Iraq: Who Has the Right Plan?

Anyone that wants all our troops has the right idea. You have to understand the people you're dealing with and I can't say that the majority of Americans and the current administration understand the people it's dealing with.

I am not a proponent of setting any type of withdrawl date. Although I do want us out of there as soon as possible I also want us to leave it in the best condition possible. Setting a date is just too heavy handed and leaves no flexibility to react to what is actually happeneing. It also, quite obviously, is somewhat dumb to tell those your fighting when you plan to leave.

But as I said I want us out of there. I think a conglomeration of the ideas above may work.

First Thompson's up/down vote from the Iraqi parliament is a good idea fro the reasons he stated.

Biden's idea on the shaping of the government is smart but could be very difficult to execute. Worth a try though.

Obama's thoughts on troop levels are consistent with mine. I tend to not agree with Clinton. I think we should establish several permanent bases in Iraq. I think. I have some reservations on that but again if we execute it right it would be a boon going forward. But we do need to maintain a presense there.

Our main goals right now need to be getting Iraq's forces prepared to take the reigns and on going overboard in helping the civilians. We need to start engendering good will there. Do every single thing we can to make life better. That's where the up/down vote helps. If they vote no then we leave. Plain and simple. But with the caveat that we'll be back if it sprials back into a ottocracy.

Once Bush leaves ofice, Iraq will no longer be in the news much regardless of who follows him or what their plan is. Iraq will have served it's purpose at that point. Iraq is not really a problem to be solved as much as it is an issue to be exploited for the likes of Baraq Hussein Obama and Mrs. Clinton and one of them is sure to be elected. Iraq will be about as relevant as the moon landing by then.

I would say Obama seems pretty level headed on this. He has attacked the other Den candidates for voting for the war because he has the luxury of not having to have made that vote. He hasn't been beligerent about it though and it clearly is just a poltiical tool at this point. When you look at his plans he seems to realize that just because he doesn't agree with the war doesn't mean he can advocate simply washing our hands of it.

I guess by now most of you know which candidate I'm supporting, but before I get to Senator Obama, I think it's important to point out that the Dems are pretty much united on the fact that we need to get out of Iraq within a year or so, and the differences that exist between them are in the details and can be worked out.

That being said, I think Obama and Hillary may disagree on how to approach the middle east in general and, perhaps, on foreign policy for that matter. The latter more than anything is why I favor Obama's plan over the other candidates.

Senator Obama has promised, within the first year of his administration, to reach out to countries such as Iran, Syra, North Korea, China and a few others that he mentioned during last night's debate, bring them to the table and discuss issues that are causing international turmoil and dividing us as nations. He actually gave kudos to both Ronald Reagan and JFK for being pro-active in this regard. I don't think any plan can be sustainable or achieveable, for that matter, until Syria and Iran are involved.

Senator Clinton, on the other hand, bristled at the notion of sitting down with foreign heads so early in her administration for reasons she cited as political "propoganda." That's certainly her prerogative, but I think the problem is much bigger and complex than simply getting our troops out of Iraq.

Well i am for obama too but in that question clinton came off as way more experienced than obama did. She said that she would have to have someone look into the meetings so they would be on her terms basically.

On a semi-side note. One thing I've heard rumors of is that Hillary, if elected, would make Bill Secretary of State. Say what you will about Clinton, personally I thought he was an excellent president. Bill Clinton as Sec. of State would do wonders from our currently destroyed foreign relations.

Well i am for obama too but in that question clinton came off as way more experienced than obama did. She said that she would have to have someone look into the meetings so they would be on her terms basically.

So she dodged the question then? I think the problem that I have with a lot of the Dems is that they all seem so indignant that Iraq has become such an unpopular war, after they voted for it in the first place. The only viable candidate who didn't is Obama and he also seems like he has the most levelheaded approach to the U.S.'s withdraw from Iraq.

Hillary says she won't apologize for voting for the war and I don't think she should. That's the right move, otherwise, she's just going to look soft. The problem I have, though, is that I don't like her plan of setting a date ahead of the bipartisan Iraq study group's expectations...what was the group assembled for if no one intends to listen to it?

I, personally, don't think we should have gone in in the first place. However, the fact that argument's done because now the troops are there and there's nothing we can do about it. At this point, the best case scenario would probably be some sort of phased withdraw and I think the study group proposed some of the best ideas.

On a semi-side note. One thing I've heard rumors of is that Hillary, if elected, would make Bill Secretary of State. Say what you will about Clinton, personally I thought he was an excellent president. Bill Clinton as Sec. of State would do wonders from our currently destroyed foreign relations.

That's a great point. Also, what I think would be a great move for both of them would be for Obama to join her as the VP. Personally, I favor Obama and will probably not vote for Hillary, however, polls show her having a commanding lead and that does not bode will for Obama. At this point, I think it would beneficial to each side for Obama to be "on deck" as the VP. It would quash all of the "he doesn't have enough experience talk," and if Hillary's (potential) presidency went well, he would probably be heavily favored to win the nomination in 2016.

I've heard she is looking to make him an ambassador of goodwill or something like that. Not a Cabinet position. Cynics say what she really wants is to give him some "made-up" job just to keep him out of Washington. Not unlike when President Lisa Simpson gave Bart some BS job to keep him away from the White House.

Although I stand to the left on most issues, I certainly do not on Iraq for seveal reasons.

#1. The Dems Are Political Cowards When It Comes to Iraq
Aside from Kucinich, I think the Democratic candidates are cowards.
They do not want to push for "victory" (if victory is indeed even possible) because the public would oppose continuing the surge. They do not want to withdraw immediately, because that would lend credence to the perception that Democrats are wusses. Instead, they opt for plans that leave our troops out to die for a cause that the candidates themselves have all but abandoned. I disagree with Kucinich, but at least I respect him for having political courage.

#2. The Dems Reasons For Leaving Iraq Are Ironic
I often hear the Democratic candidates saying, "our troops should not be involved in Iraq's sectarian civil strife," or "our troops have done their job, but the Iraqis have not, and it is time to withdraw our troops from Iraq's civil war." These very same candidates argue that we need to get involved in Darfur, are likely glad that we intervened in Kosovo and Bosnia, and probably wish that we had gotten involved in Rwanda. On that count, the Dem candidates are full of it, dumb, or both.

Until I hear a decent plan from someone else, I will continue to support McCain or Rudy when it comes to Iraq.