Right On Day 1

Twice on Iraq Barack Obama has summed up things with a simple precise phrase.

Before the war he said he was not opposed all wars, he was opposed to dumb wars. It drew our attention to the core of the matter. What made this war, at this time, in this way THE way to proceed after 9/11, and against Islamic Radicalism.

The wisdom to act is not wisdom in the actions chosen.

With respect to where we are now, Obama has said we need to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. Again right to the heart of the matter. We cannot leave Iraq spiral down into a catastrophic failed state.

Success in leaving behind an even tenuously stable state is the only ‘victory’ we can achieve now. Osama bin Laden has already won the Iraq round in our confrontation with Radical Islam The relative appeal of the jihadist agenda has grown in the Arab/Muslim world since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The debate isn’t over whether to achieve a stable Iraq, it is over how best to do it.

Framing the debate around the level of American troops in Iraq at some given time is something the administration’s supporters are all too eager to do. The administration’s critics understand we have long needed to significantly widen an essentially military commitment to meaningfully include political, economic and diplomatic initiatives. Senator Obama has indicated he means to do just that. In the process, applying pressure on Iraq’s factions to politically reconcile by drawing down our troop levels is one legitimate avenue to be explored.

But the bottom line remains as Obama has framed it: we need to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.

Two ‘spot on’ insights, ‘spot on’ in their placing in time as well.

And we can elect this guy President!

Do we want to go with someone who has been so sharply and unerringly right, or someone who saw less clearly (Hillary Clinton), or with little clarity at all, who has more or less been in the corner of an administration that has been virtually without any clarity at all: John McCain.

Why should we now have confidence in the judgment going forward of a John McCain? Why should we apriori accord him credibility, and deny it to Barack Obama (on the basis of ‘experience’ no less!), when Obama’s clear and timely insights have been so pointedly right? If Obama has chosen (and he is far from alone in this) to champion a far broader and encompassing reconstruction of our effort in the confrontation with Radical Islam, why should we not accord what he proposes respect and careful consideration.

Most (all?) of what we have heard from McCain emphasizes an essentially military engagement – albeit one which now encompasses a broad counter insurgency strategy – as opposed to merely more troops on the ground, or what McCain seemed to be proposing for most of time he was fitfully in opposition to Bush’s course in Iraq.

In 2004, McCain had a real opportunity to change the administration’s course. Instead he backed Bush wholeheartedly while still entertaining, he would have us believe, a conviction things were seriously wrong with Bush’s efforts. Does anyone really propose McCain believed his Senate colleague, John Kerry, who had elected to go to war for his country in Vietnam, served, was wounded, and decorated for his service, would ‘cut and run’ in a matter so clearly of great consequence? Does anyone believe McCain could have seen so great a gulf between the two, that he had no choice but to uncritically support, and not substantively challenge, Bush on policies McCain believed were so very wrong? He might have had a real effect, but chose not to act. Wisdom? Judgment? Experience?

Right on Day 1?

With Barack Obama, we have substantive evidence that, in the moment itself, there is reason to have confidence that he will be: Right on Day 1.