Jon Chait has an interesting article arguing that we shouldn't take the candidates rhetoric about forward-looking Iraq policy all that seriously -- both have incentives to try to outline crystal clear positions but, in reality, both would need to respond to some extent to events on the ground.
That's all very true, but at the same time I think we're in danger of seeing a tendency toward the smart set actually underestimating the extent of disagreement between Obama and McCain. Part of this is much is being made of the fact that some public statements by some Obama advisors seem to indicate that they are less enthusiastic about speedy withdrawal from Iraq than the candidate's stated vision seems to imply. A big deal gets made out of this because it's a newsworthy admission against interest type of thing. A less big deal gets made out of the fact that there are actually a lot of other people associated with the Obama camp who completely agree with Obama's rhetoric on Iraq. Something like "Obama Advisor Agrees With Obama Position" makes for a terrible article so you get less coverage of the fact that Obama really might just listen to Brian Katulis and Larry Korb and leave Iraq.
More broadly, though, Jon's article has been given the unfortunate subhead "Ignore what candidates say about foreign policy" even though that's not what the argument of the column says. But of course "foreign policy" is not equivalent to "ideas about appropriate force levels in Iraq in October of 2009." Foreign policy includes our relationships with Russia, China, India, Japan and the European allies. It includes our approach to Syria and North Korea. It certainly includes our approach to, say, Iran and it's clear enough that McCain and Obama have different ideas about Iran. But the course of U.S.-Iranian relations will have a big impact on America's Iraq policy. The causal line here isn't totally predictable -- Obama's Iraq policy will depend, in part, on the outcome of his efforts at diplomacy with Iran, but we can't know what that outcome will be. On the one hand, that supports Jon's point that there's a lot of uncertainty here. But at the same time, there are meaningful differences -- Obama might work out a good accommodation with Iran but McCain almost certainly won't, whereas McCain might blunder into a larger war with Iran while Obama almost certainly won't.
U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Jeffrey Allen
| 
Heads in the Sand
I suspect that the 'divisions' in the Obama camp are more reflective of the degree to which they consider rapid withdrawal practical and possible rather than desirable. There is also the issue of managing expectations, it may indeed be possible to have a withdrawal completed in 12 months, but they will want this presented as a heroic achievement, not a checkbox item.
The real question is what the candidates want from the Iraq situation.
McCain is clearly unwilling to accept responsibility for a military defeat. He may or may not consider establishing permanent bases in Iraq to provide control of the region as the ultimate objective of the exercise, but his administration would clearly act as if they were. Given his abject ignorance of the region, unable to distinguish Al Qaeda from Iran, it is unlikely that he has a wider perspective than occupation.
Obama does not have to accept responsibility for the defeat, the defeat was clearly due to the incompetence of Bush and crew. He certainly does not want permanent bases even if they are achievable. He certainly isn't interested in occupation for the sake of occupation.
The real difference between the candidates is their ability to face the facts. Obama knows that the situation in Iraq is lost. There is no possible outcome that is going to leave either Iraq or the US better than it started. There is no outcome that is not going to leave Iran with a vastly increased influence in the region. McCain just sticks his fingers in his ears and says 'la la la, I'm not listening".
Posted by PHB | May 21, 2008 8:45 AM