Sunday, July 20, 2008
Note on casualties
Make of it what you will, but only five Americans have been killed in action in Iraq in the 24 days since June 26. More than four months ago, I wondered what the reaction of the Obama campaign would be if the last American KIA were in, say, July 2008. Suddenly, that looks possible.
10 Comments:
By 
, at
Sun Jul 20, 01:27:00 PM:
The better question is what will John McCain say? How do you keep the majority of troops in Iraq when Maliki supports Obama's timetable AND Petraeus announces that Al Qaida's focus has shifted to Afghanistan!?
By 
Steve M. Galbraith, at
Sun Jul 20, 02:24:00 PM:
Tress asks a good question (although Maliki is trying to revise and extend his remarks, if you will).
I think most Americans - certainly those who will decide the election - are less concerned about what Obama (or McCain) said or advocated two years ago and are more interested in what they say and advocate today for tomorrow.
Success in Iraq only makes Obama's approach today more appealing than McCain's stay-the-course plan (broadly speaking).
By Ray, at
Sun Jul 20, 03:41:00 PM:
Don't get too optimistic. Iran has yet to spring their fall surprise. The notion that the mullahs of Qom will not try to influence this election would require a leap of faith powered by a howitzer, and so far we haven't seen squat from them as their militias are torn apart, even as their coffers fill with money from inflated oil prices.
By Steve M. Galbraith, at
Sun Jul 20, 03:57:00 PM:
The notion that the mullahs of Qom will not try to influence this election would require a leap of faith powered by a howitzer
But who does a newly-inflamed Iraq help the most?
If the CW is correct in that Obama is viewed more favorably by their leadership, it seems to me that the mullahs would want Iraq to be on the back pages and not the front.
Besides, I think the ability of the Iranians to foment trouble in Iraq is diminishing daily. Iraqi nationalism is slowly trumping sectarianism.
Wish may be father to the thought, admittedly.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun Jul 20, 04:28:00 PM:
How do you keep the majority of troops in Iraq when Maliki supports Obama's timetable AND Petraeus announces that Al Qaida's focus has shifted to Afghanistan!?
Never looked at a topographical map of Afghanistan did you? Do so. Then get back and tell me precisely what sort of logistical system you will implement to support an additional 100K troops over there.
By Larry Sheldon, at
Sun Jul 20, 04:47:00 PM:
"The better question is what will John McCain say? How do you keep the majority of troops in Iraq when Maliki supports Obama's timetable AND Petraeus announces that Al Qaida's focus has shifted to Afghanistan!?"
Seems like the plan that is working could be continued: Commander-in-Chief describe what the objectives are, C-in-C provide the wherewithal to get the job done, get out of the way so the people in charge can get the job done.
By Steve M. Galbraith, at
Sun Jul 20, 05:12:00 PM:
Then get back and tell me precisely what sort of logistical system you will implement to support an additional 100K troops over there.
Okay, but who was proposing transferring 100,000 troops from Iraq to Afghanistan?
It seems to me, irony of ironies, that Rumsfeld was right about Afghanistan (small bootprint) and wrong about Iraq, or a post-Saddam Iraq (large bootprint).
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun Jul 20, 09:08:00 PM:
but who was proposing transferring 100,000 troops from Iraq to Afghanistan?
I pulled that number out of my ass for illustration. Obama however wants to focus on Afghanistan, which implies a major build up of some sort. Suppose its only another 20,000? My question still holds. How do you support them? Armored units in Afghanistan are going to be pretty much dinosaurs anywhere other than the plain around Kabul.
The left doesn't understand that Afghanistan is a fundamentally different battle space and logistical problem than Iraq. Iraq is dramatically easier logistically.
By , at
Sun Jul 20, 10:05:00 PM:
PA, McCain has done an about face and is now saying too that we have to send more troops to Afghanistan, so I'm not sure you can make this a "the left doesn't understand" issue. Unless of course, you're willing to concede that McCain doesn't understand:)
By Steve M. Galbraith, at
Sun Jul 20, 10:15:00 PM:
McCain has done an about face and is now saying too that we have to send more troops to Afghanistan
When has McCain said he opposed sending more troops to Afghanistan?
There's a link to a Foreign Affairs piece but nothing in it has McCain opposing sending more troops there. The only reference has his calling for NATO to send more troops.
But nothing about opposing extra US troops?
Or did I miss it?
