I apologize if this seems a bit round-about as far as the subject goes.  There just seems to be a lot of little "tidbits" of info that people are missing out on, and this is my addressing it.


Obama no longer believes in pulling troops totally out of Iraq (seriously).  He was quoted to saying we should leave "shock troops" in the area, though what those exactly are and how many of them there should be is slightly open.  His chief Iraq consultant (i.e. the guy who tells him what to say about the Iraq conflict) has said they're looking at between 60k-80k.

Hilary has already been along this stance this for quite some time.

Anti-war idealists might want to investigate these stances, just as an fyi.  Remember, "slowly withdrawing troops" in Iraq means they won't actually change anything (since it's already happening).




 Despite Hilary's devout anti-NAFTA stances for her campaign so far, she's actually broken away from her party's stance and sent in her lead campaign official to Columbia to work out the free trade agreement going on there.

The Columbia free trade proposal makes a lot of sense as far as our international politics goes, and a lot of good benefits to American citizens, fyi.  Columbia goods already come to the US tariff free, this just allows us to sell our good to their 40 million citizens tariff free as well. Read up about it.



Mccain doesn't seem to mind Obama's comments about him wanting troops in Iraq for the next 100 years.  Obama's original comments along these lines as accusation were later dropped, once reality had been pointed out.  We have, after all, had troops stationed in Germany and Japan for 60 years now.  Is it really that hard to believe we'll keep some in Iraq as well?  My hope is that Obama will familiarize himself a bit more thoroughly with our military deployment and history if he ever gets elected.




Iraq - Some numbers for nay-sayers.  The surge worked, it's impossible to deny reality.  95% crime rate decrease since the start of the surge in early 2007.  The Iraq government forces actually have a good amount of strength now, and have shown that they can field good numbers of units and supplies on short notice.  You might recall some press screaming "civil war in Iraq" a month or so ago.  What actually happened was the Iraqi government forces went and beat the tar out of a large number of insurgents, with minimal US troop involvement.   Amazing how people were calling out for the government to stand up and start taking care of itself, and when it does so they call it anarchy and civil war.

Are they completely independent and ready to be cut loose?  Unfortunately, no.  There's still a lot of work to be done, and the government there needs our help to do it. Fortunately, they are doing it, and making steady progress.

The complaints by anti-war advocates have even had to address reality.  They can no longer lie to themselves and say that our loss in the area has already occurred.  It's no longer an argument over how Iraq will turn out, just how much we will invest into it.  Remember, it isn't what's best for the American people, our troops, or the Iraqi people that's important.  It's what sounds good in a speech and makes people flock to your banner.



Troops themselves -  Morale questions...ha.  In w007, all branches of the service completed their recruitment and re-recruitment goals for the entire year.  These are servicemen who are proud of their work, and want to continue it.  I personally know numerous people in the service, all of whom have actively volunteered for extra tours and duty abroad.  The idea that our military is compromised of poor victims who just want to come home is really nothing more than baseless propaganda.

As mentioned above, though, troops are withdrawing from Iraq.  The "bring them home" chanters might have thought this was a victory for them, but it's always planned like this.  Once the surge hit it's peak, and conditions improved in Iraq, fewer troops were needed.  In fact, by July 2008 ALL the extra troops in Iraq, from the surge, will have returned. 


Political response from Petraeus  - As expected, this has never been happily received by anti-war politicians, most notably the Democratic candidates. Don't forget, it was only a year ago when they were screaming of the dismal conditions and failure we'd had there. 6 months ago, Hilary basically called Patraeus an outright liar about the improvements which had happened, despite all reality.

Remember, these candidates made one of their top stances to be about the colossal failure of the war in Iraq.  With it's obvious success, troops withdrawing as promised, and the Iraq gov't taking strides towards self-sufficiency, they're hard pressed to even talk on the issue.  I'm still waiting to see what they have to say aside from "the cost is too high."  Some more thorough justification for that argument, as well as some actual points to make would be nice.

I'd also love to see some comments and addressing of Iran.  They're still openly sending in supplies and people to attack US troops, at some point they need to be dealt with.  Somehow I don't think a "surge in negotiations" will convince them to stop.

There were a lot of stupid comments made in the Senate during Petraeus' session, yesterday.  I laughed pretty hard listening to Kennedy stumble along, and thought it was the height of ignorant elitism when Rockefeller claimed Mccain didn't care about US troops and was sheltered.  Last I checked, Mccain was the one who served, was shot down twice, and was a POW.  Rockefeller's closest experience to combat has probably been the Senate lunch area.