who has examined the Iraq situation for the past several years--Baker and Hamilton, senior military officials, junior officers--has drawn the same conclusion--there is no military solution in Iraq. To insist upon a surge is wrong." -- Christopher Dodd


"By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence in Iraq is decreasing and thus the surge is working. Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong." -- Dick Durbin


"An escalation, whether it is called a surge or any other name, is still an escalation, and I believe it would be an immense new mistake." -- Ted Kennedy


"We owe our troops a strategy that is worthy of their sacrifice, and it's clear that the current strategy – the President's escalation – has failed to achieve its goal of bringing about a resolution of the fundamental conflict between Sunni and Shia." -- John Kerry


http://townhall.com/Columnists/JohnHawkins/2008/07/25/a_look_back_what_democrats_were_saying_about_the_s urge

[midcan5]

"We cannot support

There is an obvious difference here, and even though you will probably miss it, being the partisan hack you are, words are words, action are what matter in the end. The illegal invasion of Iraq was illegal no matter how you spin it, and arguing after the fact is silly. Certain types of violence were lessening before the surge and much violence is still going on and our men and women are still dying. In the end time will tell as they throw us out and kill each other till dead too becomes tiresome.

[red states rule]

There is an obvious difference here, and even though you will probably miss it, being the partisan hack you are, words are words, action are what matter in the end. The illegal invasion of Iraq was illegal no matter how you spin it, and arguing after the fact is silly. Certain types of violence were lessening before the surge and much violence is still going on and our men and women are still dying. In the end time will tell as they throw us out and kill each other till dead too becomes tiresome.

Actions do matter. The US military kicked ass,a nd you defeatest libs and the terrorists LOST

BTW, on troops deaths.........

Only ABC Runs Full Iraq Status Story After Fewest U.S. Deaths Ever
By Brent Baker (Bio | Archive)
August 1, 2008 - 00:38 ET

Not surprisingly given the past pattern, of the broadcast networks evening newscasts on Thursday, only ABC's World News devoted a full story to the fewest Americans killed in Iraq in any month since the war began. CBS and NBC gave the great news a few seconds before pivoting to full stories on the rise of female suicide bombers and the sexual assault problem in the military. ABC anchor Charles Gibson hailed:


[A] statistic out of Iraq today that is remarkable: Six Americans were killed in combat in the entire month of July. That's the lowest number since the war began. That compares to the 66 combat deaths in July of last year.

From Iraq, reporter Terry McCarthy proceeded to convey how “U.S. troops on the ground don't follow statistics. They follow their gut. And these days, that tells them things are getting better.” McCarthy pointed to how an Army Sergeant, seven months into his second tour, “hasn't fired his weapon once on patrol” and then McCarthy credited the surge: “The turning point was the surge, which began 18 months ago. Three months in, U.S. fatalities peaked at 119. Since then, violence has declined steeply.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/08/01/only-abc-runs-full-iraq-status-story-after-fewest-u-s-deaths-ever

[midcan5]

Actions do matter. The US military kicked ass,a nd you defeatest libs and the terrorists LOST

BTW, on troops deaths...

I want you think about having to tell a child, a mother, a father, a husband or a wife that while they lost their loved one, the deaths, in a completely unnecessary war, were less this month. You can tell those during high death months too, while you are being stupid.


A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

[red states rule]

I want you think about having to tell a child, a mother, a father, a husband or a wife that while they lost their loved one, the deaths, in a completely unnecessary war, were less this month. You can tell those during high death months too, while you are being stupid.


A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

They know what they are fighting and dying for. YOU tell them how their loved one died for nothing. Or like other Dems how the troops are cold blooded killers, or how they torture people, or how they are uneducated, or compare them to Nazi's - like elected Dems have done over the years

In the last year, the Iraq government has accomplished a hell of alot more then the Reid and Pelosi Congress have accomplished. Thanks to the surge and the US military

[manu1959]

Funny you ignore his poor judgment on Iraq military capability and then praise him for the same thing you criticize Obama for!

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9111.html

mccain has always said more troops.....and has always been opomistic about winning.....

obama has always said no troops...yet he never sponsored one bill to pull them out or cut funding.....and is very optomistic that the us will fail....

hope and change.......what a great work ethic for america.....

what ever happened to hard work and sacrifice.....

[avatar4321]

There is an obvious difference here, and even though you will probably miss it, being the partisan hack you are, words are words, action are what matter in the end. The illegal invasion of Iraq was illegal no matter how you spin it, and arguing after the fact is silly. Certain types of violence were lessening before the surge and much violence is still going on and our men and women are still dying. In the end time will tell as they throw us out and kill each other till dead too becomes tiresome.

According to be law, in order for a war to be legal it has to be authorized by Congress. The Iraq war was authorized in two resolutions. First, the post 9/11resolution authorizing the President to use force against any nation that supports terrorism. Second, the Iraq war resolution authorizing the use of force.

To continually claim that the war was illegal despite it being clearly legal according to Federal governments grant of authority to wage war, is a bit absurd and illegal.

Also, time has told. There is a reason the President is beginning the process of bringing our troops home. We won the war.

[avatar4321]

I want you think about having to tell a child, a mother, a father, a husband or a wife that while they lost their loved one, the deaths, in a completely unnecessary war, were less this month. You can tell those during high death months too, while you are being stupid.


The soldiers knew the risks they faced when they enlisted. Their families did as well. And because of their lives, several nations are free. You may say the war was unneccesary, but tell that to the people who were tortured and persecuted by Saddam's regime. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi citizens killed by Saddam. Tell them justice and freedom for them was unnecessary.

[midcan5]

The soldiers knew the risks they faced when they enlisted. Their families did as well. And because of their lives, several nations are free. You may say the war was unneccesary, but tell that to the people who were tortured and persecuted by Saddam's regime. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi citizens killed by Saddam. Tell them justice and freedom for them was unnecessary.

An illegal war is an illegal war, Iraq was not a threat to us and to justify it by saying they are free is equivalent to saying a slave is free because he changed masters. We have killed more than Saddam ever did and we have ruined a country, not sure that constitutes victory particularly when their army hardly existed and could not even stage a war. We have created an insurgency that is killing our soldiers, any thing that could be called a war was over long ago.