Analysis: Presidential Candidates, McCain, Clinton, and Obama and their Iraq Policy
Rauf Naqishbendi
April 02, 2008
The Bush administration has convincingly proclaimed the success of the troop surge and their pivotal role in attenuating the bloodshed and pandemonium in Iraq. Even with the dismal economic conditions which currently overshadow foreign affairs, the Iraq War is still in the American mind and remains a hot topic for debate among the presidential candidates. As it stands, the politics of the Iraq war are perceived differently by the candidates of the two major political parties. Both democratic candidates, Senators Clinton and Obama, persist on withdrawing American troops soon after their inauguration to the presidency, while the Republican candidate, Senator John McCain, is an advocate of adhering to the current course for as long as it takes. Winning peace in Iraq or dumping the country into a further deterioration of security would have detrimental consequences with ramifications stretching beyond Iraq´s borders, threatening the world´s economics and security. Our success or failure in this unprecedented historic blunder depends on the next American president´s Iraq policy and planning.
First, let´s examine Senator Clinton´s stance. "In her first days in office, Hillary would convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all of the states bordering Iraq." Superficially, this seems like common sense, but in reality it is a statement of absolute ignorance regarding Iraq. She is just feeding Americans what they want to hear, contradicting the reality of the world situation. First she talks of allies, knowing President George W. Bush has left us with none. Europeans have been adamant since the onset of the Iraq War that they will not take part. They are seeking cooperation with other nations, unlike Bush who has been infatuated with military and political confrontations. Europeans are cognizant that the Iraq War is expensive and they are unwilling to share in the cost.
With regard to Iraq´s neighbors they are Iran, Turkey and Syria. Turkey is ruled by the Justice and Development Party which is comprised of fanatic Sunni Moslems, Iran is ruled by their Ayatollah´s extremist Shiite sect and Syria is ruled by the Ba´th Socialist Party, which is marked by tyranny. Syria has opened its borders for Al Qaeda, Iran has been fighting America in the streets of Baghdad, and Turks are making every effort to entice ethnic cleansing. In public all three government officials deny their involvement and meddling in Iraq´s affairs, and say they want to help; their denial of facts thwarts any genuine diplomatic discourse.
"She would also support the appointment of a high level U.N. representative -- similar to those appointed in Afghanistan." There has not been any progress toward peace in Afghanistan, and their security conditions are deteriorating further as time goes by. If Iraq´s problem is to be dealt with like that of Afghanistan, it is a certainty that the situation in Iraq will get even worse. Senator Clinton´s reliance on non-existent allies, Iraq´s neighbors and the U.N. will undoubtedly be a source of utter regret and disappointment to America should she become president.
Senator Obama promises to immediately begin withdrawing troops; in just 16 months after his presidency begins all American troops will be disengaged with the exception of some troops to protect our embassy and diplomats. However, if Al Qaeda builds a base within Iraq, Senator Obama will keep our troops there. But the fact is Al Qaeda is already in Iraq. And surely when we withdraw from Iraq, Al Qaeda will step in with full force. Then, Senator Obama´s policy will be the same as the current course.
On the other hand, Senator John McCain´s position is to stay the course for as long as it takes. He, like President Bush, believes in military action and he was in favor of the troop surge even before Bush was committed to it. The US under McCain will be no different than if Bush were to have a third term. Mr. McCain is obstinate, committed to military action and is against partitioning Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions. He also is concerned about Iran´s meddling in Iraq affairs and he is not ruling out the possibility of military action against the Iranian regime. Hence, under McCain a military showdown with Iran is more probable than with his democratic rivals. Should he agitate Iran, another dimension will be added to the already complicated Iraq War, meaning more chaos for Iraq, more American troops deployed with longer tours and of course the spending of more taxpayer dollars.
Withdrawal from Iraq is easier said than done. What is at stake is not Iraq alone but also the backbone and vitality of the world´s economy, as well as the success of the war on terror since Al Qaeda is nesting in Iraq and withdrawing our troops will create a vacuum where they can propagate beyond Iraq. The fight on terror has to be complete and comprehensive. Capitulating in Iraq and letting Al Qaeda flourish there while fighting them in Afghanistan with aims to uproot them is illogical. The messy wars of Iraq and Afghanistan will stagger us militarily and will drain us economically if they are protracted for years to come without our success.
Fighting two wars is cumbersome, particularly since we have not achieved considerable success in either. We would be in a better position if we only had one war to fight; let´s get the Iraq war out of the way first since fighting the Iraq war is a self-defeating and losing proposition. We cannot succeed without full cooperation from the Iraqi people. It´s a paramount sin for any leader to rely on Iraqis to run their own government, for they lack the motivation. Clashing religious and ethnic groups with contradictory ambitions are not the ingredients for a harmonious coalition government, but rather an omen of an impending catastrophic implosion that will cause devastation beyond Mesopotamia.
The irony is the continuing policy of arrogance and defiance. The great majority of Iraqi people demand their country be divided into three states, and that was the non-binding resolution ratified last year by an overwhelming majority of the Senate. Why in the world are our leaders try to maintain the status quo in a country whose citizens despise it and don´t want to identify with it? One of these three candidates will be President, and let us hope they don´t do what they promise.
First, let´s examine Senator Clinton´s stance. "In her first days in office, Hillary would convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all of the states bordering Iraq." Superficially, this seems like common sense, but in reality it is a statement of absolute ignorance regarding Iraq. She is just feeding Americans what they want to hear, contradicting the reality of the world situation. First she talks of allies, knowing President George W. Bush has left us with none. Europeans have been adamant since the onset of the Iraq War that they will not take part. They are seeking cooperation with other nations, unlike Bush who has been infatuated with military and political confrontations. Europeans are cognizant that the Iraq War is expensive and they are unwilling to share in the cost.
With regard to Iraq´s neighbors they are Iran, Turkey and Syria. Turkey is ruled by the Justice and Development Party which is comprised of fanatic Sunni Moslems, Iran is ruled by their Ayatollah´s extremist Shiite sect and Syria is ruled by the Ba´th Socialist Party, which is marked by tyranny. Syria has opened its borders for Al Qaeda, Iran has been fighting America in the streets of Baghdad, and Turks are making every effort to entice ethnic cleansing. In public all three government officials deny their involvement and meddling in Iraq´s affairs, and say they want to help; their denial of facts thwarts any genuine diplomatic discourse.
"She would also support the appointment of a high level U.N. representative -- similar to those appointed in Afghanistan." There has not been any progress toward peace in Afghanistan, and their security conditions are deteriorating further as time goes by. If Iraq´s problem is to be dealt with like that of Afghanistan, it is a certainty that the situation in Iraq will get even worse. Senator Clinton´s reliance on non-existent allies, Iraq´s neighbors and the U.N. will undoubtedly be a source of utter regret and disappointment to America should she become president.
Senator Obama promises to immediately begin withdrawing troops; in just 16 months after his presidency begins all American troops will be disengaged with the exception of some troops to protect our embassy and diplomats. However, if Al Qaeda builds a base within Iraq, Senator Obama will keep our troops there. But the fact is Al Qaeda is already in Iraq. And surely when we withdraw from Iraq, Al Qaeda will step in with full force. Then, Senator Obama´s policy will be the same as the current course.
On the other hand, Senator John McCain´s position is to stay the course for as long as it takes. He, like President Bush, believes in military action and he was in favor of the troop surge even before Bush was committed to it. The US under McCain will be no different than if Bush were to have a third term. Mr. McCain is obstinate, committed to military action and is against partitioning Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions. He also is concerned about Iran´s meddling in Iraq affairs and he is not ruling out the possibility of military action against the Iranian regime. Hence, under McCain a military showdown with Iran is more probable than with his democratic rivals. Should he agitate Iran, another dimension will be added to the already complicated Iraq War, meaning more chaos for Iraq, more American troops deployed with longer tours and of course the spending of more taxpayer dollars.
Withdrawal from Iraq is easier said than done. What is at stake is not Iraq alone but also the backbone and vitality of the world´s economy, as well as the success of the war on terror since Al Qaeda is nesting in Iraq and withdrawing our troops will create a vacuum where they can propagate beyond Iraq. The fight on terror has to be complete and comprehensive. Capitulating in Iraq and letting Al Qaeda flourish there while fighting them in Afghanistan with aims to uproot them is illogical. The messy wars of Iraq and Afghanistan will stagger us militarily and will drain us economically if they are protracted for years to come without our success.
Fighting two wars is cumbersome, particularly since we have not achieved considerable success in either. We would be in a better position if we only had one war to fight; let´s get the Iraq war out of the way first since fighting the Iraq war is a self-defeating and losing proposition. We cannot succeed without full cooperation from the Iraqi people. It´s a paramount sin for any leader to rely on Iraqis to run their own government, for they lack the motivation. Clashing religious and ethnic groups with contradictory ambitions are not the ingredients for a harmonious coalition government, but rather an omen of an impending catastrophic implosion that will cause devastation beyond Mesopotamia.
The irony is the continuing policy of arrogance and defiance. The great majority of Iraqi people demand their country be divided into three states, and that was the non-binding resolution ratified last year by an overwhelming majority of the Senate. Why in the world are our leaders try to maintain the status quo in a country whose citizens despise it and don´t want to identify with it? One of these three candidates will be President, and let us hope they don´t do what they promise.
Print
Email
