The great problem with the Iraq War in American politics is that most Americans believe what the media tells them about it, and the media haven’t sought to report accurately and fairly from Iraq; instead, they’ve been trying to use their reporting to score points on the Bush administration and the GOP. As such, lots of people believe we were “lied into war,” when in fact, as Christopher Hitchens has pointed out, that point of view is based on a misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of what President Bush actually said; lots of people believe that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and other terrorists, when in fact (as Hitchens also notes), the connection has been clearly established; lots of people believe that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with our war on al’Qaeda, when in fact al’Qaeda itself knows better (see here for the highlights); and lots of people believe our work in Iraq has strengthened al’Qaeda, when in fact they’re a shell of their former organization. The fact is, the surge has largely worked, we’re winning the war, and things in Iraq are getting better, to the point that good reporting is beginning to convince Iraq War opponents they were wrong.
Unfortunately, the MSM are still trying to spin the war for maximum benefit for the Democrats rather than simply reporting it and letting the chips fall where they may. This distorts the public understanding of the situation in Iraq and makes it difficult to have the kind of forthright national discussion that would truly serve our nation well; in particular, it enables those who want an immediate and total withdrawal from Iraq, notwithstanding that (as Israel’s experience in Gaza shows) such an act would only give aid and comfort to our enemies. Now is a critical stage in the evolution of Iraq as a nation, and in our campaign against al’Qaeda; this is exactly the wrong time to back down. As such, this is when we most need sober, dispassionate reflection from the presidential candidates as to what would be the best course to chart in Iraq, because this is perhaps the key test of their seriousness as potential American leaders on the world stage.
With John McCain, we know where he stands; he started pushing for the surge in 2003 in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, and has maintained a consistent position ever since, even when that position seemed an insurmountable obstacle for his White House ambitions. That’s consistency, integrity, character, and wisdom of a sort that Barack Obama hasn’t shown with respect to Iraq; where Sen. McCain has situated himself firmly in the internationalist foreign-policy tradition of “people like Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Stimson, Dean Acheson, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan,” Sen. Obama began a major speech on foreign policy by appealing to Woodrow Wilson. Mismatch, anyone? (No wonder the New York Times has resorted to flat-out dishonesty in attacking Sen. McCain’s foreign-policy credentials.) Ironically, Sen. Obama then went on to make the case for pulling out of Iraq immediately in order to . . . escalate the war in Afghanistan and dramatically increase our involvement in Pakistan. Indeed, in declaring, “For years, we have supported stability over democracy in Pakistan, and gotten neither,” he essentially endorsed the Bush Doctrine. So, Senator—why in Pakistan, but not in Iraq?