One humorous aspect of the current presidential campaign is that critics of Bush who have become critics of McCain have run into difficulties in keeping their stories straight.

For instance, critics of Bush (rightly) point out that Bush badly bungled an occupation and created an insurgency of a scope through mismanagedment. In other words, a competent execution of the post-War would have created conditions in Iraq far better than they are now.

However, now that some are pivoting to criticize McCain, they have to imagine that Bush’s handling of Phase IV operations in Iraq was normal, and that the problems we’ve had in Iraq over the past few years were to be expected.

Clearly, one of these criticisms can easily be true. It’s harder to imagine how thye are both are right.

I mention this in response to your coment. Obviously the decision to go to war in Iraq was well defended by asserting that the Iraq War would be quick, decisively, and relatively painless. Indeed, it was. Unfortunately, Bush so mismanaged the occupation that a full-fledged COIN approach needed to be developed, at tremendous cost, to put down an insurgency that never had to rise in the first place.

Insurgencies are not easy. Unfortunately, we had to fight one because of a series of terrible mistakes at the beginning of Phase IV operations in Iraq.

Your paragraph beginning You are trying to imagine a cognitive framework and decision-making process that occurred somewhere in the depths of McCain’s mind during this process is odd. You argue that McCain’s words show that he was flip-flopping if we first imagine he did not know what he was talking about. If we grant that he has experience in national security, however, there is no contradiction.

All you have done so far is note that he believes that short wars (penetration, isolation, and subdue in the PISRR stages of victory) are easier for the U.S. than long wars (the reorientation and reharmonization stages)… it’s certainly good that McCain recognizes this, but it’s hardly a contradiction!

I am not and have not noted his beliefs whatsoever, but only his words.

Furthermore, his words were delivered as PR (for the general public) and were made in the context of the decision to go to war in Iraq.

First he strongly asserted his certainty that it would be a quick victory, fairly easy, in the context of deciding to go to war in Iraq and particularly in a discussion of the then-upcoming vote to authorize the President to do so; years later, he says that those who thought the war would be easy didn’t know what they were voting for and laments that the public was misled into thinking it would be easy.

You are trying to imagine a cognitive framework and decision-making process that occurred somewhere in the depths of McCain’s mind during this process. If you are correct, then he is either schizophrenic (talking about going to war in Iraq but only meaning taking down Saddam) or he purposely misled the public (knowing from the beginning that the effort in Iraq would be long and hard but asserting, in context of the decision to go into Iraq, that victory would come swift and fairly easily.)

Another alternative is this: that he imagined a quick victory, i.e. the toppling of Saddam as “mission accomplished”, without once considering the long and tough occupation of Iraq after that quick “victory”, when he voted for the Iraq war. This alone would not be a positive statement on the leadership ability he asserts he’d have as Commander in Chief. What makes it worse is the fact that under this interpretation of his flip-flopping, his later statements that he knew when voting for the Iraq war that it would a very hard military operation would be an outright lie he’s telling now to make himself appear a better leader than he ever was.

calling one form of citation better than the other when the information is identical is an argument over mode rather than substance.

It’s the difference between a presentation of an original work and a derivative work. It’s like if you challenged me on whether or not Obama approvingly describe Wright’s “white people’s greed runs a world in need” speech. I could cite some derived work, like my own blog post [1]. But it’d be more useful to you if you were skeptical to give a page number from The Audacity of Hope.

I’m still waiting for an indication of what the supposed contradiction by McCain is. All you have done so far is note that he believes that short wars (penetration, isolation, and subdue in the PISRR stages of victory) are easier for the U.S. than long wars (the reorientation and reharmonization stages)… it’s certainly good that McCain recognizes this, but it’s hardly a contradiction!

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/03/30/white-folks-greed-runs-a-world-in-need.html

The video you presented is heavily edited and substantively worthless.

Factually untrue vis-a-vis the flip-flopping on Iraq. The transcripts back up what the video showed; in fact, two of the transcripts in particular are exactly the same info, the same words, which appear in the video; and calling one form of citation better than the other when the information is identical is an argument over mode rather than substance. For one who throws the word “substantive” about as a rhetorical ploy, you’d have better luck understanding the term before you type it.

How is that bizarre, given the fact that you linked the videos as “Iraqi gotchas” or did you merely link them without bothering to view them?

Curtis,

I really don’t believe you are this dense.

If I made a claim, such as “William Lind believes that 3GW never actually occured, but was a potential generation of war,” and linked only to a well-edited video of Lind put out by critics, you’d be suspicious. If, upon asking for a citation, I replied with, ”It’s there in his own words, his own face, his own voice, his own PR moment,” you’d conclude that I wasn’t seriously in the discussion, or else did not have a proper citation to give.

Recall that you have posted a video as some kind of proof yourself.

This conversation would be more productive if you didn’t misrepresent my views. The statements on the video are true: they are the correct conclusions. Support, what you term “some kind of proof,” comes from Obama’s wrong positions on the Iraq War, free trade, and so on. [1]

– the difference being, that you link a video of others’ opinions on Obama, whereas I linked a video showing McCain in action himself.

Certainly neither are evidence. The video I linked to shows important allies agreeing with my conclusions about Obama, though for different reason. The video you presented is heavily edited and substantively worthless.

Your attempts to play dumb, i.e. your demands for citation etc., are disingenuous at best, or at worst a conscious effort to mislead.

The only “playing dumb” here is your bizarre attempts to demonstrate what you have not done yet. You’ve attempted to use laughable forms of evidence; a heavily edited youtube video, a citation to McCain in general, and only recently bothered to present the quotes in context. I appreciate that you have now done so, though it is bothering that you still have not supported your initial claims.

is extremely disingenuous. ADemanding “support” for “such a universal claim” right after saying my comment about the frequent demands from you is “weird”? Come now Dan. I know you are not stupid, so intellectual dishonesty seems the most likely explanation for your rhetoric.

You are being “disingenuous.” You made a very strange claim (I have called everything you write specisious), and now you criticize me for asking for support for a different claim (I frequently demand…).

If you want to talk imprecisely and vaguely in favor of your candidate of choice, I’m sure DailyKos and FreeRepublic are great sites. I try to understand what is going on, so I prefer specifics.

Aaron,

Interesting comment. I think I agree that a lot of support for Obama is faith in the unseen. I’ve heard the “Barack Obama is the Messiah” chatter [2], but I think your post is the first I’ve read by an Obama supporters that defends his supporters as driven by faith!

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/06/05/good-politicians-ii.html#comment-82045
[2] http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/

your bizarre citation (”It’s there in his own words, his own face, his own voice, his own PR moment.”)

How is that bizarre, given the fact that you linked the videos as “Iraqi gotchas” or did you merely link them without bothering to view them? I would not be altogether surprised, although I’ll admit that I believed you had viewed them, especially given the fact that you have characterized them as you have. Your linking and characterization point toward a familiarity with my meaning in what you are calling a bizarre citation, which would mean that it’s not at all that bizarre:

Strikingly unconventional and far-fetched in style or appearance; odd. [ask.com]

Recall that you have posted a video as some kind of proof yourself. [1]

– the difference being, that you link a video of others’ opinions on Obama, whereas I linked a video showing McCain in action himself.

While I understand that others reading this post, who have not followed the conversation, may be misled by your accusations, I know that you, unless you are extremely forgetful (not my experience of you yet), know full well the context of this back-and-forth on McCain/Obama, including the sentence you are calling specious. Your attempts to play dumb, i.e. your demands for citation etc., are disingenuous at best, or at worst a conscious effort to mislead.

I.e.,

If you feel you can support your most recent weird assertion (”your attempts to call anything I write, without including lengthy citations, specious.”) feel free to do so. I assume you know how to support such a universal claim

is extremely disingenuous. Are you kidding? Demanding “support” for “such a universal claim” right after saying my comment about the frequent demands from you is “weird”? Come now Dan. I know you are not stupid, so intellectual dishonesty seems the most likely explanation for your rhetoric.

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/06/05/good-politicians-ii.html

If you feel you can support your most recent weird assertion (“your attempts to call anything I write, without including lengthy citations, specious.”) feel free to do so. I assume you know how to support such a universal claim (either document every one, or demonstrate that the reverse is impossible).

Regarding McCain…

No, spinning the context of McCain’s comment to reflect present understandings of the war in Iraq, as you have done, is dangerous.

The first cited source, in which McCain discusses the coming of the Iraq war (9-12-2002), and how quick and easy it will be — “I am very certain that this military engagement will not be very difficult.” — occurs in the context of going to war in Iraq and the upcoming vote to allow GWB to do so.

Later, McCain says he always knew it would be difficult and those who voted for the Iraq war who thought it would be easy simply didn’t know what they were voting for.

So what was McCain voting for? Merely the overthrow of Saddam (with no thought about the occupation, which would be a very negative statement on McCain’s ability to lead the nation) or the entire “military engagement” that wouldn’t be very difficult?

The 2003 war authorized the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and its replacement by a new government. Because of the Bush administration’s poor implementation of Phase IV operations in Iraq, a largely new enemy appeared (al Qaeda in Iraq) as part of new situations on the ground (sectarian fighting). The strength of the new enemy and the new sectarian situation was not a natural consequence of the war, but rather a consequence of Rumsfeld’s occupation strategy (a strategy McCain loudly criticized).

The question of the proper chain of authorization for handling insurgencies after “lost years” is doubtless fascinating to Constituaional scholars, but has little relevence to the present situation.

The question relevent for analysis of politicians is whether they supported the correct policies at the correct times. Bush correctly supported the Iraq War, but then championed Rumsfeld’s incorrect Phase IV policies, and finally correctly implemented the Surge. Obama incorrectely opposed the Iraq War, (I don’t know his position on Rumsfeld), and most recently opposed the Surge. McCain supported the Iraq War, opposed Rumsfeld’s policies, and supported the Surge. Thus, McCain is better when it comes to Iraq than either Bush or Obama.

(As I criticized Rumsfeld’s policies from the wrong direction, McCain is also better than me.)

I don’t know what Soob thread you are referring to, by the way. If it’s this one [1] your criticism doesn’t fit the discussion, but I do notice you ducked answering the question:
How low must we set the bar to see any accomplishments for Barack Obama when it comes to foreign policy?

Confounding them, as your criticism of McCain seems to do, leads to trouble.

No, spinning the context of McCain’s comment to reflect present understandings of the war in Iraq, as you have done, is dangerous.

The first cited source, in which McCain discusses the coming of the Iraq war (9-12-2002), and how quick and easy it will be — “I am very certain that this military engagement will not be very difficult.” — occurs in the context of going to war in Iraq and the upcoming vote to allow GWB to do so.

Later, McCain says he always knew it would be difficult and those who voted for the Iraq war who thought it would be easy simply didn’t know what they were voting for.

So what was McCain voting for? Merely the overthrow of Saddam (with no thought about the occupation, which would be a very negative statement on McCain’s ability to lead the nation) or the entire “military engagement” that wouldn’t be very difficult?

The reference to your self-citation method is in direct response to your attempts to call anything I write, without including lengthy citations, specious. For instance I left a comment at Soob’s blog — a comment! — with couple links, and you derided the fact that I didn’t…what, write a thesis paper? Too few citations? etc. But look at your opinion pieces: that was my meaning.