But I thought Jon raised a point that I wanted to expand upon here. His comments of note were embedded in a post about answers given by the two candidates to a written questionaire. As a prelude, I like these types of exchanges, because it gives the candidates lots of time to think through their answers, and give responses that should completely and accurately reflect their thinking.
This mirrors how our legislatures operate, with plenty of time to evaluate problems and formulate policies. Not at all like a debate format. There's no "gotcha" games in legislating, you should be able to do your best.
That's why I find it particularly funny when a candidate messes up the answer to a written question.
Anyway, in the post Questioned Jon notes:
Meanwhile, a couple of Webb’s responses are a bit mystifying. For example, Webb cites a successfully thwarted terror attempt, and calls it evidence that we need our troops to be mobile, rather than “bogged down in Iraq”.
As evidenced by the failed terror plot in London this summer we need to be able to fight terrorists wherever they may be. This requires our troops to be a mobile fighting force, something that cannot happen as long as we are bogged down in Iraq.
But exactly who does Jim Webb want US forces to invade?
I could picture us running an amphibious landing in London. But I'm thinking a few thousand troops tops, and with over 600,000 troops and only 150,000 in Iraq (and those not really a rapid deployment force now), we certainly could pull off a deployment.
In fact, the thing that could most prevent us from having a deployable force to go anywhere in the world would be if we tied up most of our "deployable" assets somewhere stupid, like say the middle east, instead of using fixed assets.
Except that is exactly what Webb WANTS us to do. He is totally opposed to our fixed bases in Iraq (where we are actually fighting) and wants us to redeploy to other countries, from where he says we could "rapidly deploy if necessary" back into Iraq. In other words, he wants us to replace our fixed fighting assets with a very large rapidly deployable force in the middle east -- which would surely put a strain on our ability to rapidly deploy to other hotspots where we DON'T have a country offering us large fixed bases like Iraq.
I know Webb is a genius and former Navy Secretary, and I'm just a lonely blogger, but maybe deployable means something different to a navy guy....
The problem Webb has is that even those of us who would be open to new ideas about how to win in Iraq can't get on his side, because his ideas are senseless.