Kotzabasis, you have mistaken what the "surge", and what opposition to the war, and victory and success are in context. For starters, declaring victory for "the surge" is like spilling a gallon of milk and then thumping your chest about cleaning it up. "The surge" was remedial action. At the outset, many who opposed the war in Iraq, like myself, thought that if we were to commit to war, that we should do it in the most recent successful manner demonstrated by the American military, that being the Powell Doctrine. Commitment to the Powell Doctrine would be a strategy. "The Surge" was a tactic. The United States committed itself without a clearly stated goal, insufficient forces, and a false claim of allowing the commanders on the ground priority in decision making. All of these were reversed for "the surge", except of course, the lives, time, and money wasted doing it the absurdly stupid way that we did initially.

Second, it is extremely premature to declare victory based upon conditions in Iraq in the present or near future. I remember first hearing about Iran when I was a teenager in the late 1970's. I remember wondering how or why could those Iranian students be so angry with the U.S., whether it was justifiable or not. It turns out that the roots of that situation go back, at least, to the mid 1950's and the involvement of the U.S. and the U.K. in the politics of Iran. Don't misunderstand me here, this is not about assessing blame. This is merely cause and effect. The Iranian hostage crisis was over 20 years in the making. It would be wise to take a lesson from history and consider that even if the fighting in Iraq were to end soon, in a way that we found favorable, the situation, as it were, is likely to be playing out over decades. Considering that "the surge" was remediation and may cause problems for a president who is now possibly not even old enough to run for anything is utterly premature.

Finally, you refer to character being revealed in crisis. This is an important point to consider also. Rather than Neitzsche, consider Baron Von Munchausen. The issue to which I am referring is Munchausen by Proxy. The condition refers to creating a crisis only so that you can diagnose it and treat it and receive credit. I have referred to this situation as Munchausen by Proxy foreign policy. To create a failed state, then claim credit for calming the crisis is, at best, a net zero gain. One cant get credit for "character revealed" in the crisis or their own creation. The notion is absurd.

His choice of Biden was because he has the experience in area that Obama is not strong in. It is a good choice and shores up his ticket as opposed to McCain choosing someone who actually has little experience. Her state is large but the issues and population is smaller DE our smallest state has more people.
Additionally, she was not exhonorated as she claims. She evidently was not able to read and understand the verdict or what the job of the VP is.

Obama has high enough self esteem that he listens to all fronts and makes weighted decisions. He could have taken the easy road and asked Hillary. McCain only chose Palin because she was a female. Nothing that she actually did in AK had merit of a VP. There were other much more qualified women who could have stepped up to the plate.
By the way, they used to claim Hillary was the pants in Clinton's office. So if you support her the logic is even more faulty by slamming Michelle.
I totally agree with Michelle. At 50 I can honestly say there have been times, many times where I was not proud of my country. People can take that out of context all they want, but facts remained we have and continue to do bad things. We are NOT a perfect nation. Anyone who says they have always been proud are liars. We have lived through wire-taps on our own people, we have tortured in the name of false national security, we have stolen from the poor to make the rich richer and have people running for office that want to put social security in the hands of private industry for them to run it totally into the ground. Keep in mind if we had allowed it a few years ago when the politicians were pushing it most of the money would have been lost in the stock market.
In conclusion, a man who embodies the spirit of his grandmother & mother would have that compassionate instinct that so many men fail to achieve. On top of that compassion and understanding he brings with him an air of authority and a real breath of fresh air, not an artic blast with a smile and a wink.

Thank you, dear Kotzabasis, for your well reasoned analysis. It was a real breath of fresh air. The Obama candidacy would be a joke (who would hire the guy with his resume, breaches of agreement, misjudgments and egotistical refusals to confess error?) were he not so close to winning. However, I share your belief that reason will eventually prevail over romanticism and that we can look forward to a post-graduate presidency.

Obama's stated concern all along was not that the surge would be good or bad in some sort of numeric sense, but that it would not be cost effective. We could win the battle but lose the war. There is no concept of victory in Iraq if it bankrupts the US to make it. The enemy is not Iraq at this point, it's bankruptcy. If we are not solvent, who we shoot at is not relevant. The Soviet Union was beat by its own spending choices. We risk not learning from the lesson we ourselves taught.

Moreover, you say "What Obama proposes to do is to deprive America of this tremendous strategic victory over the extremists of Islam". There are two readings of this text, and they mirror the two readings of this war, with the more likely reading being in both cases that we are at war with Islam. We are not. But it's a too-easy and too-expensive mis-reading. And it is a recruiting tool for them.

You write, "Obama lacks the strength of character to lead". There is no foundation for what you say in what you've written. You simply believe this to be so. And I believe it not. Your remarks about his wife are even more unsupported by anything you've said, so I'll stop there. I just wanted to be on record as finding these conclusions wrong.

It's unlikely each of us will convince the other, I suppose. I guess the reason we vote on Tuesday is that unanimity on this point is unlikely.

Not sure how long you have been retired from TV, but your observations smack of buying into sound bites and talking points. If you were to research the matter thoroughly, you may come away with a different perspective. I lived in Sydney for 2.5 years, so I know about the "probitive" nature of Australian news, which is no less sensationalistic than US news.

Follow the money stream, especially in view of the money disbursed to Iraqies to make the surge "work". You might have a change of opinion about what made the surge appear successful in stemming the tide of casualties for a short period of time.

Finally, launching a pre-emptive war on any nation under a failed premise, then looking in the end for reasons to declare "victory" is a warmonger's perspective on world affairs. History will show that there will be no victory in Iraq, only shame for a war with 90% civilian casualities and no verifiable reason for waging it in the first place.
Perhaps you should watch the movie "W". You will be asked to feel pity for G.W. Bush due to his difficult relationship with his father. Most people have baggage -- it is how a person chooses to deal with his parental issues that matters in the long run.

A morally bankrupt person with daddy issues does not change their stripes when they arrive at the White House on daddy's coat tails.
GW Bush was a failure at just about every enterprise that he has attempted -- how could we have expected a better result from his Presidency?

Wow, this blogger is psychic! He can read the minds of Michelle and Barak! I don't know about that fashion tip, though. All the times I've seen Michelle, she's wearing a lovely dress.

Jokes aside, this liberal agrees that the surge has been effective and even supported it as the only way to go because once you're in, you have to go all the way. But the surge has by no means ended the war, not even close.

Lalucas, your comment is astonishing. You accuse Con George of getting news from sound bytes, but then recommend he see the movie "W." Oh, that's rich. No fiction there at all, lol.

Con George, I agree with many of your observations, but perhaps for different reasons. If George W has a weakness, it is definitely in his failure to effectively communicate with the American people. When one considers the trauma and tragedy this country has faced over the past 8 years, history will no doubt be kind to George--as it should be. He certainly has made mistakes, but what President hasn't. If you look closely at the behind the scenes relationships Bush has with Italy, France and Germany, there are some well respected world leaders that think highly of him, regardless what our media would have us believe. I so look forward to the perfect Presidency that Mr. Obama will give us, lol ;-)

Kotzabasis, the first thing that strikes me as I read your blog is your clarity of thought and your ability to write. It never ceases to astonish me when I encounter a person who otherwise appears intelligent and yet uses such infantile and shallow arguments to make a point that has no justification aside from an ideological point of view.

After eight years of the W.Bush administration we have:
1 - The financial calamity brought forth by a war fought on credit and a continual record deficits.
2 – The abrogation of our identity as a freedom standard bearer to a nation identified with torture, our own "little Gulag" in Guantanamo and lack of due process.
3 – A polarization of the classes with the wealthiest reaping huge profits while the middle class is withering and poverty blooms.
4 – A war based on lies and deception that has cost us untold treasure, strengthened our enemies, weakened our standing abroad and caused massive destruction, mutilation and death.
5 – A sense of divisiveness, fear and hatred within our own borders caused by a government that accused anyone that disagreed with its policies as unpatriotic or un-American
6 – The near collapse of our financial system through deregulation and “free market” policies that left the American consumer as well as investors unprotected.
7 – The use of retrograde religious or political litmus tests instead of scientific research.
8 – The extreme politization of the judiciary caused by the purge of judges who would not bend to political pressures.
9 – Wholesale cronyism and corruption in the awarding of government contracts. There is more but I will leave it there for now.

Note that quite a few members of the "conservative intelligencia" agree with this diagnosis.

Your argument for the surge sounds like the guy who after he burned down his house exclaims that the yard is in pretty good shape because he “just mowed it and trimmed the bushes” – Hey my friend, the house is still burned down and it was not a good idea to light fire to it – of course whoever comes after W will have to try and make sense of all this madness.

Your arguments are so steeped in partisan gobbledygook that I would prefer not even touch them - however since you took the time to write them down, I will do so:

You state that “The virtue lies in swiftly correcting these mistakes. And this is exactly what Bush did when he adopted and implemented the Surge turning a losing war into a potentially victorious one” Swiftly? How was this swift, this war has been going on longer than WWII.

You say that “the establishment of democracy in Iraq, and hence justifying fully the Bush Doctrine of democratizing the Middle East as a preventive cure for terrorism.” Democracy does not come by force; it comes from a people’s rejection of dictatorship. It most certainly does not come from an administration that holds the making of profits as the highest and best value in a Nation. This ideology promotes the worship of money and nothing good can come of it. Review your history lessons.

I can see that you do not “get” the fact that all human beings seek the same basic things and are worthy of respect.

Then you continue: “But history, which has no taste either for bitterness or sweetness, will give the final verdict on Bush. And dare I say it will be a favourable one.” I dare say that history will judge this administration on its merits which at this juncture are practically non exsistent and meager at best.

Then this comment:“Bigotry, irrational religious beliefs, and ignorance—like poverty—up to the present inflict even the best and most affluent societies.” This may be so, however this administration has not been plagued by these problems – it has promoted, abetted, and increased them. McCain / Palin have gone beyond and used these elements to try to win the election.

Then you continue with:“And do you really believe that Obama has his “feet on the ground,” when he says that once America starts implementing its own values it will turn the present hate of the world for America into love, into a global loving circle of holding hands, including perhaps the fanatical jihadists?” While there is absolutely nothing wrong about upholding America's traditional values, I frankly do not understand what you find objectionable to them. When you add the stuff about lovey dovey terrorists, frankly I do not know where you dug this idea up. I do know that it was nowhere in any of Obama’s proposals, speeches or policy positions. No this bunch of crap comes straight from listening to ditto – head radio and the bigoted slime that spews from there. Please in the future try to be a little bit more original.

The rest of your absurd commentary is so foolish and infantile that it deserves to be left alone. We will just allow the flies and the maggots to do their work on that small piece of corner store psychobabble.

In closing, since you “appear” to have a working intellect, I am wondering if after you take off your ditto-head helmet and blinders you can answer this one question:

“What are you pretending not to know”?

Please let the question sink in before you answer, then you might begin to consider the values that this country held before the Bush / Cheney debacle and you might begin to understand just how far we have strayed from our path.

Lest anyone lack evidence of Obama's lack of character, may we remind readers of his total breach of contract on the public funding issue. That's a bald fact, not a matter which can be spun by left-leaning pundits. Also, I don't believe you can be called a person of character when every move is grounded in an elaborate sense of self-regard. Just like many of his Hollywood pals, Obama has come to believe his own publicity. Stating that a state has earned his respect by supporting him, kicking off his campaign plane significant journalists who just happen to endorse McCain and granting seats to race-oriented mags are just the latest barometric indications of what we can expect from an Obama presidency. As we said in the Scouts: Be Prepared. The silver lining is that Obama will, as he always has, do what he's told by such characterless titans of power as Pelosi, Reid, and Frank. How's that for a post-Halloween scare?
BTW, some article here stated that Michelle Obama should not be criticized for her "proud" remark because all of us have occasionally found things about our country about which we're not proud. Talk about left-leaning meanings. MO said nothing of the sort, but rather, by clear negative implication, that she'd never been proud of her country until it endorsed her husband. That is totally consistent with Obama's own recent statement. Whatever that may mean for family unity, it bodes ill for an electorate that deserves a more passionate , demonstrated commitment to the United States of America as a whole, not just to one of its minorities.

Bill Beck,
“Remedial action” in the context of war is not an end in itself but with a purpose of leading to victory, as it’s in the present case in Iraq with the “tactic’ of the surge, providing the U.S. leadership does not abandon its intelligent resolution and determination to win the war.
The U.S. and U.K. politics of Iran you have to consider them within the context of the great confrontation between the two superpowers of the Cold War. At the level of strategic priorities Anglo-American politics that led to the “Iranian hostage crisis”, as you say, was minor to the major successful goal of preventing the Soviet Union from dominating the region, which you seem not to consider as being geopolitically at the time the paramount issue.
Lastly, why divert the issue of character as adumbrated by Nietzsche, to an unproved situation of political manipulation which you call the “Munchausen by proxy”? Isn’t such a diversion rather absurd?

Lori HB,

America remains the best of all possible ‘perfections’ in an imperfect world. That is why people from all over the world are voting for America with their feet.

Gordon O,

Good to see a kindred spirit when one is ‘besieged’ with anti-Bush warriors in this Salon.

Kent Pitman,

Indeed, we should be learning our own lessons. And I agree entirely with you that we cannot talk of, or achieve, victory on bankrupt foundations, either economic or political. But one must acknowledge that the incubus of economic bankruptcy that threatens America is the ‘monster child’ that has been sired by Democratic administrations in their act of social engineering. Roosevelt and Carter were the fathers of Fannie Mae and the Community Reinvestment Act respectively, the latter resurrected by Clinton. And Obama as community organizer was threatening banks with prosecution if the latter did not offer cheap loans to his non-credit-worthy constituents.

The most effective recruiting tool would have been to withdraw from Iraq prematurely. And Iraq illustrates at its best this proposition. Because the insurgents have been defeated in the field of battle they presently face a dearth of recruits and therefore are using women and children in their suicidal missions.

If he had strength of character he would have gone against the stream in regards to the war, as McCain did at a high cost of popularity. Instead he chose to ride on the imprudent emotional wave of the anti-war movement. And it’s a fact that he was considering Clinton as his vice...but Michelle was against it and he unwisely and cravenly yielded to her wishes which might cost him the election to the presidency. Also, what Gordon O says about the “public funding issue.” I’m sure that you would agree that these are not traits of strength.

lalucas,

Your “failed premise” rests on the backside of hindsight. At the time of 9/11 it was a premise of a real impending threat.
Certainly we all carry our own “baggage”. But it’s a matter of character how one “chooses to deal with one’s parental issues.”

You can accuse Bush of some failings—perfection is not a gift easily granted by nature—including drunkenness which he had the strength to overcome. But G.W. Bush was not daddy’s boy in the White House. Woodward in his book makes it quite clear, by implication in some cases and more directly in others, that Bush made his hard decisions with the characteristics of strength.

Max Quillen,
Thank you for your gracious intervention and your exposure of intellectually meretricious arguments.

Francisco Patino, a reply is on its way.

Thanks for the welcome, Kotzabasis. As I am surrounded in life mostly by young teachers and theatre types, I have become accustomed to the deafening sound of one hand, the left one of course, clapping. I blog on Salon to interject a slight counterbalance to the prevasive collectivist back slapping. Also I find the level of discourse on Salon to be predominantly literate and civil. Finally, I think the Salon site is well managed from a technical, if not editorial (wink), standpoint. E-meeting another writer who treasures traditional conservative principles is the cherry on the sundae.

Here's how Wikipedia describes the surge, in the first paragraph:

The President described the overall objective as establishing a "...unified, democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself, and is an ally in the War on Terror."[3] The major element of the strategy was a change in focus for the US military "to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security".[2] The President stated that the surge would then provide the time and conditions conducive to reconciliation among political and ethnic factions.[3]

Has the surge met the overall objective that President Bush identified? Anyone who argues that the surge "was successfully implemented and carried out" should say where the new "unified, democratic federal Iraq" is hiding, and why our forces are still there, if Iraq "can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself, and is an ally in the War on Terror". Your disagreement is not with those opposed to the war in Iraq, but with the President's statements about goals for Iraq.

Have we seen "reconciliation among political and ethnic factions"? General Petraeus seems to think that serious ethnic challenges loom in Iraq, and he said so in early October. This also doesn't look like success. Again, if you disagree, it's not with war opponents but with the General.

Here's the problem I have with supporters of Bush and McCain on Iraq: Many still seem to think that the initial invasion of Iraq was a good idea. Many seem to think that simply because the surge improved the situation in Iraq (a point that I agree with) it was a success, whereas I think the record of public statements by surge architects clearly shows that the surge has failed to meet its goals. So where do we go from here? That's an open question. Should we trust decision makers who (a) continue to disagree with most Americans about the invasion of Iraq (i.e., most now think it was a terrible mistake) and (b) are unwilling to abide by the benchmarks they themselves have set up? I don't think so.

Sorry, Max, my suggestion to view "W" was meant to be ironic. Kotzabasis has developed ideas about Obama from soundbites that are even LESS reliable than the movie "W". Sarcasm has no emoticon, so I guess I will have to explain my use of same each and every time....

kb writes: "At the time of 9/11 it was a premise of a real impending threat."

There was always a plan to take control of Iraq not only for its oil, but for its physical location in the Middle East to facilitate US control of the region. The work done to uncover WMDs was slipshod, and the "evidence" obtained deliberately misread as substantive rather than circumstantial -- it was obviously incorrect then as we know for certain that is was now.

Although "W" is not my source for this understanding, its creation provides powerful soundbytes for ease of understanding. Watch the portion about Iraq, about ten minutes from the end. Those who want to know what drove waging this "war on terror" can easily understand that it was planned purely for economic reasons.

The proof is in the pudding: Bush's failed policies including warmongering are now being revealed as having contributed to our economic crisis. History will NOT look kindly on GWB -- only his cronies and the upper 1-2% of the wealthy could possibly feel happy about the state of the world economy.

The world revolves around an oil-based economy. Allowing this sector to be unregulated is a travesty in its betrayal not only of Americans, but of the rest of the world. In America, the economic predators (health care, insurance, oil, agri-business, pharmaceuticals) have pulled every last dime from the pockets of the 98% that are hanging on by a thread just now. All of this was good for them, not at all beneficial for those unlucky enough not to be of the few within the elite that have prospered at the expense of the many.

The economy in Australia is not like ours. If you are truly Australian, you know that you pay high taxes, but you have nationalized health care, and that people more or less make a living wage. You have four weeks paid vacation, and decent school systems for the most part in NSW. Maybe not the same at all for Queensland or more remote areas. What about poor Tasmania?

I do not agree with your opinions which smack of knowing ALL about the US, as much as you can laugh at what I express as knowing ALL about Australia from what I have written in the previous paragraph. This is my impression of Australia from living there on an ex-pat assignment where we enjoyed the comfort of a five bedroom home on the ocean.

Although I knew lots of people, even people on the dole who also seemed to manage, I would never presume to comment with authority on the Australian economic or political situation...I would not have the interest or the time to understand it fully enough to write in more than generalizations, even after living there....

Could we get just a little bit real about ganging up on the "pharmeceuticals." Who do we suppose turned AIDS from a death sentence to a near chronic, treatable, condition? Obama's neighborhood organizations? The next time you're yanked back to health (at least the physical kind) by a magic bullet, you might consider the source of your relief.

Rob St. Amant,

Automatic success can only come from robotics, and the surge has no relation to robots. The surge in reversing the defeat of the U.S. and in bringing comparative security to the country has created the rudimentary conditions for establishing a stable democratic regime in Iraq that can provide for its own security and ‘jump-start’ its economic development. And it’s on this ‘trinity’ of (a) strong government (b) security of the country and its ability to defend itself, and (c) economic development, that political and ethnic reconciliation can be achieved.

The U.S. ‘war mongers’ have created, with the defeat of the insurgents, the preconditions of peace and prosperity in Iraq. But it’s for Iraqis and their government to take advantage of these preconditions and take charge of their own destiny.

Statecraft and war are hardly the vocation of ordinary civilians. (I’m saying this on the authority of Thucydides.) And “benchmarks” will take time to leave their marks.

Kent Pitman

Ijust clicked into yor blog and saw that you are a philosopher. For this reason now I disagree that our positions are unbridgeable by courtesy of Nietzsche. To paraphrase the great man, it's not a matter of having the strength of one's convictions but of having the strength to overthrow one's convictions in an ever evolving reality. It seems for philosophers nothing is unbridgeable.

Francisco Patino,

Thanks for the flowers while you were getting ready to entomb me into intellectual oblivion.

A field of points and I will try to separate the wheat from the chaff and answer you on the former. And it’s good to know that one’s opponent is at least of a strong character even if he is not strong in gray matter.

Touché on my “swiftly” as I concede that it was not done quickly enough and it took two years for the Bush administration to realize that it was a wrong strategy. But why you conveniently leave out the main thrust of my argument that the administration corrected this strategic error and by implementing the new strategy of the surge turned the tables on a losing war?

Indeed, “democracy does not come by force” but the CONDITIONS upon which one can build democracy sometimes come by force and a long occupation. Germany and Japan are the preeminent examples. And wasn’t the Maliki government the result of a democratic process under the auspices of the U.S. occupying power? The Iraqi people never had a direct experience of democracy only a visual one from their TV sets of the political status quo of the West. But once their tribal leaders adopted the American plan for democracy the Iraqi people followed their leaders to the ballot box. Only intellectual fixation and historical ignorance can claim that democracy perforce only rises from bottom up and cannot come down from the top.

You obviously are a votary of the intellectual and historical insolvent belief that profit as a high value is a dirty word. But it was in the cradle of the high profits of the mercantilist bourgeoisie that the Italian Renaissance was engendered and begun eroding the seigniorial class of its political power and eventually spread the seeds of democracy in the fertile lands of the European continent made on profit. An elementary history lesson that does not need a review is that democracy and the entrepreneurial search for profit are not incompatible but the sine qua non of economic prosperity. (Read the great Indian economist Amartya Sen.)

And where from my writings you “get” the impression that I’m a traducer of the principle “that all human beings seek the same basic things and are worthy of respect?” This is rather a stolid method to attribute to your opponent a fictional position so you can make your ‘tailor made’ case.

As for “bigotry, irrational religious beliefs, and ignorance this is the “plague” of democracy itself. All political parties at an election perforce have to bring this minority to their side and use different slogans and techniques to succeed in this task. Why with your strong bearings choose to be a fugitive from this reality? But my argument, as you know, was that while it’s necessary to win over this minority it would be highly unlikely politically, and indeed, stupid, to govern on its behalf.

Again on the following issue you misinterpret my position but I don’t believe you are doing this on this particular issue for sinister reasons—your strong character would not allow you to do this, although your urge to win an argument could be stronger and could trump you on this—but as a result of soft thinking. I don’t at all object to America “upholding” its values. On the contrary, I greatly admire America that it continues to water the Tree of its values, to paraphrase Franklin, with its own blood. I did not state that any of Obama’s speeches contained the “lovey dovey terrorists and my conditional “perhaps” would have made this clear to a careful reader. But there is a general belief among the liberal intelligentsia that by a softer approach by the use of “softer power” and diplomacy, one could stop fanatics of pursuing the seventy-two virgins.

Lastly one is original by the grace of nature. And no future long distance can make one original if one has not been graced by nature. Hence, to ask someone to be “a little more original” in the future is oxymoronic.

What you know and what you are pretending to know?