Last week, John McCain became the Republican nominee for President of the United States. Because of his early and unwavering support, the war in Iraq is sure to be a central theme. McCain will trumpet the security gains of last year’s surge, while the Democratic nominee will argue for withdrawal (in Obama’s case, within 16 months of inauguration day). While the campaign rhetoric is sure to fly fast and loose, one thing Americans should know is that there will be no easy answers. Since the end of the invasion, American policy makers have been flummoxed about how to pacify and build Iraq after decades of tyranny and a mismanaged occupation. American voters, and eventually policy makers, will have to make difficult choices and these choices will be based on how we prioritize the mission in Iraq in relation to both foreign and domestic policy.
If John McCain wins the presidency, he will certainly maintain the current troop presence that the United States has in Iraq at the moment. In one of his more famous statements mentioned that he wouldn’t mind if American troops were stationed in Iraq for a hundred years. However, should McCain get his way, there will be significant trade-offs to consider. According to Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel-laureate economist, the war will cost America upwards of 3 trillion dollars. This is money that could have been spent of infrastructure, health care, social security or homeland security. Instead, the war has dug the United States deeper into debt and left ourselves more vulnerable to economic turmoil. The war has also been very costly for the armed forces. It has reduced strategic flexibility and stretched the army so thin, that reserves are being asked to do more than they ever. Finally, continued American occupation will renew anti-American sentiment among a proud Iraqi populace and the Arab street in the region, both of whom we need to successfully combat insurgents and terrorists.
Should a Democrat win the Oval Office, things will be remarkably different. But it will still require harsh tradeoffs. As the Nir Rosen article in Rolling Stone points out, ethnic rivalries still simmer ominously in the streets of Baghdad. With newly armed Sunnis competing with Shiite militias, there is the very real possibility of bloodshed following a draw down in troops, much less a complete withdrawal. Additionally, a security and political vacuum could be filled with Iranian elements which would seek to influence Iraqi politics for strategic depth. Finally, with the American armed forces leaving, security and infrastructure lapses would make it impossible for oil revenues to be maximized, thus impeding the progress of rebuilding the Iraqi civil society, economy, and governance mechanisms.
Election-year rhetoric tends to distort many key issues, and the war in Iraq is no different. However, it is crucial to voters that they realize that no matter who is President in January of 2009, the situation in Iraq will not get better overnight. Many people who (rightfully) place the blame for Iraq at George W. Bush’s feet feel that a new President will automatically improve the situation. It is necessary for people to realize that Iraq is on the precipice. What happens if Sadr ends his truce in 6 months? What will the Sunni “Concerned Local Citizens” do with their US-supplied weapons when they feel threatened by the Mahdis or the Badrs? Unless the miraculous happens, it is clear that Iraq will continue to plague American foreign policy well into the next administration.

Related posts:

1. Nothing is Too Good for Our Boys, Redux
2. Getting History Right
3. Put Up or Shut Up
4. Obama’s “trickle-down… look-the-other way” economics
5. Right vs. Right vs. Left vs. Left on Afghanistan