{"id":596,"date":"2008-07-23T09:33:05","date_gmt":"2008-07-23T14:33:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/2parse.com\/?p=596"},"modified":"2008-07-23T09:33:05","modified_gmt":"2008-07-23T14:33:05","slug":"setting-america-up-to-fail","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/2parse.com\/?p=596","title":{"rendered":"Setting America Up to Fail"},"content":{"rendered":"

[digg-reddit-me]Putting aside the controversy over whether the New York Times should have published John McCain’s op-ed <\/a>piece – his piece itself illustrates the lose-lose strategy McCain is putting forward.<\/p>\n

This line in particular from his unpublished op-ed<\/a> struck me:<\/p>\n

…if we don\u2019t win the war, our enemies will.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What interests me about both McCain’s and Obama’s positions is that both have stuck to their general idea about what the next step would be despite the changing situation on the ground.<\/p>\n

McCain was in favor of troops staying longer in Iraq when things were bad and getting worse; now that things are improving, he is still in favor of keeping our forces there.\u00a0 Obama was in favor of pulling out of Iraq while the situation was deteriorating; and now that the situation is improving, he still is in favor of ending the occupation.\u00a0 McCain’s editorial tries to hit Obama on this point, unconvincingly in light of McCain’s own seeming intransigence.<\/p>\n

But it isn’t entirely accurate to call Obama’s and McCain’s fixed goals in spite of the changing circumstances “intransigence”.\u00a0 The crux of the disagreement between the candidates is not the contrast that McCain sets up in his op-ed:<\/p>\n

I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Rather, the crux of their disagreement is about the wisdom of the Iraq adventure and the overall strategy of establishing some kind of neo-empire in the Middle East.\u00a0 McCain believes that the Iraq War was necessary and strategically sound – and that although he may not call it an empire or neo-empire – he believes America must have an established military presence in the Middle East as a matter of policy.\u00a0 Obama is suspicious of this view – believing that any form of imperial influence exerted over the Middle East will cause a backlash greater than the benefits – and he specifically pointed out before the war, and has kept pointing out, that the Iraq adventure was strategically “dumb” and that it was benefited our enemies in the Middle East even as it has undermined our friends.\u00a0 By taking out Iraq, we removed Iran’s regional foil – and we set up an Iraqi regime that has become a regional ally of Iran.<\/p>\n

There are two competing sets of suppositions here:<\/p>\n

First:<\/em><\/p>\n