Is the Iraq debate coming to an end?

[Lief Erikson]

Of course there will continue for a long time to be debate between many Republicans and Democrats about whether or not the Iraq War should have been fought in the first place, but there seems to be a growing consensus over the future of Iraq policy.

Presidential candidates McCain and Obama are making increasingly similar statements about how Iraq should be handled from now on.

Originally Posted by The Washington Post: "Campaigns' Iraq Stances Seem to Hit a Middle Ground"

Even as the two presumptive presidential nominees continue to squabble about the past, their debate over the future of US troops in Iraq seems to have entered a broad new middle ground, in which the question is not whether to withdraw but rather the speed and circumstances of departure.

In recent days, McCain has said he would support withdrawal over 16 months -- the timetable proposed by Obama -- provided "conditions" were right. Obama has said that he would "adapt" his withdrawal timeline should "things drastically worsen as we're drawing down." Both advocate leaving a residual US force in Iraq, although neither has specified the size of such a force or where it would be based.

The primary remaining visible difference between their positions, according to the Washington Post, is that McCain has said withdrawal should be based on the judgment of military commanders, whereas Obama has said that the president, as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, should make the decisions about withdrawal while listening to the advice of the generals.

There are of course crazy hardliners in the Democratic Party that insist on instantaneous complete withdrawal, but the dominant perspective in the Democratic Party is far saner. It also seems that because of the success of the Bush Administration's Surge policy (I'll add to the BBC article I just cited that the violence was lower last month than in any other month since the war began, according to the Washington Post article "U.S. Deaths In Iraq fall To Lowest Of the War"), Republicans, including President Bush, are ready to increase troop withdrawals.

Originally Posted by The Washington Post: "U.S. Deaths In Iraq fall To Lowest Of the War"

In a brief statement at the White House early Thursday, President Bush suggested that the decreasing violence in Iraq would allow him to withdraw additional U.S. troops before he leaves office. He said that the top American commander in Iraq,Gen. David H. Petraeus, would make recommendations in September for "further reductions in our combat forces, as conditions permit."

Republican and Democrat positions seem to be coming together at last, because Republicans feel coalition and Iraqi forces have won a great victory and thus are willing to take steps similar to those Democrats have been advocating for years.

I personally feel as though, while this won't end debates over whether we should have entered Iraq in the first place, our debate over current foreign policy on the Iraq War may be fading. What do the rest of you think?


EDIT: I know there's already an Iraq War thread, but the subject of this thread is the debate, not the war, so I thought it might be all right to make another thread. If mods disagree, obviously feel free to merge this with the other thread. It doesn't matter much to me.

[Tessar]

I'm okay with this thread so long as the old one doesn't start popping up and living at the top of the list again. If that happens I'll probably merge them, but so long as we only have one at a time at the top, it's fine.

[D.Sullivan]

Hi Lief,

I don't think it is fading, actually.

It's true that both Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain both would like to plan on our leaving Iraq within 16 months of their taking office, and while both of them agree that it would be under certain conditions that we would withdraw using that timeline, both Senators disagree on what those conditions should be. And they disagree a great deal.

To Sen. McCain those conditions are basically our winning the war on terror in Iraq. While for Sen. Obama those conditions are based on how fast the military commanders advising him say they can withdraw the troops in an intelligent and safe way.

Also, I don't see how they've entered a "middle ground" on the issue when Sen. Obama hasn't changed is stance on Iraq a single bit, despite what the media has been saying. He has always said it would be under certain conditions, even going so far as to say in one of the early debates that he wouldn't swear we would be out of Iraq by a certain date if he were elected, because he didn't want to withdraw from Iraq as blindly as we gotten in. Most of our journalists just don't pay enough attention to remember that, apparently.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

Hi Lief,

I don't think it is fading, actually.

It's true that both Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain both would like to plan on our leaving Iraq within 16 months of their taking office, and while both of them agree that it would be under certain conditions that we would withdraw using that timeline, both Senators disagree on what those conditions should be. And they disagree a great deal.

To Sen. McCain those conditions are basically our winning the war on terror in Iraq. While for Sen. Obama those conditions are based on how fast the military commanders advising him say they can withdraw the troops in an intelligent and safe way.

McCain's idea of victory in Iraq is not zero terrorism, however. He has said more than once that he actually views the war on terror in Iraq right now as essentially won. Other times he's hedged, saying it's "almost won." It's clear enough that his view is that it's just about won, anyway. His idea of victory, like Bush's, is that Iraq look rather like Israel in its battle against terrorism, enduring terrorism but capable of managing those problems almost on its own, without an occupation army solving those problems for them.

Also, to McCain, conditions for withdrawal are also "based on how fast the military commanders advising him say they can withdraw the troops in an intelligent and safe way." He's said as much himself, which is why the Washington Post said their positions on the matter are extremely similar. He doesn't want Iraq to erupt because he pulls out too many troops too quickly. So if he can prevent an internal collapse and violent spiral while removing troops, he'll remove troops. If removing the troops would damage Iraq's security significantly, though, he wouldn't withdraw them.

That actually is the same position Bush has held about withdrawing troops, which is why Bush has just said he'll start post-surge troop withdrawals soon. He said he'd start those withdrawals soon because General Petraeus has said the situation is secure enough now that they can do that.

It is a misunderstanding of McCain's position to say he's waiting for zero violence before beginning troop withdrawals. Obama said that that's what McCain wants, but he misrepresented McCain's position completely when he said that. McCain wants victory, but McCain has also said that he considers Iraq to already be pretty much a victory, and he has said he'd be willing to pull out a lot of troops soon as well. So Obama misrepresented him. McCain has misrepresented Obama's position too, saying Obama was planning to ignore the advice of commanders in the field, when Obama explicitly said he wasn't planning to do that. They're both misrepresenting one another to score political points.

But the differences between their positions, when put under a microscope, seem to be very small indeed.

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

Also, I don't see how they've entered a "middle ground" on the issue when Sen. Obama hasn't changed is stance on Iraq a single bit, despite what the media has been saying. He has always said it would be under certain conditions, even going so far as to say in one of the early debates that he wouldn't swear we would be out of Iraq by a certain date if he were elected, because he didn't want to withdraw from Iraq as blindly as we gotten in. Most of our journalists just don't pay enough attention to remember that, apparently.

I don't entirely agree with you about Obama's position not changing, but I don't care to debate that one, because whether it has changed or not makes no difference to the topic of this thread. His position now on withdrawing depending on what the conditions are in the field, regardless of what he said or didn't say previously, is very much like McCain's. And the now and the future are what I'm focusing on. Maybe their positions were always similar, but that's not the point. The point is that right now, as both men have stated their positions, they are very similar.

[Lief Erikson]

Here's a quote from John McCain's support website:

"When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home."

Here's a quote from him, about his goal in Iraq. Note that he never says zero terrorism. Instead, he emphasizes an Iraq that can manage its own problems by itself without collapsing.

John McCain: “I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there. Our goal is an Iraq that can stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighborhood. Our goal is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops. And I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine. But I do not believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for President that they cannot keep if elected. To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility. It is a failure of leadership. “

Those goals he stated there, I hope, are not too far different from Obama's. If Obama is willing to pull out while leaving behind an Iraq that cannot "stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighborhood," there is cause to be concerned about his policy. I think that like McCain, Obama wants an Iraq, "That no longer needs American troops." McCain has not said he won't start withdrawals until there is no terrorism. His statements about victory in Iraq indicate he has a very different perspective, and is focusing, like Bush, more on Israel as a goal for Iraq, rather than the United States.

[D.Sullivan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

McCain's idea of victory in Iraq is not zero terrorism, however. He has said more than once that he actually views the war on terror in Iraq right now as essentially won. Other times he's hedged, saying it's "almost won." It's clear enough that his view is that it's just about won, anyway. His idea of victory, like Bush's, is that Iraq look rather like Israel in its battle against terrorism, enduring terrorism but capable of managing those problems almost on its own, without an occupation army solving those problems for them.

If he does believe the battle is won, which I don't dispute that he may, why would he be calling Obama's views on Irag and his plan to withdraw "naive" and "dangerous"? Seems like rather strong wording if you're going to then turn around and make the same plans to withdraw yourself.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Also, to McCain, conditions for withdrawal are also "based on how fast the military commanders advising him say they can withdraw the troops in an intelligent and safe way." He's said as much himself, which is why the Washington Post said their positions on the matter are extremely similar. And that actually is the same position Bush has held about withdrawing troops, which is why Bush has just said he'll start post-surge troop withdrawals soon. He said he'd start those withdrawals soon because General Petraeus has said the situation is secure enough now that they can do that.

I'm sorry. I wasn't clear in my distinction between the two Senators views. Of course I believe McCain would also wish to withdraw safely and intelligently, I just meant that, unlike Obama's conditions for withdrawing our troops, those are not the only conditions he wants fulfilled to withdraw.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

If he does believe the battle is won, which I don't dispute that he may,

Remember while saying this that he has combined statements that "we've won" with statements that we have "almost won," so we can't forget the latter when thinking about the former. Just to make sure we're both taking into consideration his full message rather than just part of it. If by, "victory," he meant there wasn't any fighting, he'd be calling for complete withdrawals of all US troops just about immediately. He isn't brain-dead. He knows what's going on there at least as well as Obama, and he defines victory as a country that's pretty stable and can take care of its own problems without relying on the US to provide most of their security for them. I quoted in an earlier post above what he sees as the goal in Iraq, and it's about the same as Obama's stated goal. Obama may not use "victory" rhetoric, because his Democrat audience has always expected a defeat, whereas McCain's has always demanded a victory, but Obama's position on what condition we should leave Iraq in doesn't really differ from McCain's. Their goals and messages are about the same on this, though their rhetoric is toned to different audiences.

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

why would he be calling Obama's views on Irag and his plan to withdraw "naive" and "dangerous"? Seems like rather strong wording if you're going to then turn around and make the same plans to withdraw yourself.

It's rhetoric, though, not substantive argument. There are a couple points where it is substantive, which I'll talk about in a moment, but it's largely rhetoric. McCain's biggest edge on Obama is his far greater foreign policy experience. If they are perceived as having about the same foreign policy, McCain's greatest advantage over Obama is dulled. That's why Obama has been quick to push the view that his and McCain's policies on Iraq have a lot of similarity, but McCain uses strong rhetoric to insist that their strategies are very different. Obama said on an NBC interview, "there's not as much disagreement there as I think people may perceive." It's a political game, but I happen to be closer to agreeing with Obama's views on this one than McCain's.

I still think Obama might very well be a disaster on foreign policy for other reasons, but on Iraq, it looks to me as though Republican and Democrat views on the way forward are really merging.

That said, McCain does have some substantive reasons for being concerned about Obama's plan. It's not all mere rhetoric.

One is that he doesn't use an expressly stated timetable like Obama does. A timetable sets the US up to look bad, because if insurgents can force us to delay a declared timetable, that makes them look much more viable and impressive to people around them. A lot of American civilians really want a timetable, but it doesn't help the military at all. Quite the reverse. Also, a timetable could give hope to the insurgents, giving them the idea that all they have to do is hide their heads and wait the US out. That would give them strength. So timetables don't really help anybody strategically except the enemy. That's why McCain objects to them, or at least it's a good part of the reason why. He might have more reasons than those I've stated.

One can disagree with the above strategic points, obviously. Obama also said that he'd listen to the advising generals in the field but would himself make the final decision on what US policy would be. McCain said, like Bush, that he would let the commanders in the field make the decision about when they could afford to send troops go back home. Therefore McCain has latched onto Obama's words and said that Obama isn't planning to listen to the generals, which isn't correct. Though one might certainly argue that McCain's position is more strategy based and success-in-Iraq focused than Obama's, based on the different statements they made.

Yet the forementioned visible differences between their positions aren't really that big. Obama said 16 months, and while McCain doesn't like any timetable being expressed publicly, he has said that 16 months is a pretty good timetable to focus on. And they're both making withdrawal subject to shifting circumstances on the ground. Both have also said some residual US force would be left behind, though neither has said how many or where.

On major points, their positions are very, very similar. Only on less serious points to they seem to differ.

Of course, the senators' positions do strongly differ on many other major issues, but Iraq doesn't seem to be one of them so much anymore.

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

I'm sorry. I wasn't clear in my distinction between the two Senators views. Of course I believe McCain would also wish to withdraw safely and intelligently, I just meant that, unlike Obama's conditions for withdrawing our troops, those are not the only conditions he wants fulfilled to withdraw.

I pointed out in my most recent post in this thread, above, what he's said his goals are. He uses "victory" rhetoric where Obama doesn't because of his audience. That isn't substantive difference between their views. It isn't policy. It's word-choice. The goals he stated, where it comes down to actual issues, and how many troops you leave, and how you withdraw, and what the circumstances of withdrawal can be, all the technical issues that really consist of hard policy, the two men have extremely similar positions.

It's necessary when listening to their speeches to sort between hard policy and rhetoric. There's a lot of rhetoric out there, and the campaigns also are misrepresenting one another to score political points. Underneath all that are the hard policy statements that both men have released. I think the Washington Post did a very good job in sorting between rhetoric and policy, in their article where they said the two men's positions are extremely similar.

Words like, "we'll win a victory," or "his plan would be catastrophic," or, "he's planning to keep us in Iraq forever," are all just hot words designed to stir people up and cause people to come over to your side. That's rhetoric, not policy. Their rhetoric is quite antagonistic- especially McCain's, lately. If one listened to that rhetoric, one would feel that their positions have got to be miles distant from one another. But in reality, that's all just posturing in order to get people to join your side or turn away from the other guy. Lying way below the words is actual policy, and that's what the Washington Post was honing in on.

[brownjenkins]

I think that the Iraq war will go down in history as a primary example of a war that never needed to be have fought. A war that counted thousands of deaths on the side of the aggressor (the US) and tens of thousands on the side of the defender (Iraq).

If nothing else it is a perfect example of how pointless it is just to flex ones military muscle, simple because we can, is.

It's a sad testament to what we can *hopefully* get beyond in the next hundred years.

[Lief Erikson]

Whether true or not, what has that to do with this particular topic? I was talking about the debate about current and future foreign policy.

[Insidious Rex]

The reason the republicans including McCain and now Bush are talking about withdrawing troops is not because of some MISSION ACCOMPLISHED sensibility in Iraq but because they are desperately needed in Afghanistan which has spiraled into a much worse situation in the past year or so largely because we have been too preoccupied in Iraq. The question then becomes if we make more of a presence in Afghanistan (although even the generals on the ground have said an Iraq like ‘surge’ wont work in Afghanistan the same way it did in Iraq) will we then find ourselves in a constant plug the dike struggle as Taliban and terror operatives hopscotch between Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq?

[Lief Erikson]

Whether your analysis is correct or not -- and I think the articles I cited about the Surge has disproven your comments about Iraq -- do you think the debate over future and present policy in Iraq is coming to an end?

[Insidious Rex]

No I just think they are transforming into another stage. Dont expect Iraq to drop off the radar once we "leave" no matter when that is. And if you think the two parties will suddenly be in agreement from here on out regarding the specifics in Iraq then you are in for a surprise. You are just looking at one moment in time of a situation that is constantly changing. And you just happen to have a situation where, for their own reasons, both candidates are fine with talking about removing troops from Iraq. Lets see if Iraq policy is identical among the parties a year from now when issues like influence with the government and continued responsibility of the tax payer rear their heads. Heck even now some democrats want to rake Bush over the coals for allowing the american citizens to fund reconstruction and torpedoing our economy when he promised all along iraq's oil income would go toward that which it hasnt yet.

[Coffeehouse]

Yes it is rather déjÃ* vu to hear talk of the Iraq debate drawing near a close just because a 100 people aren't slaughtered daily and just because, one in a million, the views of a Rep and a Dem converge (don't get used to it!).
You'd think after 5 years of bloodshed it would become obvious that things can worsen literally overnight. Don't worry Lief, the Republicans will answer for their flip-flopping lies come Election Night in November, and the preview will come in the first presidential debate...

[Lief Erikson]

Well, I personally am more optimistic than you two are on this .

[johnnyrod]

Hmm let me get this right, it's election time and the main candidates are essentially saying the same thing in different words, capitulating to public opinion that they shouldn't be there any more (leaving aside arguements over the source and the start), but couching it in sufficient terms that they can re-interpret them later, thereby "proving" themselves as the best thing to replace the current decision-makers. Am I a cynic? Or is it just the usual political spin? Let me guess, they both have something to say on spiralling food prices. Or does that not affect enough voters.

Originally Posted by johnnyrod

Hmm let me get this right, it's election time and the main candidates are essentially saying the same thing in different words, capitulating to public opinion that they shouldn't be there any more (leaving aside arguements over the source and the start), but couching it in sufficient terms that they can re-interpret them later, thereby "proving" themselves as the best thing to replace the current decision-makers. Am I a cynic? Or is it just the usual political spin? Let me guess, they both have something to say on spiralling food prices. Or does that not affect enough voters.

Sounds like any presidential election to me.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Well, I personally am more optimistic than you two are on this .

I think you should be sentenced to live for a year in Iraq and see what you think.

[Curubethion]

Lief, that's some insightful thoughts on the subject. I hadn't thought about it that much, and didn't really realize McCain was so realistic on the subject, which is a good thing.

And in this instance, I'd much rather entrust military commanders with whether or not withdrawal would be a realistic option. It's a nice shift from what the current administration has been allegedly doing. And regardless of whether that charge is true, it's a good move.

[Ingwe]

In McCain's position, the level of victory in Iraq is even debatable. How much of a victory is it and can the nation survive its own continuing fighting against terrorism? How sustainable is their government and will this only mean trouble 10, 20, 30, 50, or 100 years down the road? I think it's likely that it's not a matter of if but a matter of when, until any major power let alone Iraq ends up faltering to terrorism. But it is best that if, at least for now, the battle is won, to lower the amount of potential loss that can be taken, for the forces of the Iraqis and the forces of the United States. I just hope that the forces can be sent home, and not have to be transferred to yet another battlefield in this War-Hopping that seems to be going on. First Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Iran, then who knows? Russia has interests with Iran, and this may make Israel and America enemies of Russia, if not already they are. A purely frightening situation it is. I've been giving this whole conflict one title - "Earth in Chaos", because I'm afraid that's what it will end up being. Most of us will survive it though, and I can only hope that this can all end peaceful without even one more loss. I don't think the world is mad enough to allow nuclear weapons to come into play.

[The Gaffer]

Well, it's all swinging round in a new direction really (or rather, an old one). The Russian Bear has woken up again, seeing that the US and Nato are bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan (which must be a sweet irony as they spent the 80s in a similar situation). We've got a nice "Cuban Missile Crisis" de nos jours brewing with Poland's hosting of the missile defence shield. China has increasing economic clout, recession is biting in the US and Europe.

I think the military commanders are going to have a shed load of other pressures, which have been more or less absent for the past 18 years.

"The Death of History" my arse.