Barack Obama says that he has displayed the judgment to be Commander in Chief, citing his initial opposition to go into Iraq. John McCain claims he has the better judgment because he pushed the unpopular idea of a troop surge when the war going poorly. The question is now, who has the judgment to take us forward in Middle East, given today’s conditions there?
James Kirchick sums up nicely where each candidate stands today because of their earlier judgments. Each Senator has a fair point: polls show the majority of Americans now believe the decision to enter Iraq was a mistake, but that most believe America and its allies are winning the war on terror and should not immediately withdraw. While it is difficult to deny the success of the counterinsurgency strategy, the decision of whether we should have gone into Iraq can be debated, but that debate hinges mostly on a larger question of whether the correct response to 9/11 was one aimed directly at those responsible, or the larger war against those who pose future threats. Now is not the time for a debate on the past; we need to know who will lead us in the future.
Kirchick doubts that Obama would have indeed voted against entering Iraq had Barack actually been in the U.S. Senate, and that is a valid skepticism, but let’s say for the time being that Obama would have opposed. Obama claims he has the judgment to lead on this issue, and the cornerstone of his judgment has been his opposition to invade Iraq. While Americans are recognizing the success of the surge, Obama told Terry Moran of ABC that he would have still opposed the surge, even knowing what we know now. But Obama believes that the current conditions in Iraq are conducive to a troop withdrawal according to his plan.
The problem with this reasoning is that Obama is only in a position to push his withdrawal strategy because the surge, which McCain supported, has proved effective. Essentially, Obama is claiming his judgment is sound because he was wrong and McCain was right. While a case can be made against McCain for initially voting to invade Iraq, he was one of the few advocates for the counterinsurgency. McCain’s decision about the surge was correct, and offers us some confidence in his judgment. Obama may have initially been correct to oppose the Iraq invasion, depending on your view, but we cannot change the facts as they are now. We are in Iraq. The question is what do we do now?
Obama’s current position is identical to when he wanted to withdraw the troops instead of executing the counterinsurgency: he wants out quickly. Not only has he not adapted his view, but he now claims he is correct, citing the improved conditions in Iraq as evidence to support troop withdrawal. That Obama has held to his opposition to the surge, a judgment that has proven to be incorrect, and now uses the success of the very surge he opposed to vindicate his policy of withdrawal is an insult to our intelligence.
While both McCain and Obama may have been incorrect at certain points on the issue of national security concerning the Middle East, McCain has most recently exhibited sound judgment for advocating the current successful strategy. Obama continues to oppose that strategy, and push his initial one that has begun to make sense only because McCain’s judgment on the surge proved correct. Which Senator do we trust going forward in the war: the one who may have been right to oppose it initially and has been wrong since, or the one who has been driving the current successful strategy?
The Cross in the Dirt issue is complex.
McCain told a story in 1999 about how when he was in capitivity in Vietnam on Christmas day, a soldier loosened his restraining ropes and drew a cross on the dirt floor of his cell with his boot, then erased it. McCain said this was a defining moment in his faith, as it showed him that two Christians could connect no matter their circumstances.
This is near identical to a story accredited to a Russian author named Solzhenitsyn in which he’s serving in a gulag in Siberia I think. He decides life isn’t worth living, so he leaves his labor line and walks over to a beach and sits down in the sand. He knows a guard will come over and shoot him in a head, and he’s fine with it. He hears the footsteps and braces himself. But its another prisoner, who draws a cross in the sand and walks away without saying a word. This renewed his faith in God and he found the willpower to survive through the rest of his imprisonment.
McCain is a huge fan of Solzhenitsyn:
“In McCain’s 2007 book Hard Call: Great Decisions and the Extraordinary People Who Made Them McCain devotes an entire chapter to Solzhenitsyn and his experiences as recounted in The Gulag Archipelago.”
Remember where I said McCain hadn’t talked about it until 1999? This is important, because he gave detailed accounts of his capitivity in both 1973 and 1995. In fact, the 1995 interview was about being a POW during Christmas. So it’s a little weird that he would leave such an important detail out. Especially one that would mirror an experience had by an author he admired.
Calling the surge a success is like turning on the light in the kitchen and watching all the roaches go into hiding. Does anyone really think that we can claim victory against an enemy who is fighting about grudges thousands of years in the making? Can you honestly say that we will ever understand this foe? Most importantly, can you really believe in a “free and Democratic Iraq…staunch ally of the U.S.”? There will be no “victory” because these people don’t fight “sitcom”,30 minute wars…they’ve been fighting since their existence began…and know nothing else.