Make the Election About Iraq
That is Charles Krauthammer's column in today's Washington Post. One is tempted not to move one because, after all, the election is about Iraq. Should John McCain work overtime at making this election solely about Iraq, I do believe that he could be building the scaffolding for the inauguration of President Obama at the same time. Indeed, it is one and the same thing.
Before we go to Krauthammer's attempt to square the circle of how John McCain's unpopular position on an unpopular war will somehow woo an electorate that is already predisposed to vote for his opponent and his opponent's party on any number of issues, let us be clear. The war is unpopular. The Republicans are finding it extremely difficult to get traction on issues, to get candidates to stand for office, to raise money for candidates. America wants the Iraq occupation over. America wants its troops to come home as quickly as possible. It's that simple. Anyone who attempts to say otherwise is lying.
Furthermore, to pull out of Iraq would be both strategically and tactically smart. The running sore of our continued presence there; the drain on our troops and financial resources maintaining the occupation would end. We could use the time and resources to pursue actual terrorists through the means of international law enforcement, and cooperate with other countries on threats that face us all. Those who want to say that withdrawal from Iraq may be popular, but would be a military or political or diplomatic or whatever blunder are just plain wrong. Period. There is no argument here; there is no "other position" that "reasonable people" can disagree on. This isn't a partisan or ideological or other difference. It is a difference between people who understand what an absolute cock-up the entire Iraq business has been since day one, and those who continue to believe, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that we are engaged in some high-minded, noble pursuit that combines defending our country with spreading freedom around the world. The latter position is simple delusional fabulism.
Anyway, back to Krauthammer.
The disconnect between what Democrats are saying about Iraq and what is actually happening there has reached grotesque proportions. Democrats won an exhilarating electoral victory in 2006 pledging withdrawal at a time when conditions in Iraq were dire and we were indeed losing the war. Two years later, when everything is changed, they continue to reflexively repeat their "narrative of defeat and retreat" (as Joe Lieberman so memorably called it) as if nothing has changed.
It is a position so utterly untenable that John McCain must seize the opportunity and, contrary to conventional wisdom, make the Iraq war the central winning plank of his campaign. Yes, Americans are war-weary. Yes, most think we should not have engaged in the first place. Yes, Obama will keep pulling out his 2002 speech opposing the war.
But McCain's case is simple. Is not Obama's central mantra that this election is about the future, not the past? It is about 2009, not 2002. Obama promises that upon his inauguration, he will order the Joint Chiefs to bring him a plan for withdrawal from Iraq within 16 months. McCain says that upon his inauguration, he'll ask the Joint Chiefs for a plan for continued and ultimate success.
There is so much weaving of wishful thinking, selective fact citation, and out and out ridiculous delusion in this short excerpt as to be almost beyond belief.
With one exception. I think the election will be about Iraq, and only about Iraq. I believe that both John McCain and Barack Obama will spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with the issue. I think that Barack Obama will skip across the finish line, with McCain repeating his "bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran" parody of the Beach Boys, wondering why and how he lost. Krauthammer's advice will be heeded, and it will bode ill for Sen. McCain.
