Jul 23 2008
Obama, McCain and The Surge
First, let me appease those who come here for news about my family and me. Last Sunday while Tony had a soccer game, I took Andy to a local 子ども会 and brought my new camera along. (Seeing as how I bought the thing, I ought to use it once in a while.) A kodomo-kai isn't exactly a festival, and it's more than a party. I guess you could call it a "childrens' fair." Yeah, that's the ticket. There were games like "scoop up as many superballs as you can from a wading pool using a little scoop made of tissue paper before it disintegrates," "ring toss to win other kids' discarded toys," and "shooting gallery to win even more discarded toys." All the kids got yakisoba and shaved ice (kaki-goori), while the parents accompanying them got bupkis, not even water. I ate Andy's yakisoba after we went home because he didn't want it. It was very salty, but I was very hungry, having not eaten all day.
Next, onto Obama, McCain and the surge. I'll assume you know nothing about why there's far less violence in Iraq now as compared to 2006-2007. Here are the facts, and please correct me if I get anything wrong.
- There are two sects of Muslims, Sunni and Shi'ite (pronounced "SHE-ite" not "shitty"). Iran and the Iraq governments are Shiite, as are a slight majority of Iraqis. Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia and 90% of all Muslims in the world are Sunni. For centuries they've been killing each other over an argument about who has the right to rule over the religion, kind of like who gets to call himself the "pope," but it's a bit more complicated than that. At this point, I expect most people to give up reading. But congratulations, you already know more than McCain. All you need to do now is get shot down over enemy territory and spend a few years being tortured as a POW and you'd be more qualified than him to run for president.
- Bloody ethnic cleansing has taken place throughout Iraq. We're talking wholesale torture and slaughter with victims in the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, and both sides are guilty. Towns and neighborhoods have become segregated, and the cleansing is pretty much over. Note: This is one of the reasons why there is less violence now. Towns and neighborhoods are now segregated.
- Second, some of the Sunni groups that used to be on al Qaeda's side fighting against the coalition troops decided to switch their alliance over to the occupational forces. Why? For security reasons, and because we're paying them. Note, they're Sunni, and the Iraqi government is Shi'ite. They're not fighting the government or the coalition troops for now. We're arming, training and paying them, and in return they're keeping the peace in their neighborhoods particularly by keeping al Qaeda out, but that doesn't mean they have given up fighting forever, only for now. Right now the occupation is probably the only thing keeping them from turning on the Iraqi government, and the government is very worried about them becoming a third power in Iraq. Nobody knows what will happen when we either stop paying them and/or leave. Note: These Sunni groups decided to give up their support for al Qaeda and side with the occupation before the surge. These switches of alliance are called Awakening Movements.
- Third and last, we have The Surge of 2007. Note: The surge happened after most of the ethnic cleansing and awakening movements had already taken place. But this is not what the Bush Administration wants to admit, and even worse, just the other day McCain got it backwards! McCain got it backwards. You really need to understand why this is such a big deal. McCain says that not only did the surge cause a decrease in violence but it actually caused the Anbar awakening! NO!! WRONG!!
So if you're still with me and haven't scurried off to YouTube to watch videos of adorable kittens or people riding bicycles and skateboards into brick walls, we'll get to Obama's take on the matter, but first you have know that Obama opposed the surge. The other day, CBS News asked Obama if he knew then what he knows now, would he have approved the surge. Here was his answer:
If we have shifted away from the central front of terrorism as a consequence of enormous and continuing investments in Iraq, then that's a poor strategic choice.
Huh? But Senator Obama, don't you give any credit to the surge for the decrease in violence in Iraq?
No, no of course I have. There is no doubt that the extraordinary work of our U.S. forces has contributed to a lessening of the violence, just as making sure that the Sadr militia stood down or the fact that the Sunni tribes decided to flip and work with us instead of with al-Qaeda — something that we hadn't anticipated happening. All those things have contributed to a reduction in violence.
So on one hand you have McCain who doesn't understand what's going on in Iraq, and on the other hand Obama who understands that the surge is only one factor in the decrease in violence. As for me, I know which of the two I'd rather have as president.
P.S.In order to keep things simple, I didn't mention that the Mahdi Army, a Shi'ite militia possibly supported by Iran, is currently under a very tenuous cease fire agreement which is set to expire, and hopefully be renewed, in August 2008. When it's all put together, it becomes evident that violence in Iraq could flair up again if either the Mahdi Army or the participants in the Awakening Movements decide they're no longer satisfied with the way things are, or if any of the segregated towns or neighborhoods decide to expand their territory.
