Iraq, Electoral Nightmare

Iraq or the economy? Until November, they will be the two pillars of the American presidential campaign, the two issues around which sides

will be taken.

Five years after the start of the war, its crisis has lost a bit of its urgency to the United States: the number of deaths has fallen dramatically since 30,000 additional troops were sent in one year ago. And the crisis which strikes whole sides of the economy took over all the other concerns of the Americans.

Scenarios of the post-war period:

But Iraq will be a great success. It is based on this that John McCain reasons his legitimacy to gather the republican camp, himself appearing as an enlightened defender of national safety and the fight against terrorism. It is based on the Iraq campaign that Hillary Clinton denounces “the failure” of the current administration and sees McCain as simply continuing business as usual. It is also based on Iraq that Barack Obama insists on the relevance of his “judgment”: out of the three, he is the only one to not have authorized the invasion of the country as a senator. The only one, he says, to not have given “a blank check” to George Bush.

But beyond? Hillary Clinton preaches a fast withdrawal, which would begin 60 days after her taking of the office. In Obama’s case the withdrawal of fighting troops would take 16 months. No withdrawal at all McCain, who roughly speaking, plans to make permanent the American presence in this country.

Thus the proposals of the candidates appear clear, but they are not.

How long would the “progressive” withdrawal of Hillary last: months, years? What would become of the “non-fighting troops”, which would be used as the backbone of this war-torn country, after the combat brigades leave, as Obama would have it? And how can the United States be allowed to indefinitely prolong this occupation which represents a human and economic pit and provokes global hostility?

The general tableau is too dark for an election campaign to light. Theimplosion of the country, the civil war, a black hole which would be used to hide terrorist movements… all these post-war scenarios forecasted by analysts make today a badly-managed withdrawal at least as risky as a continued presence.

A few days ago, an aide of Barack Obama, Samantha Power, was fired. She had certainly qualified Hillary as a “monster”, but she had also suggested that the withdrawal schedule of Iraq proposed by her race-horse was a draft. After the promises of the campaign, reality: this confession cost her her job.

Bush persists and signs

Iraq is a headache. That is true even to McCain, a republican who prides himself to know all their finesses and who chose this 5th anniversary to visit the troops in the region in order to “occupy” by his presence the electoral camp. The veteran, who sits on many of the international commissions, grossly mixed up his facts: “Al-Qaida move to Iran, they train and then return to Iraq. This fact is well known”, he explained. Al-Qaida is violently Sunny, Iran is Shiite. Senator Joseph Lieberman who accompanied McCain murmured some words in his ear. “I am sorry, corrected the candidate: Iranians train other extremists, not Al-Qaida”…

Moreover, American voters don’t have to choose between Iraq and the economy. In a study published at the time of this anniversary, the Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz and economist Linda Bilmes got busy tracking all the hidden costs of the Iraq adventure (LT of March 6).

Beyond the military aspects to be strictly accurate, they review other consequences such as the rise in oil prices, or treatment of tens of thousands of wounded. Assessment: 3,000 billion dollars spent, practically double of that recognized by the American Congress. “Today, the deficit of America is such as it cannot even save its own banks”, estimated the authors in an interview.

While giving a speech George Bush explained in a triumphant tone on Wednesday that the success gained in Iraq after the sending of

reinforcements justifies the high human and financial cost of war. “It was worth it”, he commented. Without specifying however whether he had read the study of Joseph Stiglitz.