PetCrock

9 April 2008



Google
WWW Kensington Review

Candidates Posture at Petraeus-Crocker Hearings

Regardless of electoral realities, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker briefed the next president of the United States yesterday. While the world doesn’t know which senator the American people will select, the two men answered questions from Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and John McCain (R-AZ), who serve on the Senate Armed Forces Committee, and Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), who is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The three used the occasion to play to the voters on the war.

Not surprisingly, Senator McCain embraced the war, its progress and the competence of the general and the ambassador. He challenged Mr. Bush to fight the war more effectively many months ago, and the surge was something he backed wholeheartedly. He said in his remarks yesterday, “Our goal -- my goal -- is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops, and I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine. But I also believe that the promise of withdrawal of our forces regardless of the consequences would constitute a failure of political and moral leadership. Success, the establishment of peaceful, democratic state, the defeat of terrorism -- this success is within reach. Congress must not choose to lose in Iraq. We must choose to succeed.” If a peaceful and democratic Iraq-Nam is his definition of success and if he thinks it is “within reach,” one can only conclude that he is engaged in serious wishful thinking.

Mrs. Clinton had a better handle on the realities. She said that discussing a withdrawal of American forces was not counterproductive at all, and stated, “I think it could be fair to say that it might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again, at such tremendous cost to our national security and to the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States military.” She said that the surge hadn’t worked in the sense that the Green Zone Government failed to take advantage of the extra US forces, and as a result, the US should start the “orderly process of removing troops.” When it came time to question the witnesses, she asked about US involvement in Basra now that the Brits have pared their troops to the bone there, and about Iraq-Namese ratification of the security agreement with the US. Hers was a competent performance that will soon fade away in a single news cycle.

As for Senator Obama, he had to undermine the perception many voters have that he is inexperienced and naïve about foreign affairs. Arguing against General Petraeus’ statements about the military situation would have been a bad idea, and the senator avoided it. Instead, he argued that there needed to be a “diplomatic surge.” He wants to get American talking to Iran about the future of Iraq-Nam, and there was little the witnesses could say. It was no home run, but he didn’t strike out either.

This dog and pony show accomplished little in teaching the senators about Iraq-Nam, but it did outline how the campaigns will play the war during the rest of the election cycle. Mr. McCain will argue for military victory. Mrs. Clinton will demand to bring the troops home, in an orderly fashion. Mr. Obama will start bringing the troops out and trying to get Iran to cooperate. Whether this matters in November, oddly, has more to do with the economy than with foreign policy. A deep recession will mean few votes will turn on the war.

© Copyright 2008 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Kensington Review Home