IRAQ, JOHN McCAIN, AND THE 2008 ELECTION

January 28, 2008 

For several months now the war in Iraq has not been the overriding issue in American politics it was before the surge strategy changed conditions on the ground.  Domestic issues, currently the credit crunch and downturn in the stock market brought about by the sub-prime mortgage crisis, dominate the news.  That doesn’t mean the war still won’t play a major role in determining who will be our next president.  Senator McCain's stand on Iraq is influencing moderate and independent voters.  If he wins the Republican nomination, it will influence the position of the democratic nominee in the general election.

From the moment US strategy in Iraq began to falter, until President Bush’s surge strategy began to show promise, Democrats and Republicans exchanged familiar arguments and accusations about the strategy, course, and consequences of the war.  McCain, an early advocate of a surge, staked out his own ground, openly criticizing Rumsfeld and Bush Administration policies while supporting Bush’s pursuit of victory.

Fundamental differences between Democrats and Republicans will remain, but once the two parties choose their candidates for the general election, and as long as the situation in Iraq continues to improve, the debate about the war will move in a new direction.  Candidates run to the left or the right during the primaries, but they tack toward the center in the general election.  It won’t be the committed on the left or the right who will determine who wins.  There are very few voters in these two groups who can be swayed.  It will be Independents and moderate Republicans and Democrats that will determine who will be our next president.

Well-worn arguments about the war will have decreasing relevance with voters in the center who are more interested in the future than in rehashing the past and who have less of a stake in partisan politics.  Even if McCain is not their candidate, his argument that the consequences of a US loss in Iraq would be catastrophic resonates with many of them.  While they may have come to believe that victory was not possible before, the success of the surge leads them now to believe it may be possible.  They’re more willing to vote for a president who will pursue victory than before.

Writing in “American Honor” on the editorial page of the January 22, 2008 edition of the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens argues that the 40th anniversary of the Vietnam Tet Offensive corresponds to the revival of John McCain’s fortunes as a Republican candidate for president. “That event, far more so than Sept. 11, is what Mr. McCain's candidacy is all about.  In many ways it's what this year's election is all about, too.”  Stephens’ article is instructive on how the lessons of Vietnam continue to affect the psyche of American voters and may affect this election.

Stephens observes that there “are two narratives about Tet, which began the night of January 30, 1968.”  The liberal version is that, “it exposed America’s politicians and generals as dupes and liars.”  The conservative version is that “it was a rout for the North Vietnamese,” and Johnson lost the support of the media élite, not the American people.

Stephens asserts that, “this second narrative explains why McCain is succeeding among Republicans in 2008 in a way he did not eight years ago. . . . his fundamental appeal is to American honor.  .  . He seeks to turn his personal code of honor–the ‘No Surrender’ slogan–into a national code.  He rails against a news media that only begrudgingly recognizes American military gains . . . Above all, he not only warns against the policy consequences of a failure in Iraq, but also stands against a philosophy, or psychology, that seeks to make a virtue of failure.”

Finally, Stephens argues, “His case is easier to make because this time Americans do have the benefit of hindsight about the consequences of defeat (in Vietnam ), . . . Among them: the mass murder of the people who stood with us; the enslavement of entire nations by fanatical and confident ideologues; the blow to U.S. interests and the stain on American prestige.”

Americans and historians will debate for decades to come the wisdom of intervening in Iraq as they have Vietnam.  If, ultimately, it proves to have been a pivotal moment in Middle East politics, leading to the spread of democracy, a decline in terrorism, and peace between Israel and its neighbors, President Bush and US intervention in Iraq will be regarded much differently than they are now.  If, on the other hand, it proves to have been folly, we will have only the magnitude of the negative results to debate.  We’ll have to wait for some time after the next election, however, to know the outcome.

In the mean time, Americans have a president to elect.  Committed partisans will vote for their party’s nominee.  Democrats will continue to advocate an early withdrawal from Iraq.  Moderates and Independents, however, who will determine the outcome of this election, will be less inclined to vote for a candidate in November who advocates a precipitous withdraw from Iraq if they can be convinced it’s not in America’s best interest.

It’s still too early to know if McCain will be the nominee of the Republican Party.  Some political pundits predict that we may not know who either party’s nominee will be until the nominating conventions in August and September.  But even if McCain is not on the ballot in November, what he represents and his positions on the Iraq War likely will influence the way many moderates and Independents vote.

A majority of them, especially those old enough to remember, don’t want to see a repeat of the aftermath of the Vietnam War.  Regardless of whether they believe intervening in Iraq was a mistake, they know we’re there now, and they want to see this conflict come to an honorable conclusion, preferably one that leaves the United States in an advantageous position in the Middle East.

This doesn’t mean that John McCain or even a Republican has the edge and is likely to win.  To be sure, economic and social issues will weigh heavily, and you can bet money that it will be a close election.  

But whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, people have to be able to see that person as Commander-in-Chief.  Both know that regardless of how much disdain Democrats have for Bush and the Iraq War, it quickly will become the property of the next president.  To win the votes of people in the center they have to convince voters that they will pursue the right course.

John McCain is a maverick.  He’s not the candidate of Republican conservatives.  Democrats don’t like his stance on Iraq.  He’s occasionally cranky, and he’s getting up in age.  But he’s admired and respected by most Americans because of what he went through as a POW in Vietnam.  He may or may not be the next president, but Democrats in particular, if they want to be president, need to understand that, with a lot of help from General Petraeus, McCain’s changing the way moderates and Independents look at Iraq.