When I read the headline from this morning's Washington Post, "Poll Finds Voters Split on Candidates' Iraq-Pullout Positions," the first thing I thought was, "Hmm. Sounds to me like there was some manner of question posed that was more or less completely obfuscatory." Turns out I was right!
Obama has proposed a timetable to withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq within 16 months of his taking office. McCain has opposed a specific timetable and said events should dictate when troops are withdrawn. Which approach do you prefer - a timetable or no timetable?
The problems are twofold: First, the preference of a timetable obscures whether or not there is a preference for withdrawal. But, secondly, and more importantly, this question presents McCain's position as one that has fealty to "events." As a practical matter, McCain's policies evince no such dedication to "events on the ground." In fact, McCain's plan is to continue the occupation, regardless of events.
In fact, those "events" are all running in favor of withdrawal. And if McCain really had some sort of devotion to "events," he'd be agitating to speed up the withdrawal process now. Back in 2004, McCain stated that if a sovereign Iraqi government asked the United States to leave, we would: "Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because -- if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people."
That, of course, is precisely how the situation that has evolved. Apparently, John McCain has even less regard for his own word than he does for "events."
Meanwhile, you have Michael O'Hanlon, for whom withdrawal from Iraq represents an end to his career as an Iraq War hyena of American op-editry, hitting Obama with histrionics:
"To say you're going to get out on a certain schedule -- regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground -- is the height of absurdity," said O'Hanlon, who described himself as "livid." "I'm not going to go to the next level of invective and say he shouldn't be president. I'll leave that to someone else."
Of course, what the Iraqis are "doing" is asking us to leave so that a major impediment to their reconciliation can be removed. What "our enemies" are "doing" is attacking us in Afghanistan and relaxing, unharmed and unthreatened, on the Afghan/Pakistan border. And what's "happening on the ground"? Many tiny instances of stalled progress, thanks to our refusal to set a responsible timetable for withdrawal. Meanwhile, O'Hanlon helps hem in Obama with Clown Logic: if he doesn't consider "events," he's "absurd," but if he does make adjustments to his plan to withdrawal, he's a flip-flopper.
I'd have to counter by saying that McCain's refusal to consider getting out on a responsible schedule, regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground -- is the height of absurdity.
Stepping up to the next level of invective, I'd say it's pretty clear that O'Hanlon is a fool, and that this poll is desperately misleading.