In this morning's Financial Times, columnist Philip Stephens looks at how John McCain would handle the 3am call:
To his mind, the only thing wrong with Mr Bush's surge in American forces in Iraq last year was that it did not go far enough. As for Iran's nuclear ambitions, the candidate's refrain could scarcely be clearer: the one outcome more dangerous than war would be a nuclear-armed Iran.There are some fairly obvious snags here. Even if Iraq has drifted off the front pages, the polls show that the war remains deeply unpopular. As the Obama campaign never fails to point out, the so-called "success" of the surge is strictly relative. Certainly, fewer Americans are being killed than in 2006, but the casualty rate is little changed relative to 2005.
Nor is Iraq closer to a political settlement. The US has secured the present relative calm by arming the Sunni militias it had spent three years fighting in the aftermath of the invasion. If the Sunnis have now turned against their erstwhile al-Qaeda allies, their accommodation with the Americans represents an uneasy truce rather than anything resembling a peace. There is precious little sign either of a Sunni reconciliation with the Shia-led government of Nouri Maliki.
Mr McCain says he would stay in Iraq for 100 years if that is what it takes. I wonder for how long most Americans are willing to go on losing a US soldier every day. The opinion polls may show that many believe the surge has worked; most, though, still want the troops brought home sooner rather than later.
There are flaws too in Mr McCain's assessment of the wider challenge to America's security. His, like that of Mr Bush, is a Manichean view of the world in which everything is swept up into one all-embracing threat. Iraq, Afghanistan, al-Qaeda, Iran, Hamas and Hizbollah are all on the other side of a single struggle between liberty and Islamist extremism. In this, Mr McCain is making the same mistake as Mr Bush by giving a cohesion to America's enemies that otherwise would not exist and thus inviting them to make common cause.
This, again, points to something I wrote yesterday - either Clinton or Obama would be significantly better than a McCain Whitehouse.
And this is more than simply an academic question. While many Democrats seem to be operating under the assumption that the Democratic nominee with land in the Whitehouse, McCain could be a much tougher opponent than people admit.
Head-to-head polls show a Democratic lead, but they don't demonstrate inevitability, certainly not this far out.
And McCain is certainly taking advantage of the prolonged Democratic primary battle.
"It does give me an opportunity to go around, shore up our base of support, unite our party and energize our party, and spend time -- as Charlie and I have this morning -- both with our financial backers as well as the people of the state of Florida," McCain said.
What does this mean for the Democrats? It means that, while it may be true that the prolonged contest could be good for Democrats by keeping McCain out of the news, it also means that Democrats need to fight smart. Clinton and Obama both should concentrate on selling their strengths, and their differences with John McCain.
That doesn't mean it has to be a love-fest, but it means that talking about political experience, wisdom, leadership, and ideas are important. Incessant mud-slinging may win a candidate the Democratic nomination, but it would be a pyrrhic victory that leaves the candidate, and the party, weakened in the general election. And that's the one that counts.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 3 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
