.jpg)
Dear Red Said, Blue Said,
Which party’s candidate will the voters most likely trust with the war in Iraq, and why?
The Red Perspective: Kathryn Biber Chen
Since this is the first post, I thought I’d take a moment to introduce myself. I am a Republican lawyer in Washington DC, and I’ve been working in politics since college. Having spent a fair amount of time in Cambridge, Massachusetts, I’m rather accustomed to defending my Republican viewpoints in conversations with assorted Democrats, socialists, communists, and members of the Green Party. Luckily, I am not easily offended and relish in the opportunity to talk politics with the other side. If there is anything I hope to accomplish with this project, it is convincing liberal readers that Republicans are actually Normal People who care about the environment, poverty, and children stuck in failing schools (among other important so-called “Democratic” issues!). I may not change your mind, but I hope to convince you that we share similar goals for our country.
Now, on to today’s question—unsurprisingly, I think the answer is fairly easy.
It is beyond dispute that John McCain is better equipped than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to assume the role of commander-in-chief. Voters know this, and no amount of spin or hyperbole will convince them otherwise.
By now, McCain’s credentials are well known. Following his graduation from the Naval Academy, he began a twenty-two-year career as a naval aviator, including five painful years as a prisoner of war at the infamous “Hanoi Hilton.” He has been a leader in foreign policy and military issues for many years, and voters respect his willingness to stake out positions on tough, controversial issues—from torture to the surge. Obama and Clinton possess not a fraction of this experience.
Military service is not a prerequisite to the White House, but good judgment and integrity absolutely are. Instead of demonstrating such important character traits with respect to the public debate on Iraq, Barack Obama has taken to crassly misrepresenting McCain’s public statements on troop withdrawal (when he’s not busy slandering the good people of Pennsylvania, that is). Like Clinton, he favors a quick withdrawal of troops from Iraq. How will he ensure stability in the region after the troops have been removed? Why, he will simply “press Iraq’s leaders to reconcile.” If only the Bush Administration had tried such an innovative strategy. With similar evasiveness and ambiguity, Clinton would plan to withdraw troops within “sixty days” after assuming the presidency. Such a withdrawal, she says, would “be planned in consultation with military leaders and security advisers.” Confident in the Democrats yet? I didn’t think so.
In contrast, McCain has said this: To deny the difficulties and uncertainties ahead is an egregious disservice to the public. But as General Petraeus implements his plan to correct the flawed strategy we followed in the past, and attempts to spare the United States and the world the catastrophe of an American defeat, it is an equal disservice to dismiss early signs of progress … Will this nation’s elected leaders make the politically hard but strategically vital decision to give General Petraeus our full support and do what is necessary to succeed in Iraq? Or will we decide to take advantage of the public’s frustration, accept defeat, and hope that whatever the cost to our security, the politics of defeat will work out better for us than our opponents? For my part, I would rather lose a campaign than a war.
This is, in a word, leadership: telling people what they may not like to hear, but what is true. John McCain has made a career out of straight talk, and voters trust him for it. In deciding whom to trust on an issue as delicate and significant as Iraq, they won’t be mulling timetables or withdrawal schedules, and they won’t be swayed by political grandstanding. They will place our fate in the hands of John McCain—partly because he is the most capable, but mostly because he is the only candidate willing to take on hard questions and provide voters with more than empty promises.
The Blue Perspective: Erin Egan
Sometimes I call one of my children by the wrong name. It doesn’t happen often, but it happens. I’ll be tired, frustrated, and eager to do something really reasonable—like remove a day-old wad of oatmeal from one of their ears or put them to bed having sung only twenty choruses of “Old MacDonald” including the ever-popular “… and on that farm he had a walrus.” To make matters worse, my boys are identical twins, so it’s all the easier to slip up.
So I have to admit I felt a twinge of sympathy for John McCain when he got confused and said Sunni when he should have said Shiite. There he was in the Middle East—hot from the sun, jet-lagged, and tired from a year of campaigning—and he kept saying that Shiite Iran was training Sunni Al Qaeda in Iraq. Of course, it happened again this week in the air-conditioned comfort of the Senate while questioning General Petraeus, but I’m sure he was having a bad day then too. I mean, at least I had the good sense to give the boys names that begin with different letters.
No, it isn’t just the fact that McCain cannot keep names straight that worries me. His insistence on staying the course, despite the facts on the ground, is most troubling. Never mind that nearly every expert—including General Petraeus and Colin Powell—has concluded that our current troop levels are unsustainable and that there is no military solution for Iraq. Our soldiers are in the middle of a multi-sided civil war and have been drawn away from the war on terror’s true front-line.
Both Democratic candidates agree: our combat troops must be withdrawn quickly and responsibly. Like most Americans, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton understand that continued military action undermines our ability to forge political and diplomatic solutions. And unlike George Bush and John McCain, they will bring this war to an end.
Both Obama and Clinton recognize that the question we face is no longer whether the United States should leave Iraq—a question McCain can’t seem to get past without references to a potential century-long conflict—but rather how best do we get out.
In November, I will stand with a majority of voters and reject the stubborn adherence to an unachievable military solution put forward by George Bush … er, John McCain (I told you, I’m not very good with the names of identical twins when I’m tired, frustrated, and eager to do something that seems so reasonable).
During this election season, DivineCaroline is presenting a twice-monthly column on politics from two points of view: one red, one blue. Each month you can read what Democrat Erin Egan and Republican Kathryn Biber Chen have to say about the issues. To make sure you never miss a Red Said, Blue Said column, just click on the author’s name at the top of the story, then select “Be notified when writer publishes” at the top of the page. We’ll send you an email as soon as a new column is published.