Ross Douthat of the Atlantic contrasts Sen. Obama’s rhetoric on the Iraq war with that of Sen. McCain. While Sen. Obama stresses the war’s mounting costs (in money and lives), Sen. McCain cites a American “moral obligation” to bring stablility there. Opines Mr. Douthat:
To a war-weary nation, Obama’s cool pragmatism has obvious appeal, but on a fundamental level McCain’s calculus is the right one. America’s responsibility for the current stability and future prospects of Iraq–a poor, tyrannized nation that our policies have plunged into bloody chaos–can’t be waved away by pointing out that we could be spending those billions on ourselves instead. If Obama wants to claim the moral as well as the political high ground, he can’t just make the case that Americans will be better off if the United States withdraws from Iraq; he needs to mount a persuasive argument that Iraqis will be better off as well.
We here at xenesog completely agree. We are also tired of Americans only thinking of their own interests when considering what to do with Iraq. We believe, to some extent, in the so-called (and misnamed) Pottery Barn rule. The moment the U.S. invaded Iraq, we took on some responsibility for the future of the Iraqi people. So, to a great extent, we appreciate Sen. McCain’s reminder of our “moral obligation”.
Nevertheless, we are extremely skeptical that it’s possible for the U.S. to fulfill that moral obligation. The current policy won’t work. True, the surge coincided with a temporary reprieve in violence–but it’s not clear whether that reprieve was due to the surge, or the cease-fire with the militias that is now crumbling. Besides, the surge was never sustainable given current troop levels.
We think Sen. Obama should argue that the current nature of our presence in Iraq only undermines the government (by making them appear as a puppet government of the United States) and will never lead to long-term stability. An American withdrawal from Iraq is the politically feasible policy option that is in the best interests of both the American and Iraqi people.
We have two main complaints about the war in Iraq. First, we have always believed the invasion was unwise–a feeling reinforced by the events after the spring of 2003. Second, we feel that the Bush administration has never conducted the war well, and that includes failing to prepare the American people for the possibility of a drawn-out conflict.

CC-BY photo by Flickr user elleinad.
It’s not surprising that Americans have become war-weary, because they were never properly prepared for the war. The administration sold the war to the American people by promising it would be short and cheap; “We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon,” Paul Wolfowitz told Congress in March 2003. The president did little to prepare Americans for the sacrifices of a decades-long conflict–with perhaps a draft–if that what turned out to be necessary (as it has) to fulfill our “moral obligation”.
It’s clear to us why the administration failed in this regard. To prepare Americans for the possibility of extended sacrifice, the president would have had to admit that a long, grueling occupation was possible–and this certainly would have made it more difficult to obtain authorization for the invasion. (The administration has demonstrated this sort of myopic thinking in many other areas, including a fiscal policy that has seen the national debt almost double.)
Sen. McCain would burnish his reputation as a straight-talker if he would acknowledge this failure on the part of the Bush administration.