History is Happening Now

     Republican presidential candidate John McCain recently wrote an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times about the war in Iraq. The Times’ editors read it and said: Sorry, this isn’t good enough. Try again.

     The Times’ decision to reject McCain’s submission (reported on The Drudge Report) naturally prompted a round of loud complaining by McCain supporters, who apparently think that since the Times published Obama’s Op-Ed, “My Plan for Iraq,” the newspaper is now obligated to print anything McCain writes in response, no matter how meaningless.

     Having read McCain’s proposed Op-Ed, I fully support the New York Times’ decision to send it back for a rewrite. McCain’s Op-Ed isn’t good enough because it doesn’t say anything meaningful about protecting America, nor does it actually respond to the most important and most basic points Obama made in his Op-Ed of July 14. For people like me, who read and understood Obama’s Op-Ed, McCain’s reply is just frustrating spin and empty rhetoric.

      To make my point, I’d like to pull out three simple sentences from Obama’s Op-Ed.

      1. Since the war in Iraq began, “Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.”

      2. ”Ending the war (in Iraq) is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven.”

      3. In originally opposing the war in Iraq, “I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.”

     Obama’s opposition to the war in Iraq is clearly based on his belief that America should make it a top priority to win the war against Al Qaeda and its ally, the Taliban. (For those of you too lost in a haze of Bushian propoaganda to recall, Al Qaeda is a terrorist group that started the War on Terror when it highjacked airplanes and flew them into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.) 

     Obama’s position on Iraq is also based on his belief that we’re losing ground in this important war against Al Qaeda, in large part because we’re spending almost all our energy — nearly $1 trillion and more than 4,000 American lives so far – on “winning” the war in Iraq. 

    This all makes sense to me. It makes sense to most Americans, including those who read the New York Times and expect to see more than pointless drivel in the Op-Ed section.

     So here are some follow-up questions for McCain if he decides to work on a second draft.

     Won’t America be safer if we defeat Al Qaeda? Shouldn’t that be our top priority? Or is eliminating the threat of Al Qaeda not really all that important compared to ”winning” the war in Iraq? If so, why?

     If our primary goal is to destroy Al Qaeda (thereby demonstrating to our nation’s enemies that attacks against the United States will not go unpunished), is the war in Iraq doing the trick? Or is the war in Iraq merely a “distraction,” siphoning off resources, as Obama says?

     The only reference to Al Qaeda in McCain’s Op-Ed comes when he speculates about about what might happen if Obama withdrew the troops, writing, “The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq.” 

     A “comeback?” What does that mean? What makes “the danger” so dangerous? Why is preventing this “comeback” worth our blood and treasure? Why is it more important than the lives of our volunteer soldiers? 

      The word “comeback” makes it sound like we’re playing football. But this isn’t a game to be won for the sake of winning, for the sake of bragging rights. McCain writes, “I am also dismayed that (Obama) never talks about winning the war — only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.”

     McCain’s extensive experience with war is often talked about, but his Op-Ed makes him sound like a five-year-old who is just now grasping the concept of conflict. “If we don’t win the war, our enemies will.” What an insight! Thanks, Senator. He writes, “A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us.” Next, he’ll tell us the sky is blue. The point isn’t that Obama and the millions of Americans who support his candidacy want to “lose” the war in Iraq. What we want, above all, is to protect this country.

     McCain’s empty rhetoric may be gratifying for those who care more about the Bush legacy than they care about protecting America. But ordinary Americans (readers of the New York Times, for example) want to know: Is Obama correct? Have the threats to our national security actually worsened since the war began? If so, isn’t this “a triumph” for the terrorists? Isn’t this “a disaster” for us?

      Strangely, disturbingly, McCain’s Op-Ed doesn’t say. In fact, America’s national security seems entirely irrelevant to McCain’s Op-Ed, which focuses almost exclusively on questions of how best to “win the war” in Iraq.

     If Obama is correct — if the threats to our national security have indeed grown since we invaded Iraq in March 2003 – then maybe we should start thinking about changing our strategy to make these threats go away? This is Obama’s fundamental point, and it’s a point McCain is utterly unwilling to discuss in his Op-Ed.

     Unsubstantiated fear has always been the primary tool used by hawks to gin up support for the war in Iraq, and McCain is no different. He tries to frighten his readers with talk of “the danger,” and the “failed state” that might be left behind in Iraq if the U.S. leaves.

     I’m not afraid of losing a war that isn’t worth winning. I’m more afraid of another terrorist attack on the United States. Obama clearly intends to prevent such an attack by bringing the full weight of America’s military might down on Al Qaeda. Obama wants us to stop fighting a war that won’t make us safer so we can fight a war that will make us safer.

     What do you think of that, Senator McCain? (And can you answer in 1,000 words or less, please?)

     Regaring McCain’s Op-Ed, all I can say is nice try. But the Times isn’t going to waste paper on a mindless campaign commercial. Come back when you have a plan to keep us safe.

    – Ian