Normal people, those that do not refresh The Corner every ten minutes, realize that soon they will have to decide who will be in the White House for the next four years. The basic features of the election (described here) do not look good for the Republican nominee Senator McCain and look very good for the Democrat nominee Senator Obama.
A Summary of the Situation
All things being equal, Senator Obama should win this election easily. Given his policy positions, all things are not equal. Senator Obama represents the fringe of his party, is very untested, and would not be able to win an election in normal circumstances. Just as Reagan faced questions of competence and was viewed as risky by the general public, so Senator Obama faces concerns that would not have been raised for a more experienced and mainstream Democrat nominee such as a tested two-term governor.
Senator Obama has, up to now, underperformed. Will he fade as a challenger as Jimmy Carter did in 1976? Or will he put McCain away as Reagan did Carter in 1980? Obama is not ahead enough at present to be able to afford a “Carter fade,” but does have the rhetorical skills to pull out a Reagan mini-landslide.
Some Answers to Common Questions: a 2008 FAQ
A correspondent recently asked me a series of common (but excellent!) questions about the election. Here are some brief responses . . . a kind of FAQ on my views regarding the state of the political situation.
1. What did you mean by “Our foes decided to make Iraq the center of the War”? Was the headquarters of al-Qaeda in Iraq or something?
We did not attack Iraq because the terrorists (AQ) directly responsible for 9/11 were primarily in Iraq. (The part of the general War against Terror in Afghanistan was more directly tied to 9/11 in this way).
The war against terrorism is bigger than a mere police action against one terrorist group.
Terrorism of the 9/11 sort has been with the US for some time. 9/11 was just the biggest strike against the US in an on going conflict. Wiping out just one terror group (such as AQ) is inadequate since terror groups are not like governments. They are small, nimble, and can reform quickly.
Terror (of the 9/11 sort) is often motivated by a misunderstanding of Islam as in the case of AQ. Wicked men have also exploited political and economic dysfunction in the (broadly) Islamic world to gain recruits. Wiping out just one group (even AQ) without dealing with this reality would not be winning the War.
Given how small a terrorist group can be while still being effective, this leads some to mistakenly think that defeating this problem is essentially impossible.
This is wrong.
Terrorism will always be with us (as it always has been), but (just as with crime) there are levels of the problem that are tolerable to a free society. If terrorism is too effective or great, then it is a big problem.
Fortunately, to be effective terrorists need cooperative states. They need places to hide and to launder their money. We will never “end” terrorism totally, but if there were no, or at least very few states, where they could set up safe havens, then their effectiveness would be diminished to an acceptable point.
Not all states, even those who support terror, are equally effective at doing so. Partly this is due to wealth and geography. An oil rich state like Iraq in the heart of the Middle East is obviously a bigger risk than a poverty stricken state (such as Sudan or North Korea) far from the Middle East.
One can never kill every cockroach (as Wallee points out!), but one can keep them out of the kitchen . . . and even out of our house.
President Bush has been setting about the task of keeping as many as possible of the moral cockroaches out of our house. He is well on his way to achieving this difficult but achievable goal.
Instead, we attacked Iraq because the Sadaam regime was supportive of terrorists in general, was out of compliance with UN mandated behavior following the first war, and was intent on causing as much harm as possible to the United States.
This direct approach is not always possible, but it was in Iraq. We cannot “take out” some terrorist states directly, such as North Korea, because the military cost and the harm to allies would be too great. In those cases, the Bush administration has rightly persuaded diplomacy exclusively since this is our only real option.
North Korea is a festering problem as is Iran. There is some progress (?) in North Korea, but little with Iran. They will be the great unresolved “battle fields” in the War on Terror . . . though they are (we hope) not going to be shooting wars. The cost in both cases would be too high to sustain.
In the case of Iraq, because of the previous victorious War and UN permission to do, the cost to military action did not seem too high. Most Americans now disagree with this judgment, but I still think it right.
Even now the cost of the Iraq War in lives and in impact on our economy has been relatively small. (This is not to minimize the pain of the loss of even one member of the Armed Forces to those who knew him.) Because Iraq is a major center of Islamic culture, victory there will have a much greater psychological effect on our main foes (and potential recruits) than victory in North Korea.
(Let me clarify one point: all evil regimes are not created equal. Some export their evil through weapon sales and terrorism. It is this sort that the Free World cannot tolerate. We do not have the resources or the right to get rid of all governments we think are bad!)
We could not afford to leave a safe haven in the Middle East for terrorists.
Given Sadaam’s hatred of the US, there is little doubt that AQ or AQ-like groups would have soon been welcome in his midst. This was already happening (in small ways). Some argue that because Sadaam was “secular” that very religious groups would not have worked with him . . . but in the War against the US and the West we have seen again and again that the enemies of the enemy (US) can work together.
AQ and other terrorist groups recognized that a semi-democratic Iraq in the midst of the region would be a devastating defeat to them. They would lose a safe haven . . . either potential (in the case of AQ) or actual (in the case of other terror groups).
The Vietnam idea is as present in their minds as it is in the minds of our major media. They know that a hyper-power like the US cannot be defeated on the battle field, but can be defeated at the ballot box. They decided to make Iraq their big stand.
This was a major mistake, as they are now discovering.
AQ and other terrorist groups (including those which have always worked in Iraq) are well on the way to a humiliating defeat. This is good, but even more important their defeat is leaving behind a secure Iraq.
Defeating AQ is a very good thing, but an Iraq that does not aid or comfort any form of terrorism is even better. An Iraq that is (at least in private) a very good friend and ally to the US is better still.
It will be much, much harder for AQ to reform in this new world or for new AQ-like groups to regroup.
2. About the WMD, the trouble we had finding them, and the whole “Bush lied to us” thing. What was up with that?
Bush did not lie, but Bush was wrong. Sadaam did not have WMD, but it was reasonable to believe Sadaam had WMD. He used them (against his own people) in the past. He was out of compliance with the UN on searches.
Most intelligence sources believed he had WMD, because Sadaam wanted everyone to believe he still had them for purposes of regional prestige.
The fact that reasonable people believed Sadaam has WMD, and was well on his way to getting bigger WMD, was one good reason to attack Iraq. It was one of the main “sales points” used by the Bush administration.
It turns out that though Sadaam wanted WMD and was ready to start up programs the minute he could that he did not have them. Does this make the War a waste?
No.
First, it showed other states that had WMD and supported terrorists (such as Libya) that the US meant business. They turned in their WMD.
Second, Iraq was and would have supported terrorists in effective ways that did not include WMD. Money (from the Oil for Food program) and a place to stash money was a major concern. 9/11 did not after all involve WMD. A heavily armed Iraq giving conventional arms to terrorists was not acceptable to the US.
The War removed one of the most active (and potentially effective) foes to the US in the world.
Finally, if Sadaam had been left in power, then he certainly would have restarted a WMD program. We know he was eager to do so. The War removed Sadaam and prevented this from happening.
3. I’d like to understand the UN mandate a little more clearly, along with the opposition we received from the EU. (To be honest, all I remember is something about “freedom fries” and the question of a “smoking gun”.) What was up with that?
We are actually in Iraq under a UN mandate. Iraq was not in compliance with UN orders and the US and allies had the right to intervene.
Some of our allies (most in Europe) thought the intervention premature. Many believed such an intervention could not work. Before the War, there were horror stories about how hard the War would be and how huge American casualties would be.
The War was easier than extreme opponents believed. The occupation was harder. This was partly due to bad calls early on by the Bush administration which they have now fixed and partly due to the decision of AQ to make Iraq their own.
We had many allies in Iraq. More allies would not have increased our effective operational power.
Most of our European allies have only tiny effective fighting forces. Many of their governments are effectively pacifist. They would never have supported removing Sadaam by force . . . which he knew. His goal was to outlast the mandates to he could return to mischief. His miscalculation after 9/11 was that the US (and her allies) would not intervene. He had reason to think so.
For example, the French business and government community were heavily implicated in sustaining the evil Sadaam regime.
The initial failure of the occupation empowered critics of the decision to invade. However, if Iraq emerges as a semi-democratic ally in the Middle East that will have been a huge accomplishment on the part of the Bush administration that might (just might!) break the back of effective terrorism in the Middle East.
We do not know yet if this will happen. It would not even have been possible if we had listened to Senator Obama last year. Only Senator McCain and George W. Bush had the political courage to try to win the occupation and achieve this goal. Whoever wins this election, if the “surge” works, McCain will have helped produce a great victory for the US, which is more than Senator Obama (for all his potential) has ever done.
4. Fox News gets made fun of mercilessly, but they’re legit, right? Would you recommend it or some other website as a primary conservative news source (in addition to your blog, of course *wink*) if I am to commit to staying more on top of things including, but not limited to, the political arena? Townhall.com?
I read a great deal of mainstream media. Some like MSNBC comes with a strong left-of-center bias. FOX has a strong right-of-center bias. Since I know both “filters,” I can adjust what I am watching. Other sources have slants, but try to keep those slants out the news. Both the New York and the LA Times are such sources.
Since most journalists are left-of-center, some bias to the left creeps into their work. Some of this is merely personal. Both McCain and Obama were well liked by reporters and this certainly helped both men. I am not sure this is anything to get very mad about . . . it is one strength of both men that people like them!
Lately, all media sources (possibly influenced by new medias punchier style) have gotten more obvious in their bias.
I read smart left blogs (like Daily Kos) and smart right sites (like Townhall). Though I don’t often have time to listen to talk radio, Hewitt is my favorite talk radio guy. Locally, we listen to Frank Pastore.
My goal is to read a broad spectrum . . . including international resources such as the BBC.
5. Are you familiar with a book called “God’s Politics” by Jim Wallis? A liberal Christian friend of mine from Oregon recommended it to me, so I bought it over a year ago, but haven’t read it yet. I’ve also seen it at grocery stores. Just curious.
Like the poor, Jim Wallis is with us always.
He has been trying to persuade Evangelicals for decades that they really should adopt his political views. Every decade the media “discovers” him and writes a story that this particular generation of Evangelicals is heeding his “thoughtful and iconoclastic call.”
Some day it may be true. All his books can be summarized by the following three points (a bit tongue in cheek):
1. The religious right is vile and harms America and religion.
2. The religious left is good and helps America and religion.
3. A new generation of Christians is learning these two facts.
It is good to read Wallis . . . and then balance it out. I would suggest a good dose of Russell Kirk. If you want something easier, start reading Bill Buckley.
I should note that I have very good friends (whom I deeply admire) who will vote for Senator Obama. I disagree with this choice, but then they disagree with me. Politics is not everything after all . . . and a victory by John McCain will not bring us a vicar of Christ in the political realm. Fortunately, I have never met a McCain voter who thought the Old Hero would do so.
On the other hand, too many Obama voters (not including the aforementioned sane friends!) do sound as if the eschaton is upon us if the Man from Chicago were to win. Given my distrust of politics (in general) and the left, I don’t look forward to a government totally in the control of the Democrat Party. I was alive in 1976.