LOOKING BEYOND IRAQ

March 3, 2008 

Now that Barack Obama and John McCain are each behaving like the presumptive nominees of their parties for the general election, the verbal sparing between the two candidates on Iraq has begun in earnest.  And they both appear anxious to engage in a debate about the war.  But now that the two men are focused on each other, why continue to fight over an issue that has been overtaken by events? 

The surge is working.  The situation on the ground has improved dramatically.  The tide of battle has turned in America and Iraq’s favor.  It would be most unfortunate if the national security debate in this campaign for the presidency were dominated by backward-looking arguments about Iraq.  What the American people need to know, and what the candidates have an obligation to tell us, is how they would deal with other existing and emerging national security and foreign policy challenges.

Barack Obama argues that the war was a bad idea and he opposed it from the beginning.  US forces are bogged down in Iraq, detracting from our ability to pursue al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere, and we can’t afford to continue to spend billions of dollars pursuing the war when the country faces a recession and has more important needs.  While the military situation may have temporarily improved, the Iraqis have failed to make the necessary political progress.  Then there are the underlying arguments about how Bush has alienated all our allies and done great harm to our standing in the world.  If elected Obama will pull US forces out of Iraq within 120 days. 

John McCain argues that Donald Rumsfeld mismanaged the war, but the surge, which he advocated, has turned things around.  We may have gotten into Iraq because of faulty intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, but we’re there now.  Iraq is the front line in the war on terrorism.  A premature pullout of US forces from Iraq, without regard for the consequences, would be devastating for US national security.  Iraq has made military and political progress that Obama refuses to recognize.  We are winning the war and now is no time to give up.  If elected he will continue to pursue the strategy that’s working, bringing the troops home as the Iraqis are able to take over their missions.

Both men believe what the other advocates is wrong for America.  They want to do what’s in the country’s best interest.  They also understand that the stakes in this election are high.  Control of the White House, and, should the coattails of the victor be large enough, 60 seats in the Senate and a majority of the House of Representatives means passing laws and appointing judges the other side won’t support and can’t defeat.  It means charting the political, social, and economic agenda for years to come.

Presidential politics is hardball at the highest level.  The two candidates, within limits, will use whatever arguments appeal to the voters.  There are substantial blocks of voters with whom these well-worn arguments resonate.  They remind voters who hate Bush why they hate him.  They reinforce the belief of voters who think the Democrats are weak on defense.

Nevertheless, the situation on the ground has improved dramatically since the surge strategy went into effect.  Even the most anti-war segments of the mainstream media acknowledge the progress.  And while political progress has lagged behind military progress, the Iraqis are moving forward there as well.  If things continue to improve at the rate they have been improving, and there’s little reason to expect they won’t, next year when the new US president takes office, there won’t be the need for 100,000 plus American troops in Iraq.  We will have essentially won the war, and, after five years, largely won the peace.  The issue will be how many troops to leave in Iraq and what kind of a long-term presence we will have there.

On January 20, 2009, the most important national security or foreign policy issue on the president’s desk likely won’t be Iraq.  It more likely will be any one of a long list of potential crises and challenges that threaten world peace and US national security.  

Although the November 7, 2007, National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran’s nuclear weapons program concluded Iran suspended it in 2003, Iran continues to reprocess plutonium.  Since the NIE was published, however, many have questioned its key judgment.  When the new US president is informed that Iran is on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon, or that Israel is on the verge of taking it out, what will he do?

You can bet money that whether it’s sending Revolutionary Guard's speed boats to harass US Navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz or providing more accurate missiles and encouraging Hezbollah to fire them at Israel, Ahmadinejad will look for an early opportunity to test the new American president.  When that happens, how will the President react?

Tensions between Israel and Hamas already have reached a crisis.  Every day Hamas fires Qassam rockets from the Gaza Strip into southern Israel.  Israel has cut off most supplies to Gaza, and launches air strikes at Hamas targets.  A full scale incursion into Gaza could happen at any time.  When that happens, before or after the election, what will be the new US President's plan for moderating peace?

These are just three likely challenges the new US President will face.  There are plenty more.  How will he engage the new Pakistani government after Musharraf steps down?  What’s his plan for dealing with Vladimir Putin?  How will he motivate our NATO allies like Germany to be more helpful in Afghanistan?  How will he chart the course of US-China-Taiwan relations?  Will the US defend Taiwan if China attacks?  What about trade, energy independence, and human rights?  The war in Iraq surely has diverted some attention from all these issues.  But that was then and this is now.

The candidates, no doubt will continue to argue and debate about Iraq.  It’s comfortable territory for them and the media and it stirs passions and gets votes.  But it’s insufficient to reveal how the men who want to be president will handle the other issues.  It’s already been a long campaign, and we still have over eight months till Election Day.  Let’s hope we hear less about Iraq and more about the next big problem.  It isn't about changing the subject.  It's about choosing the right president and being prepared.