Under campaign radar: dilemma of Iraq

By JAMES KLURFELD

LONG ISLAND NEWSDAY

Every once in a while, reality will actually intrude into all the blather we are hearing on the campaign trail. But you have to listen carefully.

The United States’ dilemma in Iraq is one example.

If you listen to the Republicans, now we’re doing just great. The surge has worked, and if we just stay the course we will “win.”

If you listen to the Democrats, the solution is to withdraw as many troops as possible, as quickly as possible. That way, Iraq’s various factions will come to their senses and start working together.

If only it were that simple.

The Republicans are crawling over each other to take credit for supporting the Bush administration’s surge policy. Ron Paul, who’s more libertarian, is the exception. Give Sen. John McCain credit for consistency; he’s been for the surge from the beginning. And, yes, Rudy Giuliani has been, too, as he keeps reminding us.

But the surge has never made sense as a one-year policy. From the get-go, the military brass who supported the concept said it would likely take years to succeed. We’re talking five to 20 years.

But there’s always been this problem: We don’t have the troop strength to sustain that type of effort. Not without a draft. And you can make a sure bet that no serious candidate for president is going to come out this year and call for a draft.

Lawrence Korb, a military manpower expert who served in the Reagan Pentagon, has testified to Congress and written numerous articles on just how much of a strain Iraq has been on the military and why an unending increase in troops — or even troops at the current level — is not possible.

Lack of support

And there is the point that the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar, R-Ind., has consistently made: Americans are not about to support a long-term military effort in Iraq for another five years, let alone 20. And that’s the case even at lower levels of violence — which are only lower compared with the horror of the past two years.

So the real issue to ask the Republican candidates is: How do we stay the course when we don’t have the manpower (even if you think that might work)?

You could also see how uncomfortable the three major remaining Democratic candidates were about Iraq in their debate last Tuesday night in Las Vegas. They all wanted to emphasize that they’d withdraw troops to one extent or the other once in office.

But none, not even John Edwards, would commit to removing all combat troops from the region because of what al-Qaida could do if left alone in Iraq and the possibility of a regional war.

And if one of the three Democrats does get to the White House next year and begins to withdraw troops as promised, and then things fall apart in Iraq, that Democrat knows who’ll be blamed. The Republicans will be pointing their fingers and saying I-told-you-so almost before the new president has his or her hand off the swearing-in Bible.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., is the most cautious on withdrawal (but, of course, she’s still for it), either because she doesn’t want to cede the national security issue in the fall or because she knows how difficult it will be if she’s elected. Or both.

The underlying issue is how to protect our vital interests in Iraq when our resources are so strained. Unfortunately, it’s a question that doesn’t have an easy answer. And that doesn’t make for a good campaign slogan.

X James Klurfeld is a professor of journalism at Stony Brook University. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.