Will Iraq War 3 Dominate GOP (and Dem?) Debates In 2016?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 03:18:16 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Will Iraq War 3 Dominate GOP (and Dem?) Debates In 2016?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Will Iraq War 3 Dominate GOP (and Dem?) Debates In 2016?  (Read 785 times)
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 22, 2014, 01:46:24 AM »

Back in 2008 the Iraq war was a huge issue for both Dems and the GOP. Then in 2012 the issue barely came up. None of the GOP nominees pushed that hard to keep troops in Iraq and it wasn't big general campaign issue. But now that the Islamic State is beheading Americans and the Secretary of Defense is saying that ISIS/Islamic State is the biggest potential threat we have seen, it appears that Iraq (and Syria) are going to be big issues in 2016.

Obama is already bombing in Iraq and arming the Kurds and 'friendly' Syrians. But will any of the GOPers actually call for combat troops in Iraq and for bombing in Syria? And assuming we are still bombing in Iraq a year from now, will Paul or others be calling to end the bombing and stop engaging?

I think this may be the biggest issue of disagreement among the GOPers with the hawks and the isolationist wings finally going at it.


And it may be an issue on the Dem side, certainly if it is Sanders v Clinton.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2014, 01:56:07 AM »

If we're just bombing, it probably won't have much impact, like the NATO strikes in the former Yugoslavia didn't have much impact.
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2014, 02:00:40 AM »
« Edited: August 22, 2014, 02:03:49 AM by Likely Voter »

If we're just bombing, it probably won't have much impact, like the NATO strikes in the former Yugoslavia didn't have much impact.

Well but 'just bombing' isn't enough for the war hawk wing is the point. They want more. Plus the Bosnian Serbs were genocidal, but they weren't beheading Americans and posting it on YouTube - and threatening more.


The options are:
1. continue Obama policy: drones and bombs + arming friendlies
2. stop bombing + disengage
3. More bombing (including in Syria) + send in the combat troops to Iraq (and maybe even Syria)
Logged
BaconBacon96
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,678
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2014, 02:03:08 AM »

I think it will be quite the issue. However, it will probably affect the GOP campaign much more than the Democrats.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 22, 2014, 02:49:54 AM »

I think it will be quite the issue. However, it will probably affect the GOP campaign much more than the Democrats.

Rick Perry will say he'd reinvade 3 countries. Iraq, Afghanistan, and he forgot the 3rd one.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 22, 2014, 03:06:29 AM »

Perry says that some Islamic State fighters might have infiltrated the US via Mexico:

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2014/08/21/rick-perry-calls-for-overwhelming-force-against-islamic-state

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

He also didn't rule out ground troops:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
MurrayBannerman
murraybannerman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 756


Political Matrix
E: 5.55, S: -2.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 22, 2014, 11:33:08 AM »

I think it will be quite the issue. However, it will probably affect the GOP campaign much more than the Democrats.
If the Republican campaign is competent, this won't be true.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 22, 2014, 11:51:01 AM »

It could have a bigger effect in Republican debates.

Political parties are less supportive of wars started by the other side's Presidents.

There is also a frontrunner with a different view of military action than the rest.
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 22, 2014, 01:23:19 PM »

Political parties are less supportive of wars started by the other side's Presidents.

This is one of the reasons why I think it is going to be a big deal. None of the GOPers will want to take the position that the Obama policy towards the Islamic State is the right policy, which means they will have to propose something different - and specific. That means talking about sending in troops and expanding the bombing, or on the other side stopping the bombing and trying to focus on diplomacy.

It will also be interesting to see where Hillary stands on this. She has been critical of Obama on not dealing with ISIS earlier. By this time next year she will have her own policy prescription. And whatever that is, the GOPers will want to contrast themselves with that. If Hillary is mostly unopposed for a Dem primary, she may even be calling for more aggressive action (noting the humanitarian angle to stopping ISIS).

So GOPers would have to find a position that is differant than Obama and Hillary. While Obama has been the obsession of the GOP, by this time next year they will begin the transition to going after Hillary more.
Logged
ShadowRocket
cb48026
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,456


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 22, 2014, 03:54:16 PM »

Schweitzer and/or Sanders may be able to get some mileage against Hillary if the situation worsens even more. Saying this wouldn't have happened had it not been for the initial 2003 invasion that Hillary voted to authorize. 

With the exception of Paul, I'd imagine that all the GOP candidates will advocate for continued intervetion to various extents.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 22, 2014, 08:43:54 PM »

They will probably force Rand to come out as a hawk
More hawkish than his dad maybe. But, I really doubt that he will position himself as more hawkish than Hillary or any of the other GOP contenders.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 22, 2014, 08:46:54 PM »

They will probably force Rand to come out as a hawk

no, Rand will have to compete on difference because he won't be able to compete on money
Logged
KCDem
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,928


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 22, 2014, 08:54:28 PM »

There is no Iraq War 3 nor will there be. Non-issue
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 22, 2014, 09:17:33 PM »

Interesting comment from Rand Paul
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rand-paul-warns-dems-what-will-happen-if-they-nominate-war-hawk-hillary-clinton/
Logged
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 22, 2014, 11:01:55 PM »


Paul will be transformed into the kind of mainstream Republican who can win the nomination and Hillary will be transformed into someone who regrets her vote to authorize the Iraq War. Disagree it'll be a transformation like we've never seen.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 23, 2014, 03:08:04 AM »


Paul will be transformed into the kind of mainstream Republican who can win the nomination and Hillary will be transformed into someone who regrets her vote to authorize the Iraq War. Disagree it'll be a transformation like we've never seen.

LOL, they aren't going to suddenly switch positions on foreign policy.
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 23, 2014, 03:24:52 PM »

By next summer when the campaign will begin we may already be bombing in Syria
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/us-islamic-state-syria_n_5701415.html

The Obama admin may make it difficult for any of the GOPers to take a more hawkish position without calling for combat troops on the ground, the one thing Obama continues to rule out (for now)
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 23, 2014, 03:38:02 PM »

If we're just bombing, it probably won't have much impact, like the NATO strikes in the former Yugoslavia didn't have much impact.

Well but 'just bombing' isn't enough for the war hawk wing is the point. They want more. Plus the Bosnian Serbs were genocidal, but they weren't beheading Americans and posting it on YouTube - and threatening more.


The options are:
1. continue Obama policy: drones and bombs + arming friendlies
2. stop bombing + disengage
3. More bombing (including in Syria) + send in the combat troops to Iraq (and maybe even Syria)

Obviously, but there is a big difference between beheading Americans in Iraq and beheading Americans in America/elsewhere.

I'm not by any means suggesting that James Foley should be blamed for his own demise, but I think if you are willingly making the decision to spend time in the Middle East as an American, as Foley did, you ought to do so with the understanding that you are not safe there. I think it's kind of unreasonable to expect the protection of the US government and the US military when you put yourself in that situation for your own reasons. He wasn't a soldier. He wasn't a diplomat. He wasn't acting in service of his country. So I personally would not have been willing to negotiate with terrorists to get him back and I think the White House did the right thing in not doing so.
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 23, 2014, 04:02:51 PM »

None of that matters though. The campaign against ISIS is nothing like the war in Kosovo. The Bosnians were not threatening to kill American civilians. Plus it is post 9/11 and these guys are a radical offshoot of Al Queda.  So my point is that ISIS has brought Iraq back as a political issue and I don't see how it wont play a role in the debates.

Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.039 seconds with 14 queries.