The Coming Together Of McCain And Obama On Iraq
As we enter the long summer days of the general election, the tradition in American politics is for the candidates to run as hard as they can to the vaunted "middle of the road." What this may mean is that by Election Day, the foreign policy positions on Iraq of John McCain and Barack Obama are going to get a lot closer and indeed may be different mainly in philosophy (rather than in substance) by November.
This is a shocking claim to make, but I think events will bear me out. I think either candidates' plan, by the end of the campaign, will merge toward a consensus: "We're going to leave Iraq as fast as events on the ground make it possible, while still leaving some troops behind."
The philosophical differences will be whether the ultimate goal of our withdrawal is to get our troops out as fast as is realistically possible (Obama) or whether we have achieved some nebulously-defined "victory" (McCain). There may be substantial differences over how many troops will remain behind and what their mission will be, but I don't expect either candidate to get painted into the corner of "we will leave X number of troops behind." Look for vagueness rather than a target number, in other words, from both of them. So the one concrete difference between their plans will not be addressed at all, except in philosophical terms.
Those philosophical differences do matter. I am not saying in any way that it won't matter who gets elected. But Barack Obama is going to come home from visiting Iraq (which he's going to do very soon) and he is going to announce his new thinking on Iraq. This is not a bad thing, as he has always conditioned his responses with some form of "as the situation on the ground allows." I think that, after eight years of George Bush, it is a good thing indeed that a president take a look at the situation on the ground and change his plans accordingly. Why should Obama be forced into conforming in every single detail with what he said about Iraq a year ago? That wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, although I fully expect the media to have an "Obama Flip Flops!!" field day when it happens. The hard anti-war sector of the voting public may not agree with Obama's nuance on the issue, but Obama will continue to stress, as he always has, that he is setting the goal of getting most combat troops out in a year and a half. This may help him contain some damage politically, but again, we'll see how the media plays it.
John McCain's problems are that his philosophical stance and outlook on Iraq are built on two big contradictions. The first is his rage against "timetables for withdrawal," and the second is "how is Iraq doing now?" Although the media has not addressed either of these yet (and probably won't, since they seem reluctant to address any McCain inconsistencies so far), eventually Obama will have the chance to point these examples of doublethink out when debating McCain. Let's take them one at a time.
John McCain is against "timetables for withdrawal." He thinks such timetables are a really bad idea, because they (somehow) are "surrendering" to the enemy. He also thinks they're a bad idea because the enemy will just sit back, bide their time, and then take over Iraq thirty seconds after we leave. McCain has not been shy about stating what a horrendously naive concept timetables for withdrawal are, and the absolute disaster that would ensue if such became U.S. policy in Iraq.
Except that before McCain was against timetables, he was for them.
McCain has built his entire rationale for why he would take care of Iraq better than Obama on the fact that he "opposed Bush" (he really didn't) on the war strategy, and that the "surge" was proof of George W. Bush's genius and really turned everything around. Except for the elephant in the middle of the room: the "surge" -- from its very announcement -- operated on a timetable for withdrawal. We are indeed at the end of that timetable, as the last "surge" soldiers are due to come home this month (except for the 10,000 or so we're leaving behind, which don't get mentioned very often). The "surge" is almost over, in other words -- on the timetable for withdrawal it had from the get-go. So how can this be a bad thing and a good thing at the same time? If we had real journalists covering the campaign trail, somebody would have asked McCain this question by now, but you go to an election with the journalists you've got (to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld).
The second example of McCain's doublethink is even more glaring, but again, it has elicited nothing but a profound silence from the press. McCain warns of dire consequences if Obama becomes president and withdraws our troops on the dreaded timetable he's announced. McCain basically says the entire country is going to immediately fall apart, and that Al Qaeda and Iran are going to get all the money from Iraq's oil as a result. Um, OK, but then (sometimes in the next sentence), McCain praises the progress we've made in Iraq. In particular, the Iraqi Army. According to McCain, the Iraqi armed forces are doing such a bang-up job protecting Iraq's security that the American "surge" soldiers can now safely come home (on that pesky timetable).
You can't have it both ways, unless your name is John McCain, apparently.
Either Iraq is going to collapse into anarchy the minute we leave, or the Iraqis are getting their military act together and are almost ready to provide security on their own. The two are really mutually exclusive. But again, this glaring contradiction in the perception of the current situation in Iraq is never talked about. Media types are able to hold two contradictory thoughts in their heads at the same time (Orwell's definition of "doublethink"), and are not bothered by the glaring disparity in the slightest. Again, Obama will have to be the one to point this out, possibly on live television in a debate. This may awaken the media from their somnolence... and then again, it may not.
McCain has a way out of this second conundrum, though. He may, before the actual election, declare "victory" and say it's now safe enough for us to get out. This will put him a lot closer to Obama's position that withdrawing a few thousand soldiers a month is not "precipitous withdrawal" or "surrender" or all the other horrendous terms Republicans (and way too many members of the media, who should know better) have been using to describe the Democratic position. We can safely withdraw that many, McCain will state, because General Petraeus now says it is a prudent thing to do, and because the "surge" has produced so much "victory" that it is now feasible to do so, but only because George Bush is a genius and the "surge" was so brilliant an idea in the first place.
In other words, John McCain will come a lot closer to the Democratic position, although the way he talks about it will be different. He will say (over and over again) that to call for such a withdrawal a year or more ago (as Obama did) was "reckless, naive, and inexperienced," whereas -- now that the "generals on the ground" have agreed with it -- it is now the sober, clear-eyed, and experienced thing to do.
But when you strip away all the talk of "victory" and "timetables," John McCain's plan is most likely going to wind up being pretty close to Barack Obama's plan. McCain knows that the electorate wants America out of Iraq, even faster than Obama has proposed. McCain also knows that his ties to Bush's foreign policy are an albatross around his neck. But if Bush's policies are shown -- just before the election -- to be a stunning "success" and "victory," then he may win back some votes he otherwise would have lost.
So look for a lot of hyperventilating and spin on steroids during the closing months of the campaign. But also note that with Obama hedging his bets on "events on the ground" (which he will do, right after he visits Iraq) and McCain forced to declare "victory" and now support getting out, their Iraq plans are going to look more similar than different. Maybe it's an inevitability of candidates "running to the middle" or maybe events on the ground will have forced both candidates to slightly alter their positions. Either way, both of them may wind up being, if not on the same team, at least in the same ballpark on Iraq. Which means Iraq may not be as big an issue as expected in this election.
Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"You also must keep in mind, DanBest, .I am an Obama supporter. Have been practically the entire time.. - Michale
Yeah, we'll take your word for that. Trolls for Obama 08.
WOW, CW!!
http://www
Did you call it or what!!!??? :D
Michale...
You also must keep in mind, DanBest...
I am an Obama supporter. Have been practically the entire time..
My only concern has been that Obama might be too liberal to recognize and act on the threat we face. These concerns have been alleviated somewhat. But they are still there..
So, philosophically, you and I are probably a lot closer than you realize.
I have spent nearly a quarter of a century as an LEO and an FSO. I have served in two branches of the US Armed Forces and been an MI EllTee during Desert Storm. I have been a military and intelligence liaison to a dozen different countries spanning the globe.
I am the sum of my experience and that experience tells me that personal freedom does NOT trump the public safety..
Michale...
@DanBest
>No we didn't. The cold war was essentially
> the continuation of WWII which was a
>continuation of WWI."
And yet, even the COLD WAR is over, we declared victory, and yet we STILL are in Germany & Japan. Thank god, because that's where (Okinawa, Japan) I met my beautiful wife of 26+ years. :D
Which dovetails nicely into my point.. A US presence was deemed necessary, even after victory was declared at the end of WWII.. And, in hind site it was highly prophetic because it lead to a SECOND victory in the Cold War.. And we STILL have a US Presence there..
Ergo, history shows us that a US presence (occupation, if you want to use that word) CAN be beneficial and even NECESSARY to the US and it's interests. AND to the interests of the SOFA country...
Michale...
@DanBest
You can ask those who know me.. I rail against the Hysterical Right quite often... Not as often as I do against the Hysterical Left, but that's only because everyone else here does that just fine on their own..
Suffice it to say that I am an Independent in the truest sense of the word.
Truth be told, with a few exceptions (4 to be exact) I am probably the most liberal one here...
One of the issues I split with the Left on is the issue of National Security. I firmly believe that my personal freedoms are simply NOT worth even ONE innocent life.. So, if I have to open up my calls and my NET so that the government can make things safer than I don't have a problem with it.. I honestly don't think Bush is interested in my wife's bi-sexuality, our group sex parties or the fact I sometimes snore when I sleep..
But, I am not going to stand in the way of legitimate surveillence I *KNOW* are necessary, simply because of my own personal privacy.. To me, that is the epitome of arrogance.
"MY PERSONAL PRIVACY IS MORE IMPORTANT TO ME THAN ANY NUMBER OF INNOCENT LIVES"
You will NEVER see me act in such a manner..
Michale...
Okey Dokey... Pinocchio, Jeeesh.
Michale, I appreciate the fact that we can have a civilized debate without resorting to name calling. I appreciate your concern about national securty. But national securty can never become an excuse to cover up uncomfortable facts about our government or to become a smokescreen for carrying out covert wiretapping without judicial oversight. And this has been the central issue. I don't trust Bush or any politician left or right when it comes to personal libery. I'm not concerned about my personal privacy as much as I am the possibility for Bush to abuse this power. You haven't addressed the concern that Bush is using this power to gather information on his opponents or that, far from being paranoid (watergate) it is a distinct possibility. And we simply don't know. We are told to trust Bush and Bush hasn't proven beyond any reasonable doubt that he would abide by any constraints. Far from it. He has shown over and over again that he is willing to skirt the laws to get what he wants. We used to call that lawlessness and we used to believe that no one, not even a president is above the law. We are learning otherwise and it is a bitter pill to swallow. I would hope you could acknowledge as much.
I too, appreciate the reasonable back and forth..
As to your concerns, they are legitimate. Bush hasn't done much to engender trust in anyone..
While I concede that your concerns may be legitimate, your proposed solutions are not. Look at it as giving guns to cops.. One cop goes nutso and starts doing John Wayne impersonations with his gun...
Does that mean ALL cops should be denied the tools of the trade, simply because one, a dozen or even a hundred went John Wayne with them??
What IS the solution?? I don't know..
But I DO know that gutting the intelligence operations of the VERY tools they need to keep this country safe is NOT the answer...
HR 6304 (New FISA Measures) are a step in the right direction.
I agree with you that a President is not above the law. Just as I am sure you would agree that, in a time of war, the Commander In Chief should be allotted the benefit of the doubt..
Michale...
"But when you strip away all the talk of "victory" and "timetables," John McCain's plan is most likely going to wind up being pretty close to Barack Obama's plan. "
Thank you.
The fundamental question for voters this fall is: do you want a president who believes that invading Iraq was a good thing or do you want a president who believes invading Iraq was a bad thing. If invading Iraq was good, vote McCain; if invading Iraq was bad, vote Obama.
It really is that simple.
Such syllogism is quite counter productive.
Not really simple. Are we better off without Saddam in the world? Have our interests been attacked since the invasion? [go back and check out the attacks during Slick Willy's term].
You provide a valuable point... that when you NeoCons were drinking Kool-Aid, ya got things twised, but *NOW* that you took to drinking anti-freeze you guys are even more messed up. Simple is still too much for ya.
Don't buy it. We didn't build all those bases to leave anytime soon. We'll be there for a very, very, very long time.
Exactly...
Michale...
There was an episode of Star Trek: Voyager that has bearing here. In it, an alien captain tried for for 200 years to restore his people's grand legacy by means of selectively erasing species and events from time. He came very close at times. A 96.7% restoratio
The Hysterical Left reminds me of that captain.. They want 100% of their own beliefs and attitudes in the White House. And they'll destroy the whole country in their twisted efforts to achieve that 100%...
Michale...
What is your point? After eight years of the hysterical right getting 100 percent of their own beliefs and attitudes in the white house, tell me, michale, just where are we now? Is this present tense where you stake your claim to the status qou? Do you think a majority of this democratic republic agrees with you? As far as destroying the republic, the right has done a pretty bang-up job in that catagory. This post started out as a discussion about where the candidates will end up on the Iraq war. And this is your response? Please explain why anyone should listen to what you have to say. You've added nothing to this conversation and you have played the role of righ wing troll perfectly: make no point at all but take some poorly aimed shots at your "enemies". Say something that challenges me and makes me think. Aren't there any intelligent posters on the right? Anyone?
"Aren't there any intelligent posters on the right? Anyone?"
I don't know.. I am not on "the right"...
My point is, the Hysterical Left is an "all or nothing" entity who really don't give a rip about anything but their own agenda.. There attitude on the Iraq War (as espoused in this commentary) is merely one facet of the overall irrationality of their beliefs..
"Say something that challenges me and makes me think. "
Glad to...
Resolved
Political hysteria and bigotry on BOTH sides of the political spectrum is anathema to the health of this Republic.
I'll choose the affirmative and let you go first..
Michale...
"But when you strip away all the talk of "victory" and "timetables," John McCain's plan is most likely going to wind up being pretty close to Barack Obama's plan. "
"Aren't there any intelligent posters on the right? Anyone?"
Really subjective, isn't it? Whether you are able to think or not is your problem. Anyway, the author seems to think the issue between Old John and Obama on Iraq withdrawal is moot.
DanBest, I concur with you, troll indeed. When someone is *consistently* found using Republican talking points within their rhetoric, they're a sophistry using troll and bty denying it makes one a prevaricator also, which BTW, is a classic *RED FLAG* for outing NeoCon trolls.
That captain would be B'ushco, who seems to be at zero percent and perfectly content to remain there.
"the foreign policy positions on Iraq of John McCain and Barack Obama are going to get a lot closer"
and Barack Obama promises to EXPAND the Bush policy of our government funding religion.
Oh I can't wait to hear Obama's 4th of July speech tomorrow.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a FLAG and carrying a CROSS."
Sinclair Lewis
The "doublethink" creates a switch junction on the track of Republican rhetoric. As you point out, there is not going to be much difference in the way things play out, with either Obama or McCain as president -- it will simply be a difference of philosophy as you put it (or political spin).
Although things can't be done too much differently in either case, we can see by the difference in political "philosophy" that if it is Obama, as he begins removing troops when possible, it will be decried as some form of "cuttin' and runnin'", evidence of Democrats being weak, soft on terrorism; we have "lost". If it were McCain, he'll have to do pretty much the same thing, and the spin will be, "the surge was a success, GWB's objectives in Iraq have been successfully realized; we have "won".
Precisely put! And when he has to leave troops, which he will because this debacle requires it, he will be derided for that too.
There is no possible chance of 'victory' in Iraq. The only victory we can achieve is for our troops, which means bringing them home now, alive and intact.
"There is no possible chance of 'victory' in Iraq."
And what training or expertise allows you to make such a statement??
Michale...
Well isn't that the point. Define victory. Hell let's define it right now as the present situation and get the hell out. Let's have a massive welcome home for our soldiers who have sacrificed so much for this. Vicrtory is arbitrary and how precisely do you win in a country you are occupying? They live there. They can wait us out. They have eternity. We only have as long as the American public can stand it and no more. How do these simple facts escape you?
The afore was cross posted to www.chrisw
Michale...
The simple fact is, things are better on the ground in Iraq than they were pre-surge.
Those who deny this are simply playing partisan and pandering politics and have no stake in reality...
I think the Left (excluding the Hysterical Left, of course) is finally coming to grips with the reality. That simply getting up and leaving is NOT an option in Iraq.
We broke it.. We gotta fix it..
It's THAT simple...
Before all the childish name-calling and labeling begins, let it be known that I am a committed Obama supporter.
Michale...
"We broke it.. We gotta fix it.." ???
We don't care about fixing it. We just want their OIL!
Ignoring for the moment that may or may not be true, let's assume that it is..
So what??
Postulate a planet where oxygen is in VERY short supply and the largest supply of it is in a region of the planet that is constantly in a state of turmoil and war.
Doesn't it make sense that the supply of such a needed item be protected and not arbitrarily destroyed.
Like it or not, oil is the lifeblood of our economy.. Even if the Iraq campaign was SOLELY about oil (and I am not saying it is) there are definitely worse reasons to go to war over...
Michale...
And here I thought we just wanted their hearts and minds.
Regardless of " conditions on the ground in Iraq", we should get the hell out of that Country. Trouble is, "conditions on the ground.." had nothing to do with why we unlawfully invaded in the first place: it was all about "conditions UNDER ground in Iraq", specifically Iraqs HUGE OIL RESERVES!!!!!
The Oil Oligarchy who yields Power under Republican Administrations WILL NEVER permit us to leave!! We THE PEOPLE MUST stand up to those Oligarchs _ "OILGARCHS ! - and reclaim Power in our Country.
" We THE PEOPLE MUST stand up" ???
it is HOPELESS.
See Chris Weigant's Profile
BARRISTER -
I'd spell it "Oiligarchs", but I congratulate you for excellently coining a very apt new term. "Oiligarchs" ... I like it!
-CW
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
