War and the Democratic Presidential Campaign

The War in Iraq is the defining issue of this upcoming election. It is a foregone conclusion that GW will leave the completion of this task to his successor. In some ways this isn't good news for a prospective Democratic winner, because if things continue to go as they're going we're only prolonging the inevitable, which is a blood bath. In the 4 years since the "end of major combat operations" was proclaimed by GW, security in Iraq has only gotten worse, not better. If we pull out chaos is likely, and yet if we don't pull out we will only by pushing that eventuality further down the road.

As a presenter to a group I was at yesterday suggested, to really do this job -- bring security -- it will take not this little surge, but a surge of hundreds of thousands of soldieres -- and that requires a draft, which is a nonstarter.

So, back to the campaign. As E.J. Dionne notes the three main candidates must distance themselves from the war and yet suggest a sense of toughness. Hillary is marking out that space of the tough talker, which leaves Obama at somewhat of a disadvantage. I didn't watch the debate (I was in flight), but apparently a question was asked about a response to simultaneous attacks. Obama seemingly gave a fairly long response, while Edwards promised swift action and Hillary promised "retaliation." Now, I know that such talk is popular in many quarters -- you hit me and I'll hit you back harder. But as we've seen recently, both in our war in Iraq and in the Israeli war in Lebanon -- such tactics rarely work well.

In my mind a more nuanced and thought through alternative is better. Jesus said something about getting beyond an "eye for an eye." Obama seems to understand this best!