. . . but NONE of the three remaining Presidential candidates are going to do so.
I know, I know, Barack and Hillary have promised to do so, and John McCain wants to keep us there for 100 years, right?
Well, not quite.
Barack Obama's official site says,
Great doublespeak, Senator.
"Combat brigades" out, huh? To say nothing about nearly 45,000 support troops in theater. IF Al Qaeda "attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on Al Qaeda." Hello, Senator, for better or worse Al Qaeda has plenty of personnel and weapons in Iraq right now. They may be there because we went there first, but here's a clue: they're not going to leave when we do. Which you already know. So while President Obama will certainly bring some troops home, his own rhetoric leaves plenty of room for fudging, and absolutely no mention of over 100,000 military contractors and mercenaries that either the State Department or major US corporations maintain there.
As for diplomacy, here's what the Senator says,
Now, since Iran and Syria are both quite happy with the status quo of a destabilized Iraq, you can imagine how successful this diplomatic effort will be (while maybe wondering what we've got to offer Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait to keep them all happy at the same time). I'd agree with Hillary that Barack is naive about conducting diplomacy at the world level, except that she says exactly the same thing with regard to solving the Iraq crisis:
Note that "all of the states bordering Iraq" includes Syria and Iran; note further that her diplomatic agenda (check the website) has exactly the same objectives as those of Obama.
Oh, and before we leave Hillary, let's notice she's not above double-talk on withdrawal herself:
Note that the clear commitment to "one to two brigades per month" that she occasionally makes on the campaign trail is missing here. Instead, there is a promise to come up with a plan. Nixon had a plan for leaving Vietnam, too; it just took him slightly longer than his first term to finish it. Will we bring all our troops home or leave strike forces in areas around the region? Hillary does not commit herself in writing.
What does McCain say (just to be fair-minded about this)?
We all know he's in favor of staying the course on the ground, and that can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your perspective. But it's his diplomatic strategy that is interesting to examine:
You've got to ask yourself who has the most realistic view of Iran and Syria here (although you can see strange echoes of McCain's bolstered regional presence in Obama's stance).
What emerges from all this is the understanding that neither President Clinton, President Obama, nor President McCain will get us immediately out of Iraq and/or the Middle East. There are all sorts of dynamics in play here, not the least of which is that the situation will surely look different to each of them on 26 January 2009 at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue than it does on the campaign trail.
Remember the famous middle-class tax cut and an end to the discrimination against gays in the military that Bubba promised us in 1992?
It is important not to let Obama-mania, She-Clinton avoidance syndrome, or Straight-Talk phobia blind us to an important reality of national politics:
Presidential candidates make lots of promises, the vaguer the better.
New presidents often find compelling reasons not to deliver on these promises, especially the vague ones.
Barack, Hillary and John are all presidential candidates.
The people I pity the most are the ones who believe that their candidate is different.
I know, I know, Barack and Hillary have promised to do so, and John McCain wants to keep us there for 100 years, right?
Well, not quite.
Barack Obama's official site says,
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
Great doublespeak, Senator.
"Combat brigades" out, huh? To say nothing about nearly 45,000 support troops in theater. IF Al Qaeda "attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on Al Qaeda." Hello, Senator, for better or worse Al Qaeda has plenty of personnel and weapons in Iraq right now. They may be there because we went there first, but here's a clue: they're not going to leave when we do. Which you already know. So while President Obama will certainly bring some troops home, his own rhetoric leaves plenty of room for fudging, and absolutely no mention of over 100,000 military contractors and mercenaries that either the State Department or major US corporations maintain there.
As for diplomacy, here's what the Senator says,
Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.
Now, since Iran and Syria are both quite happy with the status quo of a destabilized Iraq, you can imagine how successful this diplomatic effort will be (while maybe wondering what we've got to offer Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait to keep them all happy at the same time). I'd agree with Hillary that Barack is naive about conducting diplomacy at the world level, except that she says exactly the same thing with regard to solving the Iraq crisis:
In her first days in office, Hillary would convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all of the states bordering Iraq.
Note that "all of the states bordering Iraq" includes Syria and Iran; note further that her diplomatic agenda (check the website) has exactly the same objectives as those of Obama.
Oh, and before we leave Hillary, let's notice she's not above double-talk on withdrawal herself:
The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration.
Note that the clear commitment to "one to two brigades per month" that she occasionally makes on the campaign trail is missing here. Instead, there is a promise to come up with a plan. Nixon had a plan for leaving Vietnam, too; it just took him slightly longer than his first term to finish it. Will we bring all our troops home or leave strike forces in areas around the region? Hillary does not commit herself in writing.
What does McCain say (just to be fair-minded about this)?
We all know he's in favor of staying the course on the ground, and that can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your perspective. But it's his diplomatic strategy that is interesting to examine:
John McCain believes Syria and Iran have aided and abetted the violence in Iraq for too long. Syria has refused to crack down on Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists operating from within its territory. Iran has aided the most extreme and violent Shia militias, providing them with training, weapons, and technology that they have used to kill American troops.
The answer is not to enter into unconditional dialogues with these two dictatorships from a position of weakness. The answer is for the international community to apply real pressure to Syria and Iran to change their behavior. The United States must also bolster its regional military posture to make clear to Iran our determination to protect our forces in Iraq and to deter Iranian intervention in that country.
You've got to ask yourself who has the most realistic view of Iran and Syria here (although you can see strange echoes of McCain's bolstered regional presence in Obama's stance).
What emerges from all this is the understanding that neither President Clinton, President Obama, nor President McCain will get us immediately out of Iraq and/or the Middle East. There are all sorts of dynamics in play here, not the least of which is that the situation will surely look different to each of them on 26 January 2009 at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue than it does on the campaign trail.
Remember the famous middle-class tax cut and an end to the discrimination against gays in the military that Bubba promised us in 1992?
It is important not to let Obama-mania, She-Clinton avoidance syndrome, or Straight-Talk phobia blind us to an important reality of national politics:
Presidential candidates make lots of promises, the vaguer the better.
New presidents often find compelling reasons not to deliver on these promises, especially the vague ones.
Barack, Hillary and John are all presidential candidates.
The people I pity the most are the ones who believe that their candidate is different.
Comments