As is often the case in politics, the most important questions do not get debated while the most trivial ones are pushed front and center. Such is the case with the current attacks by Sen. John McCain’s supporters purporting that Sen. Barack Obama’s failure to support the surge demonstrates he has been wrong on this important foreign policy question.
Since I, like Sen. McCain, also supported the Iraq war, I believe I am on pretty solid ground in making this statement: Assessing all facts available to us today, Sen. Obama’s judgment six years ago looks a whole lot better today than either Sen. McCain’s or mine was back then.
But here’s the problem. Arguing about who was right or wrong in 2003 or even who was right or wrong about the surge has little bearing on the question of what do we do today, moving forward. And, on this question, Sen. Obama has the superior strategy.
The foundation of his strategy is that the reduction of violence in Iraq is real, and that it is due to the heroic sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, in combination with their skill in turning the Sunni tribes against al-Qaeda. It is the result of the decision by the Shiite militias to observe a cease-fire. And it is the result of a rapidly improving Iraqi police and military force whose size and capability is finally recovering its capability to keep the peace following the disastrous decision to disband it five years ago.
Obama understands that transitioning from the U.S. being an occupying force to a strong ally is an urgent necessity for both Iraq and the United States. He also sees that the growing consensus in the U.S. and Iraq for a timeline that will allow the responsible redeployment of our combat brigades out of Iraq while preserving our commitment to remain a strong ally of the Iraqi people is an opportunity that we must seize. Finally, Obama is right in his judgment that this redeployment will accelerate the political progress Iraq so desperately needs to lock in the security gains.
Americans who want Iraq to survive as a stable democratic nation-state should welcome this growing consensus and embrace Obama’s plan. The Iraqi prime minister has stated they will be ready to take charge of their own destiny in 2010. Iraqis want to stand up. We should not stand in the way.
The opportunity to redeploy coincides with the absolute necessity to finish the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, a fight we’ve nearly forgotten as most attention was focused on Iraq. It is imperative that we free up more resources to succeed against the forces that represent a strategic threat to the U.S. Afghanistan and the tribal areas in Pakistan are the central front in the war on terror. We cannot afford to ignore the growing threat.
If we keep defining success in Iraq as staying in Iraq indefinitely and refusing to address the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, we will fail in both Iraq and Afghanistan. On the other hand, if we define success as leaving Iraq to an Iraqi government that represents all Iraqis and takes responsibility for its future, we will succeed there. If we redeploy our forces, we will again have the necessary capacity to tackle the broad range of other national security challenges and we can finish the fight in Afghanistan.
Let’s not re-fight the past. From what I’ve seen of the two candidates, Sen. Obama has the better strategic vision and judgment to meet our challenges moving forward.
Bob Kerrey served as U.S. senator from Nebraska from 1988- 2001 and was a member of the 9/11 commission.
