Issue 1: Iraq

This year I find myself on a roller-coaster of interest in the Presidential elections. Originally it was quite interesting...the likes of Giuliani and Huckabee switching fates...and Richardson/Biden getting thier arses kicked. BUUUUT, then it all basically boiled down to Billary and Obama...and to say the least...it got snoring. They both just kept saying the same things and arguing degrees of the same side of the issues. Occasionally it got a little amusing when they stepped on their own feet...but not enough to keep it interesting. And all the while McCain just mulled around half sleeping in the corner.

Now, that it appears Obama is setting his sights on McCain...and McCain appears to be awakening from his siesta...things might actually start to get interesting again. Clearly one of the first issues that Obama is trying to tee up is the "failed policies in Iraq" argument which in my opinion is a bit of a double edged sword for the chap. While it serves as an easy grenade to lob at the 'Pubs since public opinion is still 65%+ opposed to the war...it also potentially exposes him to a wider debate of his foreign policy and national security credentials...something to which a ~3 year Senator is rightfully exposed (FYI - he joined congress Jan 4, 2005). I guess that the Dems figure as long as they can successfully attach McCain to Bush/Iraq, then they will score easy points and potentially even improve his image in the trouble areas of foreign policy and national security. But what if public opinion for the war were to change? Crazy - I know... What if this does not follow the domino logic of crumbling public support like Vietnam? Wouldn't (or couldn't or shouldn't) that doubly expose Obama in these areas? Just imagine if we started to actually show meaningful progress both militarily and politically in Iraq...that sure could be bad for the Dems...so it would *appear* that there *may* be a conflict of interest here it things started going better. Would they be willing to admit that they may have been wrong? (Danger - insert conspiracy theory here)

Now...I am no war hawk and I personally believe that war is a terrible option and should always be used as a last resort (thanks Danno). I will admit that while I enjoy a good war flick now and then ...that does not impact real lives (both the service men/women AND their families/friends). Real lives changes the equation. But we are already in Iraq and we are making significant progress - both militarily and politically. Why would we stop and withdraw now? I pulled some data off the web from icasualties.org and put together a couple of graphs. The first is of the average number of US soldier deaths per day and the second is the average number of Iraqi civilian deaths per day. They are kind of morbid thoughts but it is probably the only true benchmark of what is going on over there since the media distorts everything (both ways). Two things were very clear from looking at the graphs. First, both the US and civilian rates dropped drastically post-surge. It would be very hard at this point to argue that the surge has not been successful militarily. While a complete withdraw would take US casualties to zero...I doubt that the same would hold true for Iraqi's who would likely end up in some form of a civil war.

This raises an interesting litmus test for our next commander-in-chief. Where did McCain and Obama stand on the surge...well, that one is easy to figure out. A quote from the weekly standard:

Democrats opposed the surge almost without exception. Barack Obama said
that the new policy would neither "make a dent" in the violence plaguing
Iraq nor "change the dynamics" there. A month after the president's
announcement, Obama declared it was time to remove American combat
troops from Iraq. In April, as the surge brigades were on their way to
the combat zone, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid proclaimed "this
war is lost" and that U.S. troops should pack up and come home. In July,
as surge operations were underway, the New York Times editorialized that
"it is time for the United States to leave Iraq." The Times's editorial
writers recognized Iraq "could be even bloodier and more chaotic after
Americans leave." But that didn't matter. "Keeping troops in Iraq will
only make things worse."

My surprise was obviously NOT with the fact that McCain supported it and Obama was against it...my surprise was more aligned with how wrong Obama was...."would not make a dent" "nor change the dynamics"?!?! In the best case - he simply did not have a fundamental grasp of what the strategy was...and in the worst case - he was fundamentally wrong in his logic and/or blindly following party lines. You can give him as much leniency here as you wish...

The second thing that struck me in the graphs was the sheer number of civilians killed. While the servicemen are still unfortunately above zero (at 0.6 per day), the civilians are still at 13 per day....and at the peak they averaged 113 per day in the month of Sept'06. That is staggering and it really demonstrates how asymmetrical this war has become.

In the end, I would rather America fights terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan than to watch it develop remotely and try to prevent it from coming to America. In this type of war it is impossible to simply play defense (kind of reminds me of the Giants when they first drafted Eli Manning). There are an infinite number of ways that our security can be breached. It is not because we have not tried...it is just a simple reality. If someone is willing to blow themselves up then they pretty much have the advantage. To trust that intelligence is going to accurately assess every threat is simply foolish.

As an added kicker, it is strongly suspected (I think the Gov actually knows) that neighboring countries like Jordan, Syria and Iran are pumping combatants and arms into Iraq to fight the "West". It is simply all too logical. They expect that with enough casualties the US government/public will waiver and pull out of Iraq...drawing from our own history in Vietnam. That would set the US (and our Allies who are two sally to stand up for themselves) back decades and open the door wide open for more of the same in the region..."oh to defeat the infidels!" So not only do we get to take the offensive in a location other than in the US...we additionally have the bad guys funneling themselves into our military meat grinder. And yes, despite all the media badmouthing...we still have the best and strongest military in the world! Huah!

Now, we could argue about the past and if going there in the first place was a good thing...but that is not what this election is about. This election is about what we are GOING to do starting in January 2009.

Advantage: McCain. He has the experience to know better than to charge into a war...and also has the experience to know how to win one if it is required!