Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Boston Globe
September 2, 2008
By H.D.S. Greenway
THERE IS something so classic in the storyline of Obama v. McCain, something of an oft-told tale. In one corner you have the aging warrior, as old and scarred as the hills of Jerusalem, as Herman Melville would have put it. He has seen the world and the weariness therein. He represents a generation older than Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or even himself - a set of settled values and certainties from another century. He makes jokes about his age, but he believes he has yet another round left in him as he contends for a position for which a few white hairs are appropriate. He went to war when his country called, whereas his two predecessors sought to avoid it.
In the other corner is Barack Obama. If he wins he will not be the youngest president ever to be elected but close to it. He is young enough to be McCain's son. He represents a generation even younger than his years, a generation unencumbered by old mindsets. His appeal is in his promise, not his achievements, his eloquence rather than his experience. He never went to war, but then he never had a draft to dodge.
Obama stands further to the left than he lets on, as McCain is further to the right than he is perceived.
Either candidate could do worse than to ask Robert Gates to stay on as secretary of defense. He has shown his abilities in the task of cleaning up after the disastrous reign of Donald Rumsfeld, who so mismanaged Bush's wars. Gates has deplored the militarization of our foreign policy while Rumsfeld embraced it.
Both political parties seemed tired. Once the party of new ideas, Republicans seem to have run out of gas in recent years. The neoconservatives have been discredited. The Democratic Party has not filled the gap, however, as witnessed by its witless attacks on free trade. As Senator Paul Tsongas used to say, the trouble with the Democratic Party is that it cares too much about wealth distribution and not enough about wealth creation.
Obama and McCain have diametrically opposed views on the war in Iraq, although both have shown a degree of flexibility. Obama has hinted that conditions on the ground could alter his desire to have our troops out in 16 months. And McCain knows that the American public will not stand for an open-ended commitment. McCain likes to say Obama was wrong about the surge, while Obama insists that McCain was wrong about the war itself.
The difficulty for McCain may be that the Iraqis themselves are beginning to insist on a deadline for withdrawal, the very thing McCain is against and Obama for. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said recently that no status of forces agreement with the United States was possible "unless it is on the basis of full sovereignty and the national interest, and that no foreign soldiers remain on Iraqi soil after a defined time ceiling."
Both McCain and Obama say there should be more American troops sent to Afghanistan, but the Afghans, too, are beginning to have second thoughts. The Afghan Council of ministers has decided to review its agreements with foreign allies. President Hamid Karzai has been saying for years that the amount of civilian casualties, mostly due to American air raids, was unacceptable.
Karzai worries that these air attacks may push Afghanistan to the tipping point where anti-American resentment may trump dislike of Taliban extremism, and trigger Afghanistan's traditional resistance to foreigners.
The problem lies in the American way of war. When US ground troops meet an enemy they hold up and call in air strikes. It is a great way to hold down your own casualties, but can create giant problems if your goal is to win over the population. Sending more troops could actually hurt the effort in Afghanistan, a war we are not winning.
Any presidential election, especially in America, has less to do with public policy issues and positions than with whom voters trust to manage their republic. Seldom have two so different candidates run for president with two ongoing wars in progress.
But the generational splitting story line of two such adversaries has been around for a very long time.
H.D.S. Greenway's column appears regularly in the Globe.
September 2, 2008
By H.D.S. Greenway
THERE IS something so classic in the storyline of Obama v. McCain, something of an oft-told tale. In one corner you have the aging warrior, as old and scarred as the hills of Jerusalem, as Herman Melville would have put it. He has seen the world and the weariness therein. He represents a generation older than Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or even himself - a set of settled values and certainties from another century. He makes jokes about his age, but he believes he has yet another round left in him as he contends for a position for which a few white hairs are appropriate. He went to war when his country called, whereas his two predecessors sought to avoid it.
In the other corner is Barack Obama. If he wins he will not be the youngest president ever to be elected but close to it. He is young enough to be McCain's son. He represents a generation even younger than his years, a generation unencumbered by old mindsets. His appeal is in his promise, not his achievements, his eloquence rather than his experience. He never went to war, but then he never had a draft to dodge.
Obama stands further to the left than he lets on, as McCain is further to the right than he is perceived.
Either candidate could do worse than to ask Robert Gates to stay on as secretary of defense. He has shown his abilities in the task of cleaning up after the disastrous reign of Donald Rumsfeld, who so mismanaged Bush's wars. Gates has deplored the militarization of our foreign policy while Rumsfeld embraced it.
Both political parties seemed tired. Once the party of new ideas, Republicans seem to have run out of gas in recent years. The neoconservatives have been discredited. The Democratic Party has not filled the gap, however, as witnessed by its witless attacks on free trade. As Senator Paul Tsongas used to say, the trouble with the Democratic Party is that it cares too much about wealth distribution and not enough about wealth creation.
Obama and McCain have diametrically opposed views on the war in Iraq, although both have shown a degree of flexibility. Obama has hinted that conditions on the ground could alter his desire to have our troops out in 16 months. And McCain knows that the American public will not stand for an open-ended commitment. McCain likes to say Obama was wrong about the surge, while Obama insists that McCain was wrong about the war itself.
The difficulty for McCain may be that the Iraqis themselves are beginning to insist on a deadline for withdrawal, the very thing McCain is against and Obama for. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said recently that no status of forces agreement with the United States was possible "unless it is on the basis of full sovereignty and the national interest, and that no foreign soldiers remain on Iraqi soil after a defined time ceiling."
Both McCain and Obama say there should be more American troops sent to Afghanistan, but the Afghans, too, are beginning to have second thoughts. The Afghan Council of ministers has decided to review its agreements with foreign allies. President Hamid Karzai has been saying for years that the amount of civilian casualties, mostly due to American air raids, was unacceptable.
Karzai worries that these air attacks may push Afghanistan to the tipping point where anti-American resentment may trump dislike of Taliban extremism, and trigger Afghanistan's traditional resistance to foreigners.
The problem lies in the American way of war. When US ground troops meet an enemy they hold up and call in air strikes. It is a great way to hold down your own casualties, but can create giant problems if your goal is to win over the population. Sending more troops could actually hurt the effort in Afghanistan, a war we are not winning.
Any presidential election, especially in America, has less to do with public policy issues and positions than with whom voters trust to manage their republic. Seldom have two so different candidates run for president with two ongoing wars in progress.
But the generational splitting story line of two such adversaries has been around for a very long time.
H.D.S. Greenway's column appears regularly in the Globe.