The Iraq Elephant vs. Non-Issues That Set the Pundits' Pants on Fire

In one of its Thursday headlines, one European news outlet described Wednesday evening's ABC Democratic presidential debate in the following straight-forward language:  "Worst. Debate. Ever."  It's hard for anyone who saw the debacle to disagree, at the very least in regards to the first (by my count) fifty-plus minutes, during which not a single substantive issue, either domestic or foreign in nature, was discussed.  Not one.

Iraq?  No.  Energy security?  No.  The faltering national and, in many ways, international economy?  No.  Afghanistan?  Education?  Iran?  The national deficit? Various humanitarian crises?  The devaluing dollar?  Free trade versus protectionism?  American public relations with the rest of the world?  No.  No.  No.  No.  No.  No.  No.  No.  And, though some (certainly not all) of these issues made appearances later in the debate, they were like periscopes in enemy water; they popped up as brief, intricate antidotes to the superficial nature of just about everything that had happened beforehand, and then quickly ducked out of sight, as if to signal that, if we make the mistake of showing it, we ought to quickly re-hide our better natures, lest anyone think that we are capable of nuanced discussion.

And so, in this uncertain and critical era, and one in which the very nature of American leadership is at stake, those of us with a self-crucifying nature sat through over fifty minutes of tabloid-esque handling of such apparently-"weighty" issues as which candidate has been punched in the face the most by Republicans in the past; why anyone would have the gall to avoid wearing American flag pins on his lapel when an increasingly-large, zombie-like portion of the population wears such "patriotic" symbols as a matter of course; why a few short-sighted, emotional comments made several years ago by a friend of one of the candidates--and not that candidate himself--should take up at the very least twenty minutes of discussion during an event that is being viewed by people in every country around the world; why two of the remaining multi-millionaire candidates for the most powerful position in the world think the third mulit-millionaire candidate for the most powerful position in the world is "elitist"; why it's a bad idea to suggest that you valiantly stayed strong in the face of enemy sniper fire while strolling in Europe with the comedian Sinbad, who has a penchant for wearing purple pants and not coming under enemy sniper fire; and why it's crucial to discuss the actions of a lonely, politically dissident English professor (because politically dissident English professors are so uncommon...) that took place thirty years ago.

If alien life forms exist outside of this planet, if they have any sentient level of intelligence, and if they hadn't decided one way or the other prior to Wednesday night, they have now come to the overwhelmingly obvious decision to stay the hell away from Earth.

That being said, it is incumbent upon those of us who sat through the brain-eradicating proceedings to try to find something of some relative substance amidst the nonsense and at least make an effort to discuss it.  And, my goodness, after almost an hour of this farcical fare it struck me that, yes, there is a God, after all, because the issue of Iraq came up (apparently accidentally).  That either candidate could say anything about it at all after going through such a public lobotomy was amazing.

What each candidate said about it was even more eye-opening, for it confirmed the fact that Bill Richardson's unwavering 2007 stance on the Iraq scenario, which was that American forces should pull out of the country within one year of the new president taking office--and be accompanied with a diplomatic surge, more cooperation with our allies throughout the world and the countries within close proximity of Iraq, and dual coordination with the U.N. regarding how Iraq transitions towards standing on its own two feet--is now, with certain alterations in the way of time-lines and the like, the position taken by both Senator Clinton and Obama.  Let's remember that as recently as November of 2007, both of these candidates declared that "conditions on the ground" would determine whether or not we would pull our forces out of Iraq immediately if at all in their potential first terms in office.  This is a huge change of mindset.

Said Charlie Gibson to Senator Clinton, as he quoted a question previously asked of Senator Clinton's communication's director:  "...is Senator Clinton going to stick to her announced plan of bringing one or two brigades out of Iraq every month whatever the realities on the ground?"

Said Senator Clinton in response:  "Yes, I am, Charlie....  I will also begin an intensive diplomatic effort, both within the region and internationally, to begin to try to get other countries to understand the stakes that we all face when it comes to the future of Iraq....  I have been convinced and very clear that I will begin to withdraw troops within sixty days [of taking the oath of office]...."

Said Charlie Gibson to Senator Obama:  "Your campaign manager...said, when [Obama] is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in sixteen months at the most; there should be no confusion about that."

Said Senator Obama in response:  "...we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out...ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief."

This is an extraordinary change in strategy for the two remaining Democratic candidates.  Whereas they once were cautious regarding making statements related to pulling out combat troops, et all, from Iraq, they are now both committed to doing so.  Though they both suggest that their current plans could alter somewhat, they are nonetheless strongly in favor of taking major steps along the Richardsonian path regarding the present Iraq scenario.  The fact that such an immense alteration in these policy stances has occurred should also have been discussed in relative depth, but the commentators most likely started feeling as though we'd moved into territory that was a little too complex and relevant for anyone's own good, and therefore felt safer moving on to the next subject.

I remain a strong supporter of the good work of Governor Bill Richardson, and I am proud that I supported his bid for the Democratic nomination, which withered in January (along with everyone else's bid, except for those of Senators Clinton and Obama).  I continue to feel that his energy strategies were the strongest and most pragmatic of all of the Democratic or Republican candidates, as were his education proposals, his internationalist credentials, and so forth.

That being said, I must admit that my one sticking point with Governor Richardson was his rather uncompromising stance on the Iraq scenario, which has been adopted to a large extent by Senators Clinton and Obama.  Though his plan to remove our troops in a relatively short period of time was multi-layered and impressive, and though I agree with him that the invasion of Iraq was a blunder (given that weapons of mass destruction were not found and it now seems clear that they were monkeyshines), it is nonetheless the case that we did indeed invade Iraq, and by leaving in such a precipitous manner, we might be inviting as much trouble as we solve in that agents of chaos may very well take over portions of that country, potentially turning it into a terrorist training ground.  It's brutal to put it this way, but as the old saying goes, if you break it, you buy it.  We've spent a lot of money breaking and buying Iraq (and, unfortunately, "buying it" in Iraq).

Make no mistake about it, I agree wholeheartedly that the invasion of Iraq has not made us safer and more secure as a nation, and I similarly agree that it has cost thousands of American lives and a lot of money to come to what continues to look like an uncertain end, whenever that end will be.  But is pulling out of the country in such a seemingly uncompromising manner a good solution (or at least a workable one), or might it be a naive and potentially dangerous solution to an awful problem?

I don't like Senator McCain's "anti-surrender" rhetoric; Iraq is a far more complicated problem than such simplistic declarations suggest, and the use of such language makes Americans seem as though we are no wiser about this fact than we were in 2003.  But I also don't like the thought that 4,000-plus Americans may have died for very little, and for a presidential candidate to tie her- or himself to a relatively uncompromising pull-out policy may prove to be politically expedient but also policy-confining if conditions change.

The Democrats are largely right about the war in Iraq.  But, if either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama wins the general election in November, they may also be boxing themselves into a corner from which they have very few improvisational moves should some be required to deal with the ever-changing situation in Iraq after Inauguration Day.