comMITTed to Romney!

McCain’s Iraq baggage

McCain gets a lot of credit for supporting the surge in Iraq, as if no other republicans at the time supported it. That’s simply not true. Lots of other republicans were in favor of increasing troop numbers in Iraq. But beyond that, and more importantly John McCain is going to be saddled with the legacy of the Iraq invasion in any general election, which, regardless of the polls, would put him at a marked disadvantage in November regardless of the foe. See this quote:

Once the primaries are past, of course, there will be big differences on key issues between the Republican and Democratic nominees. In particular, there is likely to be a stark debate over the wisdom of the Iraq war, particularly if the nominees are Sen. McCain, who has turned defense of the war into a cornerstone of his candidacy, and Sen. Obama, who has trumpeted his opposition to the war from the outset.

If Sen. McCain is the Republican nominee, that will bring about a “fundamental debate,” says William Galston, an analyst at the Brookings Institution who worked in the Clinton White House. “Sen. McCain sees the future of Iraq through our experience in West Germany and South Korea,” which became permanent outposts of American power, Mr. Galston says. Any Democratic nominee isn’t likely to share that vision, he says.

But that debate will be more about dealing with the residue of a past decision — the Iraq invasion — than about charting a new ideological course for America in the world. Indeed, the debates now under way within the two parties are striking for their lack of new direction.

Obviously we’re in Iraq now regardless of how we got there. But if this election in November is a referendum on the war, guess who loses? The candidate most closely associated with it: John McCain.

Notwithstanding the surge’s current success, and the great job the additional forces have done to secure Iraq (obviously the first order of business), many in the public still very much dislike the reasons we went in and harbor latent resentment about that decision. Thus McCain’s consistent re-write of history that the GOP lost the elections in ‘06 due “not to the Iraq war,” but because of runaway spending (that McCain was a part of, by the way). But many of the American public won’t remember it that way, and they’re not going to be bullied into it by McCain. Many will see McCain as a staunch war supporter, and, as I do on economic issues, “part of the problem.” That may not be fair when discussing what we need to do about Iraq now, since in reality no candidate can pull out our troops immediately even if they wanted to, but the issue will come up.

When faced with Obama, McCain has a moral dilemma: take the position the war was a good idea in the first place or not? It’s the same difficulty Hillary has when debating Obama. The Hillary vs. McCain difference isn’t as stark (like on a lot of issues!), but it’s there given her constant anti-war rhetoric.

But let me point out the obvious: Mitt Romney doesn’t have this problem. He wasn’t in Congress. It wasn’t his decision. He didn’t vote for the invasion or against it. He just has to do what’s right now. And thus Romney is the cleaner candidate on Iraq come November, and can stand squarely against Obama and debate what the right thing is to do now, and not allow the discussion to degrade into a referendum on the invasion. Because, my friends, if it becomes a referendum on the war, 2006 shows us, notwithstanding McCain’s 72 year old memory he insists is sharper than everyone else’s, we lose.

Share on Facebook

Share This