McCain's proposal for achieving stability in Iraq is continued U.S. military support. Obama, on the other hand, proposes a steady withdrawal of military support. McCain's argument is that the "surge" has worked and, if we stick to that strategy, it will continue to work, thus providing the Iraqi government the necessary peace to build a sustainable system. Obama's counter-argument is that, while the surge has worked from a military perspective (lowering the violence in the area), the political objectives for Iraq have yet to see much progress and will not be achieved unless we force the issue by withdrawing military support.
Along with the continued surge effort, McCain has two other proposals to help build a self-sustaining Iraq--boost the Iraqi economy and apply pressure to Syria and Iran. McCain proposes to boost Iraq's economy by encouraging the Iraqi government to invest a portion of it's budget surplus into employing Iraqis in infrastructure projects and projects to restore basic service to Iraq. McCain claims that this will also help "move young [Iraqi] men away from the attractions of well-funded extremists," thus continuing to lower the violence in Iraq. McCain has also suggested that the international community provide micro-financing in Iraq to help bolster local-level entrepreneurship. I should point out that McCain's bottom-up strategy for boosting the Iraqi economy appears to differ from his strategy for the U.S. economy (see Issue 2: The Economy and Issue 1: Taxes). In order to apply pressure to Syria and Iran, McCain's website states that he will do this by getting the international community to "apply real pressure to Syria and Iran to change their behavior" and not by "unconditional dialogues." The website does not currently provide specifics regarding what such "real pressure" would entail.
Obama's strategy for a self-sustaining Iraq is to withdraw 1 to 2 brigades of American troops per month, claiming that such will force the Iraqi government to take ownership of their political system, a point the Prime Minister of Iraq also recently made. However, Obama also proposes maintaining a small "residual force" in Iraq to help train Iraqi military and conduct "targeted counter-terrorism missions," but not to hold permanent bases in Iraq. Along with his military strategy, Obama also calls for "aggressive diplomatic efforts" with Iraq and it's neighbors, including Iran and Syria, in which he includes the possibility of Presidential level talks with Iranian and Syrian leaders without "pre-conditions" but with "preparations." Finally, Obama's strategy for Iraq is largely intertwined with his overall defense and counter-terrorism strategy. Namely, Obama proposes re-deploying many of the troops withdrawn from Iraq to Afghanistan to help fight al Qaeda and capture Osama Bin Laden, an area Obama argues is overlooked as a result of the war in Iraq. Obama also claims that his "diplomatic efforts" will place the U.S. in a stronger position to enlist the help of the international community in fighting the war on terror.
3 comments:
I remember when the media thought this election would be a referendum on the handling of the Iraq war. It is amazing how quickly that has changed. Not only has the economic crisis overshadowed the war, public interest in Iraq has been on a rapid decline over the past year. An article in the American Journalism Review called "Whatever Happened to Iraq?" points out that "in the first 10 weeks of 2007, Iraq accounted for 23 percent of the news for network TV. In 2008, it plummeted to 3 percent during that period. On cable networks it fell from 24 percent to 1 percent."
I guess my point is, how are Americans to make an informed decision about our plan for Iraq with so little information? In September, 25 American soldiers died in Iraq and I didn't know until I looked it up. I read a paper almost every day and I still wasn't aware.
I don't know how to interpret this, but it is interesting: The war costs us $12 billion a month ($5,000 a second). That means that the $700 billion bailout package is equivalent to about 5 years in Iraq. So far, we have spent about $700 billion in Iraq. Estimates for the total cost of the Iraq war range from $1 trillion to $3 trillion.
Those stats are a little scary Josh! It's crazy how quickly issues can be dropped and new ones arise.
So, I know I could ask these questions to Jed as we are sitting down to dinner, but I wanted to get more feedback as well.
#1. What exactly is a surge and what does it entail in this situation. I watched the Palin/Biden debate and the term surge was used often, but never elaborated.
#2. Palin repeated multiple times that Obama wanted to sit down with leaders in the Mid-East with no pre-conditioned ideas? (maybe that's not the right term, but I know it was pre-conditioned something...) Why is that a bad thing? Would it effect the status of the war or is that a different issue?
I have really been encouraged by this blog to learn more about the candidates, more about the issues, and more about who can lead this country back to normalcy...if there is such a candidate. Or, such a thing.
To Heather's questions:
#1. The "surge" is that Pres. Bush, with encouragement and support from John McCain, deployed about 20,000 additional soldiers to Irag in early 2007. The majority consensus is that the surge helped reduce violence in Iraq. Others, including Bob Woodward in his new book, attribute the reduction in violence to other factors as well, including Petraus's rollout of counter-guerilla tactics, the ceasefire by Moqtada-al-Sadr's militias, and the decision by Sunnis in Anbar to ally with US forces.
#2. Palin and McCain have both criticized Obama for his stated willingness to engage in diplomatic talks with our enemies, including Iran. McCain's objection isn't that such talks would affect the war in Iraq. It's that he doesn't think the US should engage in talks with Iran without Iran first agreeing to "preconditions". Presumably, such preconditions would include that Iran would first have to reverse its radical position against Israel and stop all efforts to develop nuclear technology.
Why do we need to talk to Iran? Because they are working towards developing nuclear technology, they have a radical position against Israel, and they are interfering in Iraq. So, McCain's position (requiring "preconditions") is essentially saying that we won't talk to you unless you agree ahead of time to all of the demands about which we want to talk to you about.
This position toward Iran is the same position the Bush administration held for most of Bush's eight years. But the Bush administration recently reversed their position by agreeing to engage in diplomatic meetings with Iran.
McCain has also criticized Obama for presumably intending to meet personally with Iran's president without first requiring progress from lower-level talks. During the Democratic primaries, Obama's answer to a question on this topic was that he was willing to meet with Iran "without preconditions". Whether lower-level talks would precede such a meeting wasn't discussed at the time. Obama has more recently clarified his position. Obama made clear in the first presidential debate that he isn't calling for immediate presidential-level talks. He would first initiate talks among lower-level diplomats that, if successful, could lead to higher-level talks.
Post a Comment