Elwyn Tinklenberg, Barack Obama, John McCain, Iraq, and Afghanistan

ELWYN TINKLENBERG JULY 21 FUNDRAISER RE-CAP: THE TIDE MAY BE TURNING IN HIS FAVOR

I attended the Elwyn Tinklenberg fundraising reception in Minneapolis yesterday (July 21), and I must report that the sheer amount of people at the event was impressive. Also impressive was the following statement, made by Mr. Tinklenberg himself: "The Saint Cloud Chamber of Commerce has declined to endorse Representative Bachmann this year. They endorsed her two years ago."

Saint Cloud is a vital city when it comes to the electoral chances of U.S. congressional hopefuls in Minnesota's Sixth District. This comes on the heels of the announcement by the Independence Party that they have decided to endorse Mr. Tinklenberg (they ran their own candidate in 2006). Slowly but surely--and rather impressively--Mr. Tinklenberg is doing a good job of positioning himself for a possible November win in the often conservative-leaning district. For what it's worth, I support enthusiastically his candidacy.

REGARDING HIS POTENTIAL COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF STATUS AS IT RELATES TO THE IRAQ WAR, SENATOR OBAMA GETS RIGHT WHAT PRESIDENT BUSH GETS WRONG

At a Middle East press conference today, Senator Obama gave another strong indication that he has a firm grasp of the complexities that come as a matter of course (and that need to be factored in to most big military decisions) when one is Commander-in-Chief of the United States military. When confronted with the Bush-esque option of making decisions based nearly solely on what military commanders request, Senator Obama said the following:

"The notion is either I do what my military commanders want me to do, or I'm ignorning their advice. No, I'm factoring in their advice."

This would seem to be a reasonable way to deal with many types of executive decisions, including those related to the Iraq scenario, but it comes as a wonderful breath of fresh air after the overly-simplistic, responsibility-shirking manner in which President Bush has handled the occupation of Iraq, which has been to suggest that he will listen to his commanders on the ground and then provide them with just about everything they request.

President Bush's idea of how to handle the situation might seem like a sound one at first, but it falls apart upon further examination, since it is the natural tendency of the military commanders on the ground to request more resources for the job at hand (as it would be for leaders of just about any extension of the government). It is therefore the responsibility of the president to listen to their advice, listen to the advice of the cabinet, listen to the advice of other foreign policy experts, weigh in economic factors at home and abroad, and then, given the various angles from which it must be viewed, develop a well-rounded strategy for dealing with the Iraq scenario.

During the press conference, Senator Obama made it clear that this more-inclusive way of looking at the situation is the view he takes. This is to suggest that he is placing the Iraq scenario in the grander context of overarching U.S. foreign policy, as well as the internal U.S. economic situation and assorted other big contexts. His visit to the region, and his meeting with military commanders and military forces there, also indicates that, yes, he will look at the micro-scenario (and not just the macro one), as well. Yet as the potential future chief executive of the United States, he cannot simply view the matter in the simplistic, blanket-manner that President Bush prefers to utilize.

Senator Obama is right about wanting to reduce significantly the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq in order to create incentives for the Iraqis to undertake their own security concerns in a more rapid manner. He is also right about wanting to leave behind a far smaller but necessary amount of residual U.S. personnel for a while, in order to coordinate security matters and further train Iraqi security forces. Now it's time to see whether or not a majority of the American public agrees with him, which is to suggest that it's time to see whether or not a majority of the American public can grasp the importance of both removing a large percentage of our forces from Iraq over the next few years and leaving a smaller group of residual forces in the country for a while.

Senator Obama is rightly viewing this as a complex issue, and his policy is therefore more nuanced than is President Bush's (and it's also more nuanced than Senator McCain's, for that matter); it would allow the U.S. to redouble efforts in Afghanistan, which is a necessity and has been for quite some time, without simply waving goodbye to Iraq and leaving its future completely up in the air. In formulating his policy, Senator Obama is examining a number of necessary issues that President Bush has preferred not to deal with, given that President Bush's has been a mindset which has been to his country's internal and external detriment. Senator Obama is trying to smarten-up future U.S. policies, and it's now up to many American voters--particularly the fully pro-Iraq-war and fully anti-Iraq-war individuals who refuse to alter their stances in order to take into account the reality of the scenario--to smarten-up, too.

I'm not a fan of the Iraq War, but Senator Joe Biden was right when he suggested that how the U.S. removes itself from Iraq is as important as the fact that the U.S. removes itself from Iraq. Senator Obama has an increasingly-full grasp of this idea, and his recent articulation of possible future policy stances as well as his responses to reporters' questions reflect that. These are big reasons why his trip overseas has thus far been a success.

IN THEIR AFGHANISTAN STANCES, WE CAN SEE THE DICHOTOMY BETWEEN THE VIEWPOINTS OF SENATORS McCAIN AND OBAMA AS THEY RELATE TO THE WORD "SUCCESS"

Senator McCain, in his article "Time for an Afghan Surge," and Senator Obama, in his article "Refocusing on the Central Front," articulate their stances on the continually-tricky situation in Afghanistan in manners that provide interesting insights into their mindsets regarding U.S. policy toward the region. (These articles were published in TIME magazine's July 28, 2008 issue.) It is my belief that, upon analyzing both what they say and how they articulate it in these articles, Senator Obama comes across as having the better-informed reading of how to deal with Afghanistan over the next few years.

Early on in his article, Senator McCain repeats a line he's uttered many times on the presidential campaign trail this summer: "Senator Barack Obama believes we can't win in Afghanistan without losing in Iraq." This is telling, because it suggests that Senator McCain believes the removal of the vast majority of U.S. troops from Iraq in a relatively quick manner would indicate "losing" the Iraq War. This is a very traditional way of viewing war, applicable to wars fought between two standing military forces (like, say, the Allied Powers and the Axis Powers during World War II), but far more difficult to apply to a war in which one standing military force (the U.S.) pulverized the other (the Iraqi military) early on; since then, the issue has been one of insurgency, not one in which the official armies of two or more countries are continuing to square off against one another. Hence, the definition of "success" needs to necessarily shift a bit to take into account the lack of two sides who fight each other via similar methods and through similar paradigms.

Senator Obama, in his article, seems to grasp the issue a bit more clearly when he states the following: "My first order as Commander in Chief will be to end the war in Iraq and refocus our efforts on Afghanistan and our broader security interests." Already we see Senator Obama pulling-back from the arena of Iraq and viewing it in the broader contexts of national security and foreign policy priority-setting. He continues by saying, "Let me be clear--my plan would not abandon Iraq. It is in our strategic interest to maintain a residual force that will go after al-Qaeda, train Iraqi security forces and protect U.S. interests. But we must recognize that the central front in the war on terror is not in Iraq, and it never was. The central front is in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

I believe that Senator Obama is viewing the war on international terror in a way that would not see the U.S. get bogged-down with non-applicable readings of "success" (certainly not as much as it is at present, at least), an indication of which is his suggestion that the necessary war is to be fought in the region in and around Afghanistan; that was the war that much of the world supported when we first undertook it, that was the region from which al-Qaeda was based when it launched its attack on the U.S. in 2001, and that is the unfinished business that needs to be attended to most urgently (while of course ensuring that Iraq does not fall completely to pieces, as well, which Senator Obama also deals with in the above statement).

Senator McCain says the following regarding troop strength in Afghanistan: "Our commanders in Afghanistan say they need at least three additional brigades. I will ensure they get the troops they need by asking NATO to send more and sending U.S. troops as they become available." This is what Senator Obama says about the same issue: "I will send at least two combat brigades to Afghanistan and use this commitment to seek greater contributions--with fewer restrictions--from NATO allies."

Senator Obama's method of extracting increased support from NATO allies is far more incentive-oriented, which is the right way of going about the situation, given that many NATO countries have been grumbling about sending more troops to Afghanistan, not on the basis of believing it is a bad cause, but rather on the basis that the U.S. could also significantly bolter its forces in Afghanistan if it weren't bogged-down in Iraq. The British public, for instance, is justifiably angry that their troops are being pulled out of Iraq only to largely be inserted into Afghanistan in very dangerous areas, such as Helmand Province, where U.S. troop presence is sparce due to the Iraq War.

If, on the other hand, U.S. troop presence in such places were reinforced, the heads of NATO countries would feel less heat from their voting public regarding their important roles in Afghanistan. We can argue about it all we want; the fact is that this is reality, and therefore Senator Obama's suggestion of creating incentives to encourage further NATO participation is the best way to alleviate pressure on allied governments and achieve the desired results. Iraq has been a major distraction that has been detrimental in the process of achieving these results.

Senator Obama also "gets it" when he suggests that increasing aid to the region is one important element in achieving success: "...I would also increase our nonmilitary aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And we must demand better performance from the Afghan government through tough anticorruption safeguards on aid."

Yes. The farmers of the region are very poor, and the war has in many cases increased the already-dire levels of their poverty, so aid is a major method of achieving success. When combined with safeguards (and it can be a powerful inducement towards curbing corruption if one dangles a billion dollars in front of a poor country but necessarily links that aid with anticorruption policies), money can help to stabilize a region by changing the attitudes that the occupied peoples have if it is used for positive economic development that impacts everyday life in the region.

It is perhaps telling that, in his article, Senator McCain failed to mention the role of aid in solving the Afghanistan crisis.