Iraq: Electoral Nightmare
Published in Le Temps
(Switzerland) on 2008-03-20
by Luis Lema (link to original)
Iraq or the economy? Until November, these will be the two pillars of the American presidential campaign, the two themes around which the camps are taking shape and confronting. Five years after the start of the war, its settlement has lost a little of its urgency in the United States: the number of deaths has clearly subsided since the dispatch of 30,000 additional soldiers one year ago. And the crisis that is hitting sections of the economy is taking over the Americans’ preoccupations.
Scenarios after the war
But Iraq will come back in a big way. It is on this question that John McCain founds his legitimacy to assemble the Republican Party, posing as an enlightened protector of national security and against terrorism. It is on the Iraqi question that Hillary Clinton depends on as well, to denounce the “failure” of the current administration, of which she sees McCain as the simple heir. And it is on Iraq that Barack Obama bases his insistence on the pertinence of his “judgment”: of the three, he is the only one who did not authorize the invasion of the country as Senator Clinton did. The only one, he says, who did not give George Bush a “blank check”.
But beyond that? Hillary Clinton prides herself on a quick withdrawal that could start 60 days after she assumes duty. It would be a withdrawal of all the combat troops in 16 months for Obama. And not a withdrawal at all for McCain, who roughly imagines a permanent presence of Americans in the country.
The candidates’ propositions appear to be clear, but they are not. How long would Hillary’s “progressive” withdrawal last: months, years? What would become of the “non-combatant troops”, who risk serving as the thorn in the side of this decomposing country, after the combat brigades leave which Obama advocates? And how would the United States allow itself to indefinitely prolong this occupation which represents a humanitarian and economic sinkhole that provokes worldwide hostility?
The whole picture is too dark for a single campaign to illuminate. The implosion of the country, the civil war, a black hole that would shelter terrorist movements… and so many other post-war scenarios that all of the analysists agree upon, which render a mishandled withdrawal to be at least as risky as a constant presence.
A few days ago an aide to Barack Obama, Samantha Power, resigned. She doubtlessly called Hillary a “monster”, but she also suggested that the timeline that her boss proposed for withdrawal from Iraq was only indicative. After the promises of the campaign, the reality: this confession cost her job.
Iraq is a puzzle. And even for the Republican McCain who boasts about knowing all of the ins and outs of it and who chose this 5th anniversary for visiting troops as to ‘occupy’ the electoral field with his presence. The veteran, who belongs to all of the international commissions, tangled his words recently: “Al Qaeda returns to Iran, there they train and come back to Iraq… The fact is well known,” he explained. Al Qaeda is violently Sunni, Iran, Shiite. Senator Joseph Lieberman who accompanied McCain murmured in his ear: “I’m sorry, the Iranians train other extremists, not Al Qaeda…”
Besides, between Iraq and the economy, American voters do not really need to choose. In a published study on the anniversary, Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Blimes, an economist, tracked all of the hidden costs of the Iraqi endeavor. Beyond the strictly military aspects, they explored other consequences, at the first level includes the rising price of oil and the treatment of several thousand of those injured in the war. The balance: 3 trillion dollars spent, practically double of what the American Congress acknowledges. “Today, the deficit is such that America won’t be able to save their own banks”, assessed the authors in an interview.
In a speech with a triumphant tone, George Bush explained Tuesday that the success attributed to the dispatch of reinforcements justifies the high death toll and cost of the war. “It will be worth it”, he commented. Without stating if he had read Joseph Stiglitz’ report.
Scenarios after the war
But Iraq will come back in a big way. It is on this question that John McCain founds his legitimacy to assemble the Republican Party, posing as an enlightened protector of national security and against terrorism. It is on the Iraqi question that Hillary Clinton depends on as well, to denounce the “failure” of the current administration, of which she sees McCain as the simple heir. And it is on Iraq that Barack Obama bases his insistence on the pertinence of his “judgment”: of the three, he is the only one who did not authorize the invasion of the country as Senator Clinton did. The only one, he says, who did not give George Bush a “blank check”.
But beyond that? Hillary Clinton prides herself on a quick withdrawal that could start 60 days after she assumes duty. It would be a withdrawal of all the combat troops in 16 months for Obama. And not a withdrawal at all for McCain, who roughly imagines a permanent presence of Americans in the country.
The candidates’ propositions appear to be clear, but they are not. How long would Hillary’s “progressive” withdrawal last: months, years? What would become of the “non-combatant troops”, who risk serving as the thorn in the side of this decomposing country, after the combat brigades leave which Obama advocates? And how would the United States allow itself to indefinitely prolong this occupation which represents a humanitarian and economic sinkhole that provokes worldwide hostility?
The whole picture is too dark for a single campaign to illuminate. The implosion of the country, the civil war, a black hole that would shelter terrorist movements… and so many other post-war scenarios that all of the analysists agree upon, which render a mishandled withdrawal to be at least as risky as a constant presence.
A few days ago an aide to Barack Obama, Samantha Power, resigned. She doubtlessly called Hillary a “monster”, but she also suggested that the timeline that her boss proposed for withdrawal from Iraq was only indicative. After the promises of the campaign, the reality: this confession cost her job.
Iraq is a puzzle. And even for the Republican McCain who boasts about knowing all of the ins and outs of it and who chose this 5th anniversary for visiting troops as to ‘occupy’ the electoral field with his presence. The veteran, who belongs to all of the international commissions, tangled his words recently: “Al Qaeda returns to Iran, there they train and come back to Iraq… The fact is well known,” he explained. Al Qaeda is violently Sunni, Iran, Shiite. Senator Joseph Lieberman who accompanied McCain murmured in his ear: “I’m sorry, the Iranians train other extremists, not Al Qaeda…”
Besides, between Iraq and the economy, American voters do not really need to choose. In a published study on the anniversary, Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Blimes, an economist, tracked all of the hidden costs of the Iraqi endeavor. Beyond the strictly military aspects, they explored other consequences, at the first level includes the rising price of oil and the treatment of several thousand of those injured in the war. The balance: 3 trillion dollars spent, practically double of what the American Congress acknowledges. “Today, the deficit is such that America won’t be able to save their own banks”, assessed the authors in an interview.
In a speech with a triumphant tone, George Bush explained Tuesday that the success attributed to the dispatch of reinforcements justifies the high death toll and cost of the war. “It will be worth it”, he commented. Without stating if he had read Joseph Stiglitz’ report.