Whoever becomes the next president of the United States will have their term of office dominated by one issue: Iraq. But there's almost an unspoken alliance not to let it dominate the campaign debates. None of the candidates say anything about it beyond platitudes and well rehearsed position statements. Obama and Clinton have tetchy disagreements about who took what position when, but beyond that there's precious little discussion about what should happen in the future.The War in Iraq has polarised American politics in a way that even the Vietnam war failed to. Although nearly half of the Democrats voted for it (including Senator Clinton, however much she now might regret it), any have now conveniently exorcised the fact from their selective memories. As this week's Atlantic Magazine points out, "We think of the Vietnam War as controversial, but it was much more controversial within the two parties than between them."
The same article alleges that some Republicans reckon the Democrats won't admit the troop surge is working because it undermines their case for a pull-out. "They think Democrats are intentionally undermining the war effort in order to improve their political prospects by giving President Bush and the Republicans - oh, and the country - a black eye". A harsh analysis maybe, but it contains more than a grain of truth.
So what would an incoming Democratic President do? My bet is that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would indeed adopt different approaches. Obama is likely to instigate a hasty troop withdrawal, while Clinton would adopt a more pragmatic and gradualist approach. Their strategy will to some extent be determined by the Democrats relative strength in Congress. If they sweep the board in the November elections Obama would probably rightly hail that as a mandate for a fast withdrawal (by which I mean over a period of 3-5 years). And that's why he, rather than Hillary Clinton, is likely to raise the stakes on the issue once the primary process is out of the way.
If it's Obama v McCain the American people will indeed have a real choice - at least over Iraq.
7 comments:
What I found astonishing is that Ann Coulter said that if John McCain is the Republican nominee she will vote and campaign for Hillary Clinton. And she was serious.
I wonder if today's reporting of the latest bombing in Bahgdad has the same effect on other readers as it did me. Firstly the use of intellectually challenged women to carry "suicide" bombs into a crowded marketplace is murder, not just of the innocent bystanders but the "remote-controlled" as opposed to the "suicide" nature of it is sickening. I am hoping that your average Iraqi feels the same.
Secondly, I guess it also shows how desperate they are to find people who will carry out these heinous acts.
Thirdly is the cowardly manner in which the UN has allowed the US's egregious mistake in Iraq to be used to punish the the Americans. We need somebody with balls to help us out of this goatfuck. And I don't mean Tony Blair. God help us all. As Tommy Lee Jones says in "No Country For Old Men" - if this aint a mess it'll do till a mess comes along.
Why do you assume that gradual = pragmatic?
Iain, on Classic FM yesterday they had an audio snippet of Hilary saying she'd want all troops out of Iraq within a year. Way too soon for my money.
"Obama's long-standing opposition to the war helped him pick up the backing of MoveOn.org - a network which counts 3.2 million members and decided to support him by a vote of 70 percent to 30 percent for Clinton.
The group said Friday that it has 1.7 million members in the 22 states scheduled to vote in the race Tuesday, and it would immediately begin a campaign to get them behind Obama."
press association
Canvas - That's not the way it works. I thought you knew that.
Anne Coulter didn't say she would "campaign for Hillary Clinton". And Jack, do you know her personally? You said "And she was serious".
Ms Coulter states she would prefer, as president. I think - my opinion - is because ambitious Hillary Clinton is political enough to be amenable to control by her party when they demand it. My guess.
Jack said...
"What I found astonishing is that Ann Coulter said that if John McCain is the Republican nominee she will vote and campaign for Hillary Clinton. And she was serious."
That's because in America they expect the people they vote for to implement the policies the voters want. Better to be governed by enemies than by traitors.
It's not like the UK where the norm is for the lib/lab/cons to lie as much as they like at election time and than do whatever they like once elected.
Post a Comment