A piece in the New York Post co-authored by former Clinton strategist Dick Morris (who famously believes that men are from Mars, and women are from Yellow Pages) suggests an interesting line of attack for McCain on the issue of Iraq.
In a nutshell, the argument is this: by pulling out of Iraq precipitously, Obama will allow Al Qaeda and Iran to move into the vacuum and use it as a base of terror against the US. Not only that, but by destabilising the fragile peace established by the surge, his actions will instigate a new war in the region. McCain, by promising to keep troops there as long as it takes to establish a stable Iraqi state, is the true candidate of peace.
I'm sure that McCain will try something like this, and it's probably his best shot at persuading voters that Obama isn't up to the job of Commander-In-Chief.
Obama's first comeback might be to point out that Al Qaeda and Iran wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place if it weren't for Bush/McCain's war. But that's a bit backward-looking. He needs to persuade Americans that a pullout of our troops won't lead to a breakdown of order in the region. That relies on things continuing to stabilise in the next few months.
So now we're in a weird situation where it's not clear how what happens in Iraq affects the election. Is stability good for McCain (it has been so far) because it allows him to point to the success of the surge that he supported and Obama opposed? Or is it good for Obama because it reassures Americans that it's OK to leave now?
Maybe the optimum situation for McCain - in pure and cynical political terms - is for things to remain stable right up until October.
Comments