An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

The Iraq Conundrum

Michael Crowley of the New Republic, has a good article about Senator Obama and his Iraq policy. You will want to read the whole thing, but in short he says that while Obama is talking about getting out of Iraq, it might be more likely to see a reduced presence in Iraq.

I think that no matter who gets into the Oval Office in 2009, Iraq is not going to be easy to deal with and will probably go against what the bases of the political parties want.

There has been a lot of talk that either Hillary Clinton or Obama will not get the troops out yesterday, but I there has not been talk about what McCain would do other than the errorneous “100 years” remark. This is only my guess, but I tend to think that even though McCain has talked a lot about staying in Iraq and fighting, I have to think that he will also be thinking about how to best get America out of Iraq. Why? Because if he wins, he will have to face the responsibility of leading a nation that is in an unpopular war, where the body count is rising and rising with no end in sight. McCain might be a Vietnam Veteran and a hawk, but I think in his heart of hearts, he knows when a losing proposition is a losing proposition. My guess is that he might bring in the United Nations through some kind of peace keeping force, or do a whole bunch of shuttle diplomacy to European captials to get them involved (and privately offering a bunch of mea culpas). There might be some spin to make it look like we are chaning the focus (remember “peace with honor,”) and the mission might change to one of containment- trying to keep the instability in Iraq from spreading or threatening nearby nations.

Of course, this is all speculation and I could be totally wrong. But like the Dems, who have to face that they can’t get out as easy nor as fast as they want to, McCain will have to realize that we can’t stay there forever, either.

The sticking point on both sides are the bases of both parties. Will antiwar Democrats give a President Clinton or Obama some wiggle room in how best to end the conflict? Will pro-war Republicans concede that there is a time when we have to drawn down troops and end the war and allow a President McCain to oversee a withdrawl of forces? Will any of the candidates be strong of enough to face down their bases?

Beyond all the soundbites of “out of Iraq” or “Victory in Iraq,” is the realities of governing. Iraq is not as easy as both sides want it to be. It was politics that got us into the mess of Iraq. Let’s hope politics will not be what drives us getting out.

  • RememberNovember
    If the next president can get more than half of our troops out of Iraq within the first two years, that will be a marked improvement over the past five. If we can get 3 more Senators to pass the Hegle Bill, then we can get those returning troops what they deserve- a second chance after Stop-loss stopgaps driving them to the brink.

    7's a lucky number in my book.
  • Slamfu
    I would hope the next president has them all back within 2 years. Why we are still over in that fiasco I don't know. There is not one Iraqi faction with any real clout that is a fit for our desired friendly democratic Iraq pipedream. Each grp is one shade or another of theocratic thug intent on seizing power for their own ends and I say we let them fight it out and deal with whoever is left standing once that country if finally a nation again.

    Its not our fight anymore, we are just the referee. All the players are Iraqis which is why I laugh when people say we are going to stay until we "win". Its not up to us anymore.
  • runasim
    I know it's foolish to expect it, but I wish all the candidates, and their supporters, would stop talking about Iraq in absolutist terms.
    Between now and 2009, a lot of things can happen that will change the picture once more.
    > What will al Sadr do?
    > What will alQaeda do? (They have a remarkable ability to rise up after every defeat)
    > What will be the results of elections in the provinces?
    > What will be the result of Congressional elections in the US?
    > What will be the state of our military forces?
    > What will be state of our economy?

    The situation is so fluid that I think we should all take a deep breath and pause before committing to a firm position in tomoorrow's circumstances.

    Looking to the UN for more than guidance and lip service is uselless, IMO.
    The member states have too much diffciulty just living up to past commitments.

    PS I wish there were a law banning words like 'victory' from disucssions about Iraq.
  • Let’s hope politics will not be what drives us getting out.


    I'm hoping it's democracy that drives us out.
  • Slamfu
    "What will al Sadr do?"

    He will maintain his hold on his territories and strive to kill any Sunni's that threaten his power base. His position is strong enough that any battle of attrition goes his way. Once we leave he will go all out and seize power.

    "What will alQaeda do?"

    Kill anyone that doesn't agree with them in the following order of importance: American, Shiites, their fellow Sunnis.

    "What will be the results of elections in the provinces?"

    Sunni area will elect Sunnis, Shiite will elect Shiites. Shiites will once again have majority control and the Sunnis will not stand for being under their thumb and not recognize the Shiite majority. The highest posts will be filled by those America picks, ensuring that neither Sunni nor Shiite recognize their authority.

    The other issues will have a negligible impact on the outcome in Iraq.
  • lurxst
    For McCain and his republican backers, Iraq is already a win. Global unrest continues, arms sales are up, oil prices are skyrocketing, the rich are getting richer and the US is on its way to becoming a nation of waiters and waitresses serving the richest 1 percent. Why change?

    For such a long term in the senate, McCain sure has awfully little in the accomplishment department to crow about.
  • RememberNovember
    Tob be a good referee requires an implicit understanding of the rules-when the rules change on a day to day basis by influence from a rag-tag government or own own mismanagement team, how can that accomplish anything?
    This entire campaign has been run like an tobacco company lawsuit.
  • runasim
    Okay, It's been acknowledged that the war was a tragic mistake, that it was misplanned, mismanaged and misrepresented.
    How does that acknowledgement change the situation we find ourselves in today? It's a situation we created. The 'rag-tag' government is one we created.
    Now we want to say: "Sorry we broke your house, but now you fix it"? .

    Of course, we can't fix it, either, even if we wanted to.. That's why I believe beginning the process of withdrawal is important; it clarifies for the Iraqis the part they must play in their own destiny Our part is to make sure we don't misplan, misexecute and misrepresent coming out as badly as we did going in. We owe them and ourselves that much.

    That's also why I dislike the firm time commitments and withdrawal dates, without space for changing circumstances or consequences.
    That's precisely what Rumsfeld's basic error was. He stuck to his original plan regardless of how badly the consequences were piling up. around him. We don't want to mimic Rumsfeld's mistakes, I would think.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC