Published in The New York Post on July 17, 2008.
The shadow of the Iraq War still hovers over the 2008 presidential race. In deed, though it’s the issue that made Barack Obama (giving him his running room to Hillary Clinton’s left), it may now become his chief vulnerability.
Weak on national-security issues, untried, inexperienced and (perhaps) naive, Obama can find the Iraq issue hard to handle - if John McCain plays it right.
Obama has long since won the issue of Iraq-past - opposing the war before anyone and voting continuously and solidly against it when others waffled.
Yet McCain is winning Iraq-present: A majority of Americans believe that the surge is working. Casualties are down so far that the pessimistic left has shifted its doom-and-gloom to Afghanistan.
But McCain’s key opportunity is to exploit the issue of Iraq-future.
To start, he must ask Obama: “Why won’t your troop withdrawal allow al Qaeda and Iran to move into the vacuum, taking over Iraq to use it as a base for terror against us and Israel?”
Obama will hem and haw, but McCain must keep at him - and force his opponent to confront the consequences.
How will Obama answer?
He can’t shift his position on his signature issue much more - or he’d get an even worse rap for flip-flopping. So he’ll start by stressing the ongoing troop presence that he’ll allow in Iraq.
He has said (vaguely) that he’ll permit sufficient troops to cover our pullout, protect our embassy and pursue al Qaeda terrorists. Now he’ll try to sell the idea that his gradual withdrawal over 16 months and his ongoing troop commitment will hold al Qaeda and Iran at bay.
But who’ll believe that? Experience has taught Americans to expect the worst about Iraq. They’re inclined to agree that, if we pull out, al Qaeda will move in. It’s also self-evident that Iranian influence will grow as ours’ declines. (To the extent that we do believe it, Obama will alienate the left and drive voters to Ralph Nader.)
His next dodge will be to talk up diplomacy - that a dialogue with the mullahs can hold Iran at bay. But no negotiations are possible with al Qaeda - and Americans realize that talks with Iran will go nowhere unless we have the leverage of force. His reliance on diplomacy will come off as naive, reinforcing the impression that he’s not ready for the job.
Eventually, he’ll have to say he’s prepared to go back into Iraq if the situation deteriorates. Voters will realize that a nominal troop presence and diplomacy won’t do the job.
That’s when McCain moves in for the kill: “So, isn’t your rigid adherence to withdrawal inviting a third Iraq War?”
He can claim the mantle of the true peace candidate - saying that he’ll stay in Iraq, keep control, build up the Iraqi army and keep US casualties down. Obama’s pullout, he can warn, would mean an inevitable third Iraq war. Obama is stuck seeming either naive - or just as likely to get us into a war as President Bush was.
The success of the surge has created an ideal situation for McCain. What had been the chief Democratic argument against the Republicans can now be their best tool to destroy Obama.
 |
Comments
Only subscribers to Dick Morris' '08 Play-By-Play may post comments. You must be logged in to post a comment.
[…] DickMorris.com Share […]
It is obvious that the Bush administration has placed America between a rock and a hard place, and the solutions are not without serious cause and effect. The Bush administration believed that the invasion of Iraq to protect the future interest of the oil supply would be a “cake walk,” however all of that has backfired.
I agree, there can be no diplomacy with Iran…that is just a political broadway production, in which neither will be able to sell tickets to the grand opening. And to conclude that the surge is working by measuring success with the yardstick of casulaties doesn’t equate.
America started counting the chickens before they hatched, and as the weasels pass saying good morning to the chickens in the hen house has drawn much attention during the campaign. In the first place, why did we start building a embassy, knowing that success in winning the war in Iraq, might just be another Vietnam? We were projecting victory, while being in denial at the same time, for peace and democracy……bullsh**. We were protecting corporate America’s interest in the oil industry.
Now the conflict has shifted to Afghanastain and the casuality rate is starting to increase….so now to we provide another surge there and claim success? Someone needs to provide an exit strategy and implement it, but we need to remove ourselves from the middle east. McCain doesn’t have the slighest idea on what to do in the middle east. I have been following him for the last several weeks, and I believe that his memory is not serving him well….The media makes up excuses that his misinformation and mistakes are standard run of the mill occurrences that happens during a election year, but believe me I have been in he medical profession long enough to know what I have seen for many years.
It is possible that withdrawing form Iraq will cause a surge from Iran to invade Iraq and America will have another reoccurrence and rebirth of terrorism…then we deal with it when it happens. The other variable that you downplayed is Israel…..we are not the only ones keeping a close eye on them……and Israel, unlike America, will react without hesistation if they feel that harm will befall them…..We can all speculate……what is needed is action……as Nike logo says, DO IT……or DO SOMETHING……but get off the dime. It is going to be interesting after November, because “talk the talk” will be concluded and Americans will be expecting w\”walk the walk.”