The Judgment Factor

Excellent post.

There may be political reasons to put out plans for Iraq right now, but I don't view those as having much value because it's not a static situation.

I'm going to vote for the individual whose judgment I trust. I don't know what the future holds, but I know that I want someone smart and capable to deal with those problems that will inevitably arise.

Iraq will be a problem in 2009, I just don't know the specifics and neither does anyone else.

The problem is, I don't trust ANY mainstream American politicians who want to keep troops in Iraq, for any reason, because there's too much evidence that so many of them want to maintain an empire, which is exactly what got us to 9/11. Al Qaeda never attacked Norway-- it attacked a country that asserted the right, under Clinton as well as Bush, to dictate the affairs of the Middle East and bomb and invade any country that threatened our interests. Since symmetric warfare is not an option against a hegemon, we get asymmetric warfare.

Keeping troops in Iraq is just as bad an idea as keeping troops in Saudi Arabia was. It's a big recruiting poster for terrorists, which will eventually lead to another 9/11. So yes, we need to pull out all the troops, with no exceptions for genocide prevention, alleged counterterrorism, protecting embassies, or anything else. That's the only thing that will protect us from liberal imperialist tendencies as well as the conservative ones.

In the last few years, it's become far less important to me that candidates agree with me on the details of any particular proposal: Iraq, health insurance, social security. I want a president whose judgment I trust, which I gauge based on an apparent willingness to consider opposing viewpoints, a willingness to adjust as circumstances change, raw intelligence, and priorities largely similar to mine.

Consequently, "competing plans" interest me very little, since circumstances will change in the next 18 months, and I won't care then what their plan is now. I'm already convinced of Edwards' and Obama's seriousness, and any plans they put out -- or fail to put out -- are unlikely to change my mind about that.

An "over the horizon" counterterrorism force, by contrast, if prudently used, is a very good idea.
- Matt

Fine, put them in Israel.

Matt this was a great post. I think the residual troop argument, has rather important implications within the progressive coalition. MyDD and Dailykos are putting a lot of pressure on candidates about their position. I think this is a debate that needs to happen with the progressive community and right now I think its kind of one sided. I think it'd be cool to have you and Stroller argue the merits of each position over at tpmcafe or on bloggingheads. Either way I hope you continue to speak out against the emerging narrative that keeping troops for humanitarian/counterterrorism is a bad thing.

"I don't have a big problem with the plans for Iraq put forward by either Barack Obama or John Edwards"

What's the difference between the above and Clinton's position?

Yeah, one of the most interesting things about what Stoller, et al, have been writing about Edwards the last few days is that it's improper to give candidates any wiggle room over Iraq after what we've seen from this President. If anything, letting this attitude stand would represent the single biggest victory of the Bush White House: a fundamental distrust of government, no matter who's in charge. I agree, MY: in the hands of a good President, flexibility is a good thing. Which candidate best meets such criteria, however, I have yet to decide in any final way.

What's the difference between the above and Clinton's position?

Clinton's position, to her credit, has been outlined in substantially more detail in her Gordon/Healy interview. This is probably the key passage, but you can (and should) read the whole thing:

I think we have a vital national security interest and obligation to try to help the Kurds manage their various problems in the north so that one of our allies, Turkey, is not inflamed, and they are able to continue with their autonomy. I think we have a vital national security interest — if the Iraqis ever get their act together — to continue to provide logistical support, air support, training support. I don’t know that that is going to be feasible, but I would certainly entertain it. And I think we have a continuing vital national security interest in trying to prevent Iran from crossing the border and having too much influence inside of Iraq.

Those are all different moving pieces on the chess board. And from the vantage point of where I sit now, I can tell you, in the absence of a very vigorous diplomatic effort on the political front and on the regional and international front, I think it is unlikely there’s going to be a stable situation that will be inherited.

And so it will be up to me to try to figure out how to protect those national security interests and continue to take our troops out of this urban warfare, which I think is a loser, and I do not believe that it can be successful. If we had done it right from the beginning, we might have had a fighting chance. We did not, and I think it is beyond our control now.

But what we can do is to almost take a line sort of north of, between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region — the ones that are going to remain for our antiterrorism mission; for our northern support mission; for our ability to respond to the Iranians; and to continue to provide support, if called for, for the Iraqis.

Clinton, in essence, wants our forces to stop doing patrols in Iraqi cities and give up "urban warfare" while retaining the rest of the mission.

Thanks for the excellent link, but I'm still unclear what the differences between the candidates' stated position are (ignoring framing issues or who's doing the interview):

"Finally, it's also Senator Edwards' position that we will have troops in the region to prevent the sectarian violence in Iraq from spilling over into other countries, for counter-terrorism, or to prevent a genocide."

How's that any different from what HRC says? And are you not ok with it?

Stoller dogmatic? Surely you jest. ;)

I agree with you for the most part. But doesn't saying - "I think the idea of maintaining a semi-permanent counterterrorism force in Iraq is a very bad idea as the presence of such a force in Western Iraq will generate the need for counterterrorism activities there" - greatly limit the flexibility of a President Obama or Edwards that you are talking about. If AQI is strengthening (and it certainly appears to be), and if the Sunnis tribal groups are turning more and more against it (this week's news), can't you think of any ways in which it would be in our interest to maintain a small force in the country devoted simply to fighting AQI? I'm not saying that's the best solution to that problem. But I can think of reasons for it. So if you are favor of flexibility, why not that type of flexibility(I am assuming we will have a reasonably competent and trustworthy president to administer such operations in this scenario)?

AHHHHHHH, the voice of reason is such a refreshing thing. Thank you for your post.

To me it is like being a little bit pregnant. Either you are pregnant or your not. Likewise, either you stop occupying the country or you remain an occupying force with reduced numbers and the possibility of increased risks. If any troops are to remain in the region, IMO they would need to be "over the horizon" and used prudently or the U.S. would quickly be right back into the same mess as we are in now.

Could someone explain to me exactly what a "counterterrorism force" is? Is this something other than a team of operatives charged with assassinating and kidnapping bad guys, interdicting weapons shipments, spying, cracking down on money laundering, and blowing up various headquarters or camps? Don't we already have plenty of guys sneaking around the world doing these things, some military and some not, stationed in plenty of places over and inside various horizons of interest, especially in the Middle East? What does this have to do with conventional military forces currently in Iraq, and with whether and how they should be withdrawn?

I thought the aim of the so-called "over the horizon" forces that have been discussed in proposals such as Murtha's was not "counterterrorism", but rather preserving the capacity for a rapid conventional response to more conventional military threats of a not-particularly-terrorstic nature. That is, these are supposed to be forces geared toward defending various US friends and threatening various US enemies in the region, in the usual forward-based military way. If that is the point, I wish these candidates would just say so, rather than muttering about using the residual presence to combat "terrorism". If the Democratic candidates think we should hang onto the bases we've built in more-or-less friendly Iraqi Kurdistan, and turn that region into the latest US imperial outpost, like Okinawa, Guam or Puerto Rico, then why don't they just admit it? HRC comes the closest, but there is a lot of double-talk all around.

It is sometimes suggested that the US needs to stay in Iraq - or "over the Iraqi horizon" - to play some sort of "peacekeeping" role. For example, it has been suggested from time to time that these forces must be present in and around Iraq to prevent the present conflict from spreading to other countries. The problem with the peacekeeing idea is that it is absurd to expect that a combattant in a war can transition into a peacekeeper in that war. Combattants are on a side, while pecekeepers must be neutral. The US is clearly a combattant.

Supposedly these over-the-horizon forces would deter interventions by surrounding countries who perceive their interests to be threatened in various ways, or prevent and help repel cross-border attacks from groups inside Iraq into other countries. This sounds like a very worthy international goal. But it is doubtful the United States can play a constructive role in it. Consider for example, that if Iranian forces intervened in Iraq, US forces would almost surely respond militarily. But if Saudi or Turkish forces intervened, it is quite inconceivable that US forces would attack those countries' forces. And obviously, everyone knows this is the case. Thus a US force tasked with preventing outside intervention could hardly serve as a credible referee. It would instead be a destabilizing presence, perceived as providing preferential cover for potential Turkish or Saudi operations and infiltration in support of Turkish or Saudi security interests, while checking only Iranian action in support of Iranian security interests. But Iranian security concerns vis-a-vis Iraq are no less or more credible than Saudi and Turkish concerns.

Similarly, if military or paramilitary groups inside Iraq crossed the Saudi border to attack Saudi interests, one can expect the US to act to defend the Saudis. But no one would expect the US to help Iran defend itself against Sunni Iraqi raids inside Iran. Since US forces cannot, or at least will not, play an evenhanded role in stabilizing Iraq, their continued presence in and about Iraq is and will be only a destabilizing influence, employing military muscle to advance the interests of particular groups of competing powers against the interests of others. That is not peacekeeping; it is a way of waging a conflict.

If the US really wanted to promote stability in the region, it would begin to sidle up a bit more to Iran and Syria, lessen up a bit on the favoritism toward Israel and Saudi Arabia, and promote a balance of power in the region. But neither the dominant establishment Democratic nor Republican agenda for the Middle East is particularly concerned with stability. Both sides seem committed to a long war, running sometimes hot and sometimes cold, toward an eventual victory.

Some months back, there was a lot of interesting and thoughtful criticism and analysis of Iraq and related issues coming from the Democratic side of the blogosphere. That critical spirit has fallen into sharp decline ever since the Congress was won and the presidential campaign began in earnest, and the commentary has since grown progressively cagier, more reticent, more awkward and stupider. I don't have any deep faith in being saved by the "judgment" of the leading candidates. The root pathologies of US Middle East involvement are apparently woven into the sinews of the US body politic, and there is not much that can be done about them.

The Dennis Kucinich 12 point plan for Iraq is by far the most sensible. Matthew, you seem to be very clever which is why I wonder what the reason is that you have ignored the only true genius running for President. Dennis had the good judgment to vote against HR 1591, Pelosi's decision to protect Bush. Consider whether the avalanche of propaganda has brainwashed you into your endorsement of Hillary (a truly dispicable person).

My reasons begin when Hillary decided to prosecute the White House Travel Office staff after she had them fired. They were aquitted at trial. There are much more facts you can learn if your mind is capable of questioning the propaganda polls.

Dennis needs to lead an impeachment process against Bush & Cheney. That will get your attention if it occurs. In the meantime I'll watch you to see your decisions.

Unfortunately, the Iraq quagmire is bigger than Iraq.

Staying in, we inflame the civil war, further erode U.S. standing, and invite regional war.

Withdrawing from Iraq, we create a vacuum that sucks in Turkey, Iran, Syria, and degenerates into regional war.

Israel and its US-Israeli lobby wants close U.S. military presence, and the neocon wing with support by apocalyptic Christians wants aggression against Iran, which could happen soon with the effect of eclipsing this entire conversation. The new military base complex in Iraq wasn't built with short-term withdrawal in mind.

Meanwhile, the global economy absolutely depends on continued flow of Middle East oil and natural gas. This in a world where Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, and U.A.E. sit on what have been widely accepted as the world's largest proven oil reserves and huge natural gas reserves; in a world in which global conventional oil production has begun decline; a world in which U.S. oil production has been declining since 1971, and in which North American natural gas production is in decline; a world in which competition and growing demand for oil and natural gas is unprecedented.

In other words, in a world in which global primary energy flow (oil and natural gas) is on the verge of precipitous production decline (read petroleum geologists at theoildrum.com).

Primary energy flow directly affects the global/North American/US economy, which already appears incredibly unstable: collapsing value of US$; exploding trade deficit; unsustainable annual health care cost increases in the range of 12-18% per year; exploding unfunded pension system liabilities; home mortgage building bubble; aging workforce demographic; aging electrical utility grid; aging and inadequate natural gas pipeline system; industrial capacity decline; waning environmental protections....

On top of that, we have global warming to induce natural disasters of more intensity and higher frequency than what we've seen. The natural global economic buffer, i.e., ability to absorb catastrophic setbacks is becoming thin. The global economic web is stretched with high tensions everywhere.

Meanwhile, our corporations seek and expect growth at 18% discount rates; and our people push indiscriminate exponential growth at every scale. Corruption becomes the systemic antidote to impossible expectations.

The larger picture becomes so absurd, one has to laugh!

You cannot honestly think that Barack "Crackhead" Obama would have good judgement. This fifth-columnist clown (who was accepted into Harvard and Columbia via affirmative action) already said that he wants to start a war in Darfur.

And deep down, Matthew, you know that Crackhead Obama likes to rape white women. Just look at him every time he's near a white woman. He gets those "rapist eyes" while looking at them.

He's a sick man. Read the book _Camp of the Saints_ ("the best conservative novel ever written), and you'll know what I'm talking about.

thanks...

thank you

thank you

thank you

than kyou

thank yuou

thank you

sohbet

www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışmasıwww.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışmasıwww.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması

thank you very much ;)

thank you very very good ;)

thank you good working

nice collection

thank you good work

thank you

thank you your writing

thank you good collection

thank you good write

thank you boys ;)

thank you good job

thank you good working nice collection

thanks four you istanbul flowers

thanks

hello

than kyou

thank you

thank you

thank you

thank you

thank you

thanks

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
forum
forum
turkmirc

Thanksss...

Thanx...

Thanks for all...

thanks

GOOD JOB

sex shop
sex shop
seks shop
seks shop
erotik shop
erotik shop
penis büyütücü
penis büyütücü video upload
video upload
file upload
picture upload

mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

da

da

Thank you very much for this information.

muhabbet
muhabbet
mirc
evden eve nakliyat
sevgi
mirc
chat
chat
mirc
sohbet
kelebek

thanks

slm

thanks

http://www.izokon.com/hakkimizda.html
http://www.izokon.com/hizmetlerimiz.html
http://www.izokon.com/urunler.html
http://www.izokon.com/hekimboard.html
http://www.izokon.com/turksiding.html
http://www.izokon.com/fblam.html
http://www.izokon.com/kalite.html
http://www.izokon.com/sove.html
http://www.izokon.com/referanslar.html
http://www.izokon.com/iletisim.html
http://www.izokon.com/urunler2.html
http://www.izokon.com/sss.html

thankss youu site admin..

thankss you site admin..

thanks you site admin..

thankss you site admin..

thankss you site admin..

thenks http://www.penisbuyutuculeri.com Penis Büyütücü, Penis Büyütücü Ürünler,Büyük Penis, Cinsel Organ, Cinsel Performans, Erken Boşalma, Penis Geliştirici, Cinsel İsteksizlik,Kalın Penis, İri Penis,Super S, SuperSize, Super S Penis Büyütücü, SuperSize Penis Büyütme

thenks http://www.sexshopum.com: sex shop, sexshop, erotik shop, erotikshop, erotic shop, eroticshop, erotik market, erotikmarket, seks shop, seksshop, erotic market, eroticmarket, sex market, sexmarket, seks market, seksmarket, sexs shop, sexsshop, erotik, erotic, seks, sex, erotik magaza, penis büyütücü, penis büyütücüler, geciktirici sprey, geciktirici spreyler,göğüs büyütücü, göğüs büyütücüler, bayan azdırıcı damla, geciktirici hap, geciktirici, geciktiriciler, penis büyütücü haplar, penis büyütücü hap, prezervatifler, şişme bebek, şişme bebekler, şişme manken, vibratör, vajina, cinsel istek arttırıcı, cinsellik, geciktirici krem, cinsel ürünler, erotik ürünler