Obama, McCain, and Bush to Unite On New Iraq Policy

Loading

Senator John McCain has made a name for himself as a Maverick in Congress because he’s gone against his party line so often.  Senator Obama has always voted along with his party line, but he’s campaigned successfully by portraying himself as a man who can unite the nation and end partisan divisiveness.  Long before Senator Obama’s efforts to paint himself as a “uniter,” President Bush ran in 1999 and 2000 as a “uniter” who would end the deep partisan divide that had been created in Congress and the nation. 

For the past six years the core of America’s political divide has been national policy regarding Iraq; the invasion, occupation, and reconstruction of Iraq.  Very soon, all three men will find themselves in a strange position-dictated no longer by the political expediency and potential gain from politicizing the war one way or the other, but rather by the conditions on the ground, and the actions of American forces as well as allied and enemy forces.  This strange position is one of a new unified Iraq policy that will alienate political bases, but it also threatens to pull the core crutch issue for both Republicans and Democrats off the debate floor.

The new Iraq policy? 

A “Conditions-based” “timetable for withdrawal” that ensures “sustainable security”

Democrats have been calling for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq since before the invasion even began.  No war has ever been fought (let alone won) on a schedule-generals try, but no plan ever survives contact with the enemy.  The reason Democrats have pushed for a timetable hasn’t been based on mankind’s history of waging war on time and on schedule, and it hasn’t been because American forces are causing the problems in Iraq (that’s the enemy’s job).  No, it’s been to have a checklist of missed deadlines with which to use as political claims that the Bush Administration has handled the prosecution of the war poorly.  Nowadays, everyone-even conservatives-see that the Bush Administration wasn’t prepared for an insurgency, and from 2004-2006 handled the insurgency poorly.  This acknowledgement changes the argument for a timetable into something that the Bush Administration has shouted into the wind poorly and without effect since the invasion began, ‘timetables need to be conditions-based, not calender based.’  Those words have not only been President Bush’s position for years, but it’s also been Senator McCain’s, and last week, Senator Obama’s campaign “refined” it’s Iraq policy as well to say that timetables should be based on the conditions on the ground; ie conditions-based.

Later this month, General Petraeus will address Congress and tell them that the forces sent to Iraq for the 2007 “Surge” offensive (forces ordered to withdrawn between Sept 14, 2007 and April 2008) have come home, and that further force reductions will begin soon.   He’s also expected to say that the Iraqi government which has recently made its annual call for a timeline of US force withdrawals will be trained up to speed and size around this time next year (a historic accomplishment unmatched in military history). 

By that time, President Bush will be gone.  Senator McCain has said he’s willing to keep some American forces in Iraq at their request indefinitely as long as they’re not being killed or wounded.  Those forces would have strategic mission objectives of:

  • Fighting Al Queda groups which are in Iraq
  • Protecting Americans in Iraq
  • Supporting Iraqi Security Forces
  • Training Iraqi Security Forces
  • and to serve as a regional deterrent

These are the same objectives that Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, Senator Edwards, and others Democrats have campaigned and supported for the past two years now.

Before election day, there will be almost no difference between the Obama and McCain Iraq policies.  It’s good news for Senator McCain who will have to alter his strategy very little, and only the word “timetable” will be hard for the conservative base to swallow.  Conservatives will still find great pride (and ego) in the perception that their support for the troops went all the way to supporting their efforts, and that they’d backed success in Iraq for purposes of America’s security rather than oppose it as a catalyst for venting political alienation, frustration, etc.

On the other hand, this will be Senator Obama’s first real chance to prove that he is not a party line Congressional seat warmer, but a true uniter.  He will have to convince his strongly anti-war base that while tens of thousands of American troops will be coming home from Iraq, and while the mission is being accomplished despite their protests and his own doubts, he too will keep tens of thousands of Americans in Iraq if he is elected.   Last week when his campaign began to test those rhetorical waters the far left/Democratic Party base went ballistic in angry response.   Within hourse Senator Obama had to address the press and say that he still wanted to withdraw 1-2 brigades a month starting in January 2009 (a logistical impossibility that he and his campaign have no explanation or plan for achieving).  This month’s address from General Petraeus will give him some more reason/rationality for the “refining of his Iraq policy,” and so will his subsequent ‘fact-finding’ visit to Iraq, but it will still be a hard sell.  His base has been feverishly against the use of force in Iraq ever since President Clinton’s, post-impeachment, December 1998 airstrikes (the ones that the 911 Commission claims compelled Osama Bin Laden to authorize the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks [pg154]). 

Can Senator Obama unite the nation by ending the Democratic Party’s delibrate, politically-motivated division/opposition to the war in Iraq?  If he can, he will prove to be the man he portrays.  All he has to do is setup a meeting and photo opportunity at the White House with President Bush and Senator McCain.  Such a public unification effort would send political shockwaves around the nation and the world.  But if he can’t face down his party base, then he risks being called out and shown to be as bi-partisan and committed to campaign pledges as the Democrats’ Congress has proven to be since they were elected under false pretenses in November 2006 (what’s their latest approval rating?).

The moment of truth approaches.  The Iraq War has CHANGED.  There is HOPE.  Will America’s political leaders change and bring about hope as well, or will the deliberate division over post-invasion Iraq continue?

UPDATE

You’ve been talking about those limited missions for a long time. Having gone there and talked to both diplomatic and military folks, do you have a clearer idea of how big a force you’d need to leave behind to fulfill all those functions?

I do think that’s entirely conditions-based. It’s hard to anticipate where we may be six months from now, or a year from now, or a year and a half from now.

link

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
6 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments