McCain v Obama: War on Terror

Now let’s tackle what will be one of the two top issues which will define the differences between the two parties and between the two candidates this fall: the War on Terror, including it’s Iraq component.

Both candidates say, for the record, that protecting Americans and the world from the assaults of terrorists is important. That’s where the agreement ends. The differences begin with the overall assessment of the level of importance and priority that should be assigned to this conflict.

Since Obama has shown exactly zero inclination to differ from his party on this issue, I will present his side based not only on Obama’s own statements, but the general position of Democratic Party leaders.

For Democrats, I believe it is fair to state their position on the problem this way: “Although 9/11 was a national tragedy, and radical Islamists certainly would like to harm us, we don’t believe it represents a mortal threat to the United States; in fact, we would not even call it a “war” because that just invites conflict and causes people to hate America more than they already do. It’s not worth all the blood and treasure we have spent on the conflict so far. There are other, more pressing priorities for us: stopping global warming, reducing poverty, giving everyone health care and expanding other government entitlements.”

For Republicans and John McCain, I would state it this way: “On 9/11, it became clearer than ever that we face a threat in radical Islamic jihadism that has the potential to destroy much of what America is and represents in the world. They are by nature a cult of death, and intent not so much on building something positive, but rather destroying Western society and particularly the United States. They have shown no signs of self-restraint in what they are and would be willing to do to achieve their aims. If they had a functioning nuclear bomb in their hands today and the capability of detonating it in downtown Manhattan, they would do so in a heartbeat. They have a global network with the determination and patience and resources to potentially achieve their aims. If the United States is not willing to lead the world in a focused and determined way to root out these terrorists and bring them to justice, we will with certainty be hit again and again, and it will have serious long term consequences for the cause of freedom and security in the world.”

Where Barack Obama has said that his principle goal would be to get us out of Iraq within a year as his main priority, John McCain has said that his goal would be to continue to learn and adjust so that we may be more effective and able to win in Iraq and achieve our aim there of having a stable ally, able to maintain its own internal security, and with a functioning representative democracy in an area of the world that has never had this before in its history.

Barack Obama has placed himself in a position where if things continue to improve in Iraq, it proves him wrong. That is, if America succeeds, he loses. Why would he not instead focus on how we can best succeed there, instead of how we can cut our losses and leave as soon as possible?

Obama’s position also has the practical effect of demeaning the tremendous physical and emotional sacrifice and courage of our soldiers, sailors, and airmen in Iraq. After all they have done, and with things improving and the achievement of our goals a real possibility, why would he be so willing to give those things up – just to avoid further sacrifice? And his position also has the practical effect of emboldening our enemies. Say you are an anti-American jihadist in Iraq. Would you not feel great satisfaction and joy to know that if Obama wins, it will just be a matter of a relatively short time before you will have freer rein and before you can gleefully proclaim to the world that you beat the Americans? And you would be able to plan and strategize with more certainty…just lay low, let the Americans leave, then attack. Why would a potential president of the U.S. do this? Why would they not at least say, “look, we would like to reduce troop levels and I believe we can…we will simply demand that the Iraqis take up the slack, but we will be vigilant and change these plans if the situation warrants it.”

John McCain will be as strong as President Bush in the prosecution of the war, but I suspect will be wiser and more sure in his approach. He has been willing to criticize tactics in Iraq and the general war on terror, and his criticisms have in retrospect been pretty much spot on. He certainly would not give the terrorists any comfort should he be elected.