NEW YORK—Kim Campbell, who was momentarily prime minister of Canada in 1993, was once reported to say on the campaign trail that an election is no time to discuss serious issues. That campaign turned out to be her last, but the maxim remains true for some.The latest example was noted by the New York Times’ Michael R. Gordon, who reminded us on the weekend that in the midst of intensely competitive presidential primaries, no candidate from either party has yet to deal honestly with the dilemma of Iraq.Gordon runs through the proposals of the Democratic candidates, whose positions range from pulling out of Iraq immediately (John Edwards: troops out in ten months) to just pretty damn fast (Barack Obama: sixteen months). Even Hillary Clinton, who went to such pains as a senator to be credible on national security, argues for getting the bulk of US troops out of the country quickly, with little attention to what that means for Iraq or its neighbours.The Republican candidates are equally short on strategy. Earlier this month in New Hampshire, John McCain gamely suggested leaving the troops in Iraq for a hundred years if necessary. (Thanks go to Paul Wells for noticing the clip).McCain gets points for commitment, but he too fails to answer the question of what the strategy should be. Rudy Giuliani has an answer to this question, at least: Gordon notes that Giuliani said his strategy in Iraq would be, simply, “victory.” It’s hard to argue with that; thankfully, from the way Rudy’s campaign is going, it looks like we won’t need to.The problem with each of these positions is that they fail to address the central challenge of the war: if the US pulls out in the near future, as Democrats propose, the country could very well go to pieces, taking American strategy with it. Gordon closes with the reproach of an unnamed American military officer, and it bears repeating: “I have not heard any candidate describe what their short and long term goals are for Iraq, how it fits into their regional goals for the Middle East and transnational terrorism…Is their goal just to withdraw troops as fast as possible?”

The next president is eventually going to have to choose from two general options on Iraq, both of them bad: acceding to public opinion by pulling out quickly, and accepting the likelihood of deeper civil conflict and regional instability; or pushing back a US withdrawal, reasoning that an Iraqi bloodbath would be even worse for domestic public approval ratings, to say nothing of American security. (And don’t think Democrats haven’t considered the second option, their public statements notwithstanding.) Which will it be?

If you were a presidential candidate, you would probably prefer to make that decision after the election, in a quiet room with military advisors and maybe a pollster or two. If you were an American voter, however, you might want the candidates to make their decision a little earlier, and maybe even to tell you about it.

Which brings us to the only problem with Gordon’s article: it was in the wrong section. A wickedly unpredictable primary season makes for thrilling news coverage, which can crowd heavier issues like Iraq policy off the front page. Gordon’s piece appeared in the Times’ Week in Review section, the one you flip to over your second or third cup of coffee on Sunday morning. But the question it raises–what are these people really going to do about Iraq?–ought to be on page A1, over and over again, until candidates are no longer able to dodge the question with easy, pat answers.

Campbell was right: elections are no time to discuss serious issues. Not if you’re a candidate, anyway. If you’re anybody else, you might think elections are the best time. Hopefully more Americans, and American journalists, will start to ask the candidates the same question as Michael Gordon’s unnamed military officer.

* * *

There’s a Canadian footnote to the Iraq debate. If a Democrat wins the White House on a pledge to pull the troops out quickly, he or she will have a hard time urging America’s NATO allies to keep their own troops in harm’s way in Afghanistan. It’s debatable how much influence American brow-beating has at the best of times, but after an Iraqi pullout, that influence, and the corresponding pressure on partner countries to stay in Afghanistan, would be about nil.

Those who think that’s a bad thing should be doing what they can to raise the issue, insisting that presidential candidates not be allowed a free pass on Iraq simply by committing to bring the boys home. That means Conservative-leaning Canadians should be willing to criticize not just Democrats for their Iraq policy, but also Republicans, who essentially don’t have one.

But neither should those who oppose extending Canada’s commitment in Afghanistan be indifferent to Democratic promises of a quick withdrawal. It’s hard to predict the message a US retreat from Iraq could send the Taliban and friends, but unless a sizeable chunk of US forces leaving Iraq head to Afghanistan, it probably wouldn’t be helpful. And if Canadian forces leave after seven brave years only to look over their shoulder at a country in decline, nobody in this country wins, whatever their political persuasion.

More in Bright Lights | Email Christopher Flavelle <-->| Blogs Home | Current Issue | SUBSCRIBE »

Posted on Monday, January 21st, 2008 at 5:16 pm. Follow comments through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comment or trackback.