We've all heard the back and forth between Senators Obama and McCain for the past few days. It seems like the Republican Party strategy every election year is to dumb-down the electorate as they try to convince voters that 2+2=3.85. But not this year... we have the money, we have the energy, we have the volunteers on the ground in all 50 states, and we have the high ground on every issue from health care to the environment and national defense. After so many heartbreaking elections, we need to find some answers to these attacks.
My diaries have the great characteristic of flowing through the Recent Diaries listing as fast as lightning. But I hope supporters of both of our nominees will be able to use some of these ideas as they prop up our eventual nominee against the Republican Party. But first, the attack that is a prelude to the general election:
ABC News
Specifically,
The fact is, al Qaeda is in Iraq," McCain said. "Al Qaeda is in Iraq today. If we left Iraq there's no doubt that al Qaeda would then gain control in Iraq and pose a threat to the United States of America.
And,
"I guess that means that [Obama] would surrender and then go back," McCain said.
I've been through a good number of elections in my time and I recognize how difficult the general election will be for the Democratic Party, even though we seem to have every conceivable advantage there is. I am an Obama supporter and I know at least with respect to the Obama campaign that they have demonstrated an ability to address attacks quickly and decisively.
Yet, it's inevitable that we will be hearing the same old broken-record attacks and defensive statements that Republicans trot out every election year to hear themselves speak. But having words come out of your mouth doesn't mean you've provided a clear answer to the questions I'm asking.
To the article in question... Senator McCain is ridiculing Senator Obama for saying that if we pull our troops out now, we may have to go back later to root out Al Qaeda again. The Obama campaign has made a good point in saying that Al Qaeda would not be in Iraq if it were not for the presence of our troops. But we do have another argument. In the first Gulf War, President Bush decided not to pursue Saddam Hussein into Baghdad because he knew (or at least was advised, correctly) that we needed half a million troops to secure the country and stabilize it. The current president decided to do the same thing on the cheap.
Therefore, Senator McCain, we have already been to Iraq and left, and decided again to come back and remove Saddam Hussein from power, under the false pretense of going to war over WMDs. If President Obama were to remove the bulk of our troops from Iraq now and then reserve the option to attack Iraq again if Al Qaeda were to start creating more mischief, wouldn't that be in accordance with U.S. policy to date? What is the difference between our decision to be satisfied with a free Kuwait and our leaving Iraq after the first Gulf War, versus leaving Iraq now and allowing the Iraqi people to take control of their own lives and then reserving the option of going back overseas on a mission with a specific goal and a clear mandate from an Iraqi government that has requested our help? The mission was to remove Saddam Hussein from power and recover any WMDs. There were no weapons and our mission has been complete for a long time now. Why should American soldiers have to pay the price for Republicans changing the mission on them, in mid-stride. Iraq's stability is up to the Iraqi people.
And then there is the issue of Al Qaeda taking over a whole country, again from Senator McCain:
"I have some news: Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Al Qaeda, it's called Al Qaeda in Iraq, and my friends if we left they wouldn't be establishing a base, they wouldn't be establishing a base, they'd be taking a country. And I'm not going to allow that to happen my friends. I will not surrender. I will not surrender to Al Qaeda."
So many points to refute. Again, Al Qaeda would not be in Iraq if it were not for the presence of our troops in the country. Further, Senator McCain invokes the specter of Al Qaeda taking over a country, implying that an organization like Al Qaeda can actually operate a fully functional country and turn it into an instrument for attacking the U.S. But this really betrays a huge lack of knowledge and insight from Senator McCain. A terrorist group like Al Qaeda doesn't go into the limelight and take over a country. Just look at Hamas and its hold in Gaza. Forced to actually operate and control a population of people, they have succumbed to the worries of every government in existence: defense of its territory, the welfare of its population, etc. Al Qaeda may try to destroy Iraq's government but the organization itself isn't built to rule countries. How can he not know or realize this?
Is Senator McCain telling me that Al Qaeda, a group that lives on secrecy and operating behind the curtain, can take over a country of more than 20 million people and have no one there care about their country? That kind of Republican thinking is naive at best and foolhardy at worst. And it's the worst kind of reductionism -- if the good guys leave, the powerless people in the country will not rise up to combat the bad people coming in. I think that after we've overstayed our welcome, the Iraqi people won't be too quick to sit on their hands if Al Qaeda were to try some funny business.
And one more point... hypothetical questions. During the last debate between Senators Clinton and Obama, I saw that Senator Obama had no problems dealing with the hypothetical question of leaving Iraq and perhaps having to come back into the country later. However, Republicans seem to run from hypothetical questions like they were the plague. But it does show the kind of thinking in the Republican Party these days (not by all of them, but by the vast majority of the people in the power)... a kind of thinking that lacks any curiosity for looking at new, different, and unexpected possibilities. But Senator McCain, answering hypothetical questions doesn't mean you have to stick to your answers if the situations in real life eventually differ from the hypothetical question. What answering these kinds of questions shows is that you've thought about more than what happens tomorrow... you've thought about what will happen next month and next year, and how your actions may have unintended consequences, as they invariably do. By not answering hypothetical questions, Republicans demonstrate over and over again how short-sighted their whole philosophy is and how they lack any kind of foresight when an issue arises that requires the judgment of someone who has wrestled over many of the possible outcomes to a situation.
Well, this is the end of my rant. Please comment on the three points here: entering Iraq again, Al Qaeda controlling a country, and Republican fear of hypotheticals. Good luck to everyone on March 4th, and may the best Obama campaign win.