If you haven't read The Washington Post's endorsement of Barack Obama, you should. It's a strong and reasoned case for why he should be elected as the 44th president of the United States.
Barack Obama for President
The Washington Post - Oct.16, 2008
"The nominating process this year produced two unusually talented and qualified presidential candidates. There are few public figures we have respected more over the years than Sen. John McCain. Yet it is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president." (cont.)
I agree wholeheartedly with most of what The Post's editorial board wrote in their endorsement. I, however, do take issue with their "thanks to the surge" statement.
The Post wrote: "Mr. Obama's greatest deviation from current policy is also our biggest worry: his insistence on withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq on a fixed timeline. Thanks to the surge that Mr. Obama opposed, it may be feasible to withdraw many troops during his first two years in office."
I know the economy is the issue now, but I've got some things to get off my chest about the war, and specifically, how the "surge" (called an "escalation" when it was done in Vietnam) was a success and now we are "winning."
Hmmm...call me a skeptic.
The assertion that the surge was a success assumes that (1) the increased numbers of American troops and the clear-and-hold tactics that they employed were the primary factors in the reduction in violence, (2) the relative calm is sustainable when we eventually and inevitably withdraw from most of those areas, and (3) it will necessarily result in a stable, Western-oriented democracy in a time frame -- and at a cost in "blood and treasure" -- that will be acceptable to the American people.
It seems there's a lot of "assuming" going on...again.
I hope those assumptions work out better than the ones made at the beginning of the war. You remember those, don't you? We were going to be greeted as liberators; would find weapons of mass destruction; Al-Qaeda was in Iraq (before we were); and the war would cost just $50 to $60 billion. (The White House economist who projected $100 to $200 billion was fired, by the way, for his wildly excessive estimate. Well, as of August 2008 the actual cost of the war is $550 billion. With the inclusion of long-term but very real costs such as rebuilding our military and providing lifelong medical care for a new generation of young war veterans, the actual cost will top $3 trillion, enough to fund Social Security for the next 50 years. And, of course, the cost of the shattered lives of ten thousands of servicemen, women and their families is incalculable, not to the mention the cost to countless Iraqis.)
In reality, the buying of the cooperation of enemies with still-ongoing cash payments were as important to tamping down the violence as the well executed military operations were. And let's face it, their cooperation will evaporate like a puddle in the Anbar desert when the gravy train ends.
An additional factor -- one that Obama should argue more forcefully -- is that Iraq's national and tribal leaders are keenly aware that a relatively quick exit may be implemented by the next American administration. Their positions are in jeopardy and the whole precarious house of cards will come tumbling down if they don't start compromising and learn to govern by consensus.
While rigidly adhering to a set timetable for withdrawal while ignoring changing "facts on the ground" would be certainly be foolish, telegraphing a possible timetable for our withdrawal is not naive. It's a lever worth using.
Obama need not be defensive about the position that he took on the surge, but he does need to better articulate what he opposed, why he opposed it, and to question without hesitation what the definition of "success" is without being afraid of being called a defeatist who doesn't want to "win."
Declaring that the "surge worked" is like being down ten grand at the blackjack table, doubling down on a $300 bet, winning that hand and then declaring that you're in the black.
Despite the enormous sacrifice, dedication and professionalism of American servicemen and women I do not believe that democracy will ever be imposed on the people of Iraq.
Not by us. Not by a long shot.
Maybe W should have paid a little more attention in History 101. And John McCain, too.
While recognizing that his "hundred years in Iraq" comment did not mean he would be fine with a hundred years of American military action, McCain does believe we can ultimately have a military presence in Iraq similar to our longstanding arrangements in Germany and South Korea.
That, my friends (as he might say), is not possible.
McCain's belief suggests an alarming lack of awareness of the basic current and historical realities of the region.
The fact is that the U.S. -- an occupying, non-Islamic Western power -- will never be accepted in Iraq. For a(nother) president to not grasp this would be a display a breathtakingly dangerous and consequential ignorance of the history of Mesopotamia. The nation of Iraq itself -- in an area with a 7000-year history of bloodshed -- is the 1920's creation of another occupying, non-Islamic Western power: the British. It was specifically designed to help with their exploitation of Middle Eastern oil reserves, despite the British proclamation that "Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators." (sound familiar?) It was stitched together in a deal in London from parts of the crumbled Ottoman Empire after World War I without the consent of the governed; the distinctly separate cultures of Kurdistan, the Shia in Basra and Sunnis of Baghdad.
The West's actions in the region have rarely (if ever) been motivated by a concern for the welfare of the people; nor is it today. The people know this, of course, and they have much longer memories than we do. To begin to appreciate the views of the Iraqi "street," U.S. policy must be viewed through the long lens of Mesopotamian time. When we say we are bringing them "democracy" many Iraqis understandably just see 150,000 occupying, non-Islamic Western soldiers in their country, and hear about things like Abu Ghraib and deals like the no-bid contract signed in June by by their American-backed government and with American and British oil companies ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP and others. They also hear gross distortions of truth and outright lies from internal and external radicals aiming to exploit their faith, poverty and the chaos of the times.
Under the circumstances, how would you rate our chances at winning Iraqi "hearts and minds"?
I do recognize that members of the U.S. military have performed their missions brilliantly and with a dedication that those of us who haven't served can never fully appreciate. I also know that the U.S. and British militaries have done truly commendable humanitarian work during the course of the current conflict.
We can't honor their service enough.
But we are not honoring them by perpetuating an unwinnable war that started with lies, incorrect assumptions, a lack of knowledge of culture and history, and a radical neo-conservative ideology to export "American values."
Giving your life for your country is never "dying for a mistake." When we ask for their sacrifice, they (and their families) answer. Every time. There is nothing more honorable than that. There is no greater love.
If only the leaders that got us into this mess were half as honorable.
The surge worked, sort of. But the war hasn't, and while it could have been prosecuted much better, it is not now, and never has been, a "winnable war." Not in the military sense.
John McCain knows the military, and he certainly knows sacrifice. We honor his. But when you only have a hammer every problem looks like a nail.
Vote for change.
Vote Obama.