Scooped By The New York Times
I’d been thinking about doing a post about the absence of presidential candidate debate about Iraq. Back on New Years Day I did a post, “2008,” that listed “hopes” for the year. The first was “[t]hat President Bush is right about what we are doing in the Middle East, because like it or not, we are stuck doing it for the near and mid term future.” Well, that’s as far as I got. I don’t have to worry about it now as Noah Feldman wrote an article in the Sunday New York Times Magazine that says what I was thinking:
“What if the United States were at war during a presidential election — and none of the candidates wanted to talk about it? Iraq has become the great disappearing issue of the early primary season, and if nothing fundamental changes on the ground there — a probable result of current policy — the war may disappear even more completely in the new year.
“The reasons for Iraq’s political eclipse begin with the unfortunate fact that candidates strive to create feel-good associations, and the war is a certain downer….
“[E]lections demand that candidates differentiate themselves, yet various plausible front-runners’ positions on Iraq are not all that far apart. There are subtle differences regarding the completeness and timing of withdrawal…. But basically, the leading doves say they want to leave, but not too fast; while the hawks claim they want to stay, but not too long. One little-noticed consequence of the war’s unpopularity is that, for the first time since the end of the cold war, we are experiencing something that looks very like an unacknowledged consensus between the two parties on the most important question of foreign policy facing the United States.
“But the appearance of agreement is built on the absence of disagreement, nothing more…. The pseudo-consensus of 'leave as soon as we are able, stay as long as we must' rests not on a strategy but on its very opposite: a dodge. At this point, none of the candidates have given detailed, substantive answers to the looming, decisive questions about Iraq that will face the next president the moment he or she takes office."
So, a war that costs billions of dollars and thousands of lives meanders along, stumping the candidates that want to lead us. President Bush didn’t and doesn’t know what to do. Neither does the next President, whomever he or she is.
9 comments:
Since it's not really a war, the candidates' decision to not really deal with it seems appropriate...
One really fast way to get eliminated from any primary, from getting the party nomination come summer, would have to be to voice a definite opinion on the war don't ya think?
If someone said they wanted to continue with the war and gave a game plan, etc., the doves would come out of the closet and let fly -there would go their potential votes. Then if the candidate were to say the best route would be to just leave, now or by a specific date, etc., the hawks would be in full war gear mode and there would those votes go - straight down the tubes.
It is rather pathetic to think something that costs this country so much in money and especially in lives - lost or injured -and no politician is willing to take a firm stand, commit themselves to allow people to know what that person's true feelings are with respect to Iran.
Isn't it funny too how on one hand we refer to the conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, et al as a War and yet, technically speaking, they really weren't a "War"? What else would one call those things anyway? Where is the line of demarcation between a "war" and a "conflict?"
Yeah, and another scary aspect to this potentially protracted situation is that I keep catching mini sound bytes of presidential posturing with regards to Iran -- holy crap! are we going to fight them too!!
It kind or reminds me of the death penalty.
When the state first started killing people again, it was always front-page news. Every execution was met with candlelight vigils and protests by those opposed, and chest-pounding and victory dances by those in favor of it.
Well, they're still killing people, but it's not on the front page anymore, and only the most hard-core partisans ever bring the topic up.
Same deal in Iraq. The war rages on, but it's not on the front page anymore, and nobody is getting too worked up about it.
We have better things to worry about with the current candidates, like Obama's middle name being Hussein, Clinton being too weak because she becomes emotional when speaking and the number of wives Guliani had/has.
Why should we be bothered with the war/skirmish/duty of Iraq?
I like sardonicus's comment (not really ...)
Joe Biden offered some intelligent advice on what to do next - look where that got him.
Those running aren't talking about it just as the public at large is not talking about it. Fewer people are dying in Iraq making it less of a focus in the media. No one is addressing it because everyone is talking about other issues - not just those running.
If Iraq is important - the public needs to start bringing it up and demanding answers.
If we are seriously concerned about Iran, we need to voice an opinion. If we don't, there is a chance Bush will take us there as he did to Iraq - though we are all hoping he doesn't.
The public has a voice - we just need to remember how to use it. After all, we will vote and this will be a president that we select.
To respond to all of the comments and focus on Exception's, noting that "deaths are down," isn't that a terrible phrase, is why there is no outcry. That said, as Jeni noted, there is no incentive for a candidate to stake a position, other than that a position will be needed as of January of next year.
As to what Bush may do in his ticking away presidency, he extolled allies to gang up on Iran over the weekend. A presage?
Finally, we will vote in the Fall and we won't really have clue what the candidates really think about Iraq, Iran or most of the other issues facing the country and the world. We as an electorate are too caught up in number of wives, whether acknowledging Lyndon Johnson's contribution to the Civil Rights Act is an example of racism and what it means when Senator Clinton tears up. God forbid Terrell Owens ever runs for public office.
Oh don't forget - jobs, the economy, and the need for religion and changes to the Constitution!
Post a Comment