On Fri, 4 Jul 2008, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
> This was interesting and mildly heartening.
>
> But with the latest Iraq statements, I'm having trouble seeing daylight
> between him and McCain on Iraq. (Washington Post lead story, this
> morning)
Well that unfolded to be pretty much a non-story, an artifact of McCain's playing the press successfully. Although the very fact that he did seems to be a sign that his staff changes have energized his campaign.
I think the difference in their positions is about as clear as we can expect in a world where it is accepted that giving too much detail is a sign of a duffer.
Obama says he'll have all "combat" troops out of Iraq in 16 months (which we all know is about half the troops and doesn't count mercenaries at all); and since he keeps on emphasizing how badly things are going in Afghanistan, and highlighting what he considers the non-cooperation of Pakistan, I think it's fair to infer that his plan is to use to the draw-down in Iraq to up the effort in Afghanistan/Pakistan.
Not exactly an anti-war position. But it's a change :o)
McCain, on the other hand, is invested in the surge. As far as he's concerned, it's been a stunning success and we can't leave until the fruits of that success are secured. And he doesn't spend much time talking about Afghanistan at all. So that seems to point to the opposite, to basically a standpat position: no drawdown in forces in Iraq for the foreseeable future; and continual de facto drawdown in Afghanistan/ Pakistan simply because we've got no choice -- we have to draw down somewhere soon because the army is stressing out.
So they're pretty clearly different. And Obama's is clearly more of a change of direction FBOW. But neither of them is really a reason to get out of bed in the morning. I hope their war positions aren't where you are planting your back foot.
Michael