JOHN McCAIN: No artificial timetables

Obama is way outta his league on this as well as most other issues. Of course he doesn't want to hear commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, he primarily has to listen to the MoveOn.org crowd that he is beholden to.

Unfortunately, no matter how one mangles the numbers there hasn't been any troop withdrawal, or maybe to use Sen. McCain's technique "withdrawal", since the surge (http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN25602446). We still, and will have, 10,000 more troops in Iraq than pre-surge. Sen McCain's reference to "surge" brigades is a matter of counting the brigades that showed up...and then those exact brigades leaving. There has been backfill so our troop level is somewhere, and will remain, somewhere near an additional 10,000. I have to say that Sen McCain was absolutely correct in his support of the surge but he needs to be careful of flippant commentary and reporting. Also, what air cover does an Iraqi Army need inside it's own country? I spent 20 years in the Air Force (ret. 2006) and there's no need for an air cover requirement for counter-insurgency operations; at least not in the FEBA-type definition that Sen McCain is using as a fully resolved military. I think he should forego the " " usage and try to convince us with something more hard hitting that calling a fact finding mission to Iraq - by anyone, himself included - as a "fact finding" mission.

Can somebody PLEASE tell me what victory is in Iraq?? Reconstruction certainly hasn't been a goal; the Bush administration is more interested in forking over dollars hand over fist to their contractor buddies as opposed to actual, REAL rebuilding. We did not come to Iraq to vanquish the 9/11 perps - Al Qaeda wasn't there before we got there, and even when they did come it was only an offshoot of the bigger operation back in Afghanistan. And they're STILL in Afghanistan, even stronger now. Victory for me means capturing Osama and his buddies and bringing them to justice - am I alone or what? I think that victory, for McCain and his other "war first, talk later" corporate oil sell-outs, simply means that we have a permanent presence in the Iraqi oil fields. Period. Maliki was very clear; he and his constituents want us out asap, and 16 months sounds good to him. McCain was also very clear in saying that if the Iraqis want us out we would have no choice but to leave. So what's the problem? Please - before you rebut this comment, state WHAT VICTORY MEANS TO YOU IN IRAQ.

Definition: Victory in Iraq is when we can leave, and not have it revert to a lawless territory. It took DECADES to get Europe (Germany in particular) to that condition after WW II. Does anyone remember the Marshall Plan? The American people, short-sighted (and mis-informed as they are by their untrusted "media") are too interested in a "quick fix". This is a generation long war, and Iraq is only one theater in it. Our opponents are fighting a war that (in their minds) started with the Crusades. Bush himself said it in his State of the Union address in 2002. Capturing Osama Bin Laden himself doesn't really matter (though it would be nice). It's dealing with that large minority of Muslims who agree with (and admire) him that does matter. The problem is: what would we do with him? Gitmo? Federal court for 15 years and 100 lawyers? If we execute him, we only make him a martyr. All the arguments about how/why we got into Iraq are now meaningless. The only important thing is what condition we leave the country in when we do withdraw. If we leave it vulnerable to the terrorists, we'll only have to go back in later, at much greater expense in dollars and casualties. Better to continue until it's done now, rather than do it over later. At least McCain is (relatively) consistent. He does change positions, but usually only when he either has better information, or the conditions upon which his previous position was based depended change. He also admits that he's changed positions, and give his rationale for the change. Obama orates his position de jour, depending upon his audience. He does, however, almost always revert to the "moveon.org" supported stance in the end. He also denies that he ever changes positions, when anyone who actually listens to his statements can tell that he's all over the place. I simply do not trust Obama to do anything that is not either: Left Wing Liberal, or Politically Expedient.

I agree that we screwed up Iraq big time and it would be wrong to leave them hanging, but the policy has got to change. This is no longer a war, but an occupation. You don't win an occupation; the occupier will always be fighting against insurgents - if we were occupied wouldn't you be fighting them? We weren't fighting insurgents in Germany, because we were there with the world behind us and I think most Germans wanted us there. Obama's right for wanting to change the strategy from "winning" some kind of phony war to accepting the fact that we are occupying a sovereign country; let's get out of there then work diplomatically with our allies to go back in TOGETHER, rebuild the country and maintain stability (like we did in Germany). We cannot keep this up alone, and that is a fact. Nice to know that Osama "doesn't matter" anymore??!! What the HECK?! I'll tell you what you do - you hold him and his cohorts accountable, try them and send them to jail for life. This was a criminal act - the "war" on terrorism is just a sham, just like the "war" on drugs. What is the difference between a guy who shoots up a college campus and kills 30 people, and someone who straps on a bomb and does the same thing? Nothing. Frankly, I more afraid of a neighborhood rapist running around than Osama bin Laden - we don't go to "war" against criminals. We capture them, produce evidence, try and convict them. We do this not only for justice, but to keep the rest of us safe. So you think Osama and his band is just kicking back there in Afghanistan/Pakistan? What about all the right-wing panic-mongering about 9-11!!! 9-11!!! We will prevent more terrorist attacks by punishing those responsible. I see the point that the reasons why we went to Iraq are moot; however, we need to know that those reasons were ALL false. That logic was failed logic - yet the "liberal media" continues to seek the opinions of the same jerks that got us into this mess, and even cites those opinions as factual and insightful. If you're still listening to the same incompetent leaders that got us into this mess, and somehow illogically think that suddenly they will find a brilliant solution to a very difficult problem that they caused, then we're never going to resolve anything.