Here are some of our noisy locals. I just can't get over how cool the birds are in Australia. I just love them.
So.....let's talk politics. I am not getting much of the race down here. We get a bit now and then but it is hard to tell where the candidates are standing on one of the most important issues in my life, "the War on Terror" and what one in particular is saying is downright terrifying. You are going to have to share with me the allure of Obama. I just don't see it. We have a fine nation, one worth defending. We have a wonderful way of life....I am very confused why he has such a big following. Help me out Obama supporters, there may be one or two of you reading this.;o)
Here is an assessment by a friend of mine. I asked her to fill me on the candidates and their stand on Iraq and Afghanistan.....
Here's my response to your question in an unbiased a way as I can present it (which isn't really all that unbiased). Let me add the caveat that I'm pretty conservative and look at things through these military glasses, so tend to roll my eyes at things like "immediate pull-out" because... yeah right. In any case, first I'll give you their talking points and then my take on it.
McCain:
Favors the surge
Won't play the timeline game
McCain wasn't a huge Rumsfeld fan (which isn't a major surprise) but he's a big Patreaus fan. He generally likes the direction things are going right now and if anything he'd up the ante and push harder to squash the insurgency. It's a pretty fair analysis to say that part of the mess we're in now is because Rumsfeld pussy-footed around and figured that less troops would mean fewer casualties... well, not so much. He also didn't develop much of an after-plan to the invasion. McCain would benefit from all the hindsight of those mistakes and doesn't have any of Bush's loyalty issues - which is one of Bush's main pitfalls - the man needs to fire his friends faster. Since McCain has never been much of a "friend" kind of guy - this isn't an issue. He's a bulldozer and doesn't really make friends.
Obama:
Has NEVER been for the war, increase in troops, increase in spending, etc. Has voted against every bill that has ever come before the Senate that has involved Iraq - to include all requests for money to fund the troops.
Will do everything in his power to turn tail and run as fast as possible. His plan is to IMMEDIATELY start pulling out two brigades a month. He's basically Vietnam redux and doesn't apologize for it.
He's all about "let's all talk and play fair" but he's got almost zero foreign policy experience. Plans on personally sitting down and talking with ALL nations - even the rouge ones.
He's fairly scary on this issue - except that he can't do a whole lot without Congressional approval and would need (you'd hope) to have some real discussions outside of the campaign with the guys who are actually over there and may get a huge reality check once he takes the reigns. I honestly don't think he understands what he's in for because of his lack of experience. The former members of the Armed Forces who are supporters of his are lightweights and didn't have the greatest reputations in their time. I'm a little nervous about who he'd appoint as Sec Def. I also think that he'd likely only last 4 years ala Jimmy Carter because I just don't think he's got the experience on an international level to pull this off right now. If this were just a domestic game, maybe.
Clinton:
She says she isn't for the war anymore - but she's voted in favor of everything.
She says she'd do a "phased withdrawal" of the troops within the first 60 days of taking office and would want most of them out by 2013.
Basically... she's a realist and is already trying to preserve her legacy.
Clinton knows that to get the Dem vote she needs to talk withdrawal, but she's smart and experienced enough to know that isn't as easy as it sounds - nor is it smart. So she's hedging. Its totally obvious from what she says that she's hedging but the voters don't seem to care too much about it - except maybe that's why they are tending toward Obama right now. She's totally playing both sides. She's got a decent set of has-been Generals on her side, but they aren't the all-stars (Wesley Clark, etc). Look to Clark to be Sec Def if she's elected. But she's a pragmatist and definitely wouldn't want to be known as the female President who failed in Iraq throughout history so she'd do her darnedest to avoid that title. I'm not sure she could do it and succeed by not going bulldozer though. Her downfall will be trying to make everyone happy.
So, what do I think will work? I dunno. From my standpoint, I think we need to see this through and continue to get aggressive. It's working despite the uptick in violence right now, what is happening right now is nothing compared to what was going on two years ago. Clearly we are making some headway, so to walk away from that seems ridiculous. However, from a person POV - I'd sure like my husband to come home. I'd hate for him to come home though and then in four years be dealing with an even bigger problem created because we walked away.
Just my little opinions...
OK....that is a ton for one blog post, but that is what is on my mind. Feel free to comment, folks. I want to know what the heck is going on back in the mother land! Just to encourage you to comment I am going to randomly draw a winner from the comments for a "Maria Zippy Wallet". At the time of your victory you may request it to be "civilian" or "Campy"