Obama, McCain clash on Iraq strategy

A precipitous withdrawal without contingencies is not a strategy to win in Iraq. What coalition force in Afghanistan is going to trust you if you pull out of Iraq? Is Obama going to use aggressive principled diplomacy with Pakistan like he plans for Iran? It seems that his foreign policy is to run out of Iraq, and talk his way out of Afghanistan and Iran. That may have worked with Vietnam but oil wasn't $4.00 a gallon based on a fear market dominated by the Middle East.

Obama seems to turning out to be a daily flip flop. What his position last week is different from a few months ago. What he positions himself on today will be different tomorrow. First, Obama has opposed ever opportunity to stop the war, leading to defeat for our US Military, and our character around the world. The terrorists could then call it a win, continuing to go in and destroy Israel, then to spread other terror around the world. Just ask Obama to provide American consumers with relief and vote for more oil for lower prices. Obama changes his political position as often as he changes his underwear.

“I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.” -John McCain “What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.” – Barack Obama What I find disturbing about the major candidate’ positions on the war is that neither of them articulate a principle or belief system in which their stance on the war is based. John McCain seems to lie out a mission statement above, but it were our mission to create “stable, Secure, and self-sustaining democratic allies,” we’d be at this task for eternity. It wouldn’t be too much of stretch to describe his mission as the development or expanse of an empire. Obama on the other hand opposes the war, but he only opposes the original intent of the war, calling it “dumb” and “rash.” It was dumb and rash because “Saddam posed (sic) no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors.” Certainly this is an easily justifiable position, but has no bearing on the current situation in Iraq. The war has been fought and continues today, but saying it was dumb or rash in the first place isn’t a justification for bringing the troops home tomorrow. What principle does he employ as a justification for withdrawal? If either candidate had a foundation based on principles then their positions would be consistent and unwavering. I’d suggest reading the writings of our founders and the mission statements of the branches of our armed forces as a first step. A simple declaration of war required by the Constitution that defined our objectives would have prevented the extended duration of the conflict. Also an understanding of the mission of our armed forces (to protect and defend this country not to police nations or to facilitate the creation of democracies in other countries) would have shortened the duration of this conflict considerably. Whether or not you agree that the Iraq conflict was a good idea or not, the conflict was won (and should have been ended) when George Bush declared “Mission Accomplished!” on that aircraft carrier. The threat (if there ever was one) was eliminated by our armed forces and they should have been sent home to a victorious welcome. This administration took that away from them in their desire to expand the American Empire.

I can't believe these two candidates are this dumb. All a candidate has to do is say "the war was won when we removed Saddam and his government from power......the current administration took the honor away from the troops by failing to declare victory and by continuing to expose them to many more years of policing a nation which is not their responsibility. I will honor them and I am prepared to bring the troops home immediately as victors. My administration will fight to provide the best care our country can provide so that the service of our veterans is never fogotten."