Is the Iraq war moot?

[smoogatz]

Now that al Maliki has announced that he wants all foreign troops out of Iraq by 2011, does that mean that the war is essentially settled in terms of American foreign policy and electoral politics? Or will McCain advocate staying over the objections of the Iraqi government, if it's "warrented" by "conditions on the ground?" (i.e., all that oil that we still haven't gotten our mitts on). It looks as though both the surge and Obama's time-table policy are essentially vidnicated here: is it a wash? What do you think, DU?

[MercutioATC]

1. Yes, but the machine stil has to be fed.

If McCain wins, we'll be in Iran before 2011 so defense contractor revenues stay protected.

[MarjorieG]

2. Media saays the issue gone and no reason to vote for Obama.

[panader0]

3. I think the soldiers should start getting on planes home today.

How many more will die until this agreement is finalized? It's over, Maliki wants us out. Let's go, now that the "evil" one has been hung. (Wait, he's on vacation in Crawford.)

[kennetha]

4. I've been arguing for awhile that the war doesn't benefit us anymore

The current state of things is far from what those of us who were (and I hope still are) interminably opposed to the war predicted. The Republicans will spin this as victory is in sight. They will say it was their hard nosed policies - especially the surge, of which McCain was a leading and strong advocate -- that have made victory possible.

I think it's all a bunch of hooey. But I think it's hard hooey to combat. We have to make the more difficult to make argument that claims of victory are sham and illusion. Its hard to make that argument with a docile media and an inattentive, lazy public.

If victory is in sight and if victory was worth achieving, then Obama's early opposition to the war, doesn't show sound judgment but something else -- that will be the argument.

It's complicated by the fact that Biden was gung ho for going to war -- he just wanted to do it right (that's how he put it at the time -- often and over -- in hearings that he held). He wanted the Shrub to make him (Biden) his partner. So I think we have to get off the war as an issue and focus on other things. Fortunately, I think the public is willing and ready to focus on other things.

The only way to stay on the war and win the argument is to argue that the fraudulent appearance of victory is just that -- a fraud and sham. And that's a tough sell.

[Brotherjohn]

5. HARDLY! It's still as big as the economy (if not bigger) as an issue!

If we vote in McCain, it gives the thumbs up to everything Bush has ever done in Iraq. It also gives him carte blanche to:
- Attack Iran
- Attack North Korea
- Attack Venezuela
- Attack Russia
- Destroy us all

You get the picture.

Despite that the press won't talk about it much, when people say this election is about "change", they mean the war. They mean a change from the policies that have dragged our international reputation, AND our economy, into the gutter.

Getting Bush's party out of the White House is about nothing if it's not about the war. And I hope Obama keeps reminding voters that Bush/McCain policies (i.e. war-mongering) have gotten us into an awful big mess internationally, and that has contributed greatly to what is an awful big mess at home as well.

[kennetha]

6. I think you've described

pretty accurately how much of our side feels about the war and Bush. But I'm not sure that the middle of the road, non-ideological, inattentive voter has much passion about the war anymore. And i think that they are very much open to being persuaded that the surge has been a success and has put the possibility of victory on the table.

I think if we wade into this argument, we are wading into treacherous territory that has to be handled very deftly if we are to win points with people outside our own base. I once thought the war would be a trump card for us in this election. I no longer do.

[Brotherjohn]

7. But we won't have to wade into it. It will be brought up. During the debates, at the very least.

Obama has said during the campaign that this was a war that "should never have been waged". Biden, although he voted for the IWR, sponsored a resolution bound more to diplomatic efforts, and has since admitted his vote was a mistake.

Those WILL be things brought up during the debates and McCain WILL run ads on them.

Running away from the war will allow them to cast the war in their light. That is, IMHO, why Kerry "lost" (or why it was close enough for Bush to "win", anyway).

The war CAN be cast in the light we want to cast it in. All Obama has to do it talk about 4200 American lives (and counting), "100 years", "Mission Accomplished", the distraction from Bin Laden, and POOR JUDGEMENT. "Yes, we got rid of a horrible dictator" Obama can say, "but not without serious costs to our nation and our reputation". He can and should make the argument that we need to use more reasoned judgment in our foreign policy, and not go off "all half-cocked" as Bush & McCain have for 8 years.

They can and WILL use "terra" to scare us. We have to use the above to "scare" people into realizing the Bush/McCain route has in no way made us safer from terrorism, but in fact has put us in more danger.

Running away from the war as an issue is a losing proposition.

ON EDIT: I don't think it's should be our No. 1 issue anymore (with them finally agreeing to a timeline). But to say it is "moot" and to NOT use it as an issue at all, I think, takes away a major weapon in our arsenal and endangers the election. The very fact that they have agreed to a timeline is not lost on the American people. Most know this is what Obama has been vociferously arguing for for many months, while Bush has been equally opposed to it. It is also not lost on most Americans that Bush's miraculous turnaround comes 3 months before a tight election. It just looks like he's following Obama's lead, and that is a big selling pint for Obama.