OPINION:
One year ago, in the wake of the Democrats recapturing Congress, it was unimaginable that in 2008, Republicans (or for that matter, any American politicians) would be emphasizing military and political successes in Iraq. But thanks to the outstanding leadership of Gen. David Petraeus and the men and women who participated in the Iraq troop surge, things have changed quite dramatically. For now, their achievements sem to have sapped the MoveOn.org, anti-war- movement crowd of much of its political support and energy.
Republicans are no longer running away from the war, and it is all but certain that their presidential nominee will be Sen. John McCain — a man who staked his candidacy and political career on victory in Iraq. While the two leading contenders for the Democratic nomination, Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (both competing for the votes of the far-left Democratic primary base) have been vociferously anti-war, many of their Senate colleagues would rather not discuss Iraq these days. Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, made good on a promise to Sen. Russell Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat by allowing him to bring up legislation mandating a funding cutoff for U.S. military operations in Iraq in 120 days. Senate Republicans had been expected to filibuster the issue, but Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, surprised the Democrats by joining with them in bringing the Feingold measure to the floor. Mr. Reid and other anti-war Senate Democrats were then reduced to grousing that the Republicans wanted to debate Iraq instead of costly new housing legislation.
And last week Mr. McCain served notice that he plans to make life much more uncomfortable for politicians like Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton who have sought to advance their political careers by pushing for a U.S. military retreat in Iraq. During Tuesday night’s Democratic debate, Mr. Obama responded to a hypothetical question by stating that although he intended to withdraw troops from Iraq as quickly as possible, he reserved the right to send them back into the country “if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq.” Mr. McCain, speaking at a campaign event in Texas, replied with wry sarcasm to Mr. Obama’s statement. “I have some news,” Mr. McCain said. “Al Qaeda is in Iraq. It’s called ’Al Qaeda in Iraq.’ ”
If the United States abandoned that country, al Qaeda “wouldn’t be establishing a base. They’d be taking a country, and I’m not going to allow that to happen,” Mr. McCain added, criticizing Mr. Obama for waving a “white flag” of surrender.
The following day, Mr. Obama, seemingly thrown onto the defensive by the Arizona Republican’s blunt criticism, said he would “always reserve the right to go in and strike al Qaeda if they were in Iraq.” Mr. McCain replied later: “So, I guess that means that he would surrender and then go back.” Mr. McCain is exactly right on this point. Mr. Obama can’t seem to grasp that his position is incoherent: One the one hand, he wants to out-compete Mrs. Clinton for primary votes from hard-left, Bush-hating anti-war types. (And judging from the recent primary results, he’s succeeding.) But at the same time, Mr. Obama has to at least pretend to be tough on terrorism (at least tough-sounding enough for the focus groups), so he ties himself up in knots with caveats about returning to Iraq after surrendering the country to al Qaeda — something that would be a logistical nightmare and be furiously opposed by the left-wing constituent groups that form the backbone of his political coalition.
Mr. Obama, politically cornered by Mr. McCain, counters that there “was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.” Actually, that may not be true. U.S. analysts have interviewed captured Iraqi prisoners, including a member of Saddam Hussein’s mukhabarat (secret police), who have claimed that there was a relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam, who permitted hundred of foreign terrorists to train at a facility at Salman Pak, located 20 miles southeast of Baghdad. But, even if Mr. Obama were correct on this point, so what? As Mr. McCain points out, the fact is that al Qaeda is in Iraq now, the U.S. military presence there is the only thing preventing it from taking over the country, and Mr. Obama wants to surrender but pretend that yes, if the country collapses and genocide occurs after he pulls out the troops, then he’ll really — really — do something about it.
As Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain squared off over Iraq last week, Mrs. Clinton and the number two Republican candidate in the race, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee seemed to fade into the background. Mr. Huckabee, interviewed by a San Antonio newspaper, spoke in very general terms about winning and achieving stability in Iraq. For their part, Clinton campaign officials have tried to shift the debate away from Iraq and toward domestic economic issues. These days, screeching like Jane Fonda and pretending it’s the Vietnam War all over again isn’t really so much fun after all.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.