Public preference on the issue of the war in Iraq has largely boiled down to those who favor withdrawing the troops and those who favor prolonging the battle. Senator McCain, who is a member of the later group, is running on a 'We can't afford to lose' platform. Yet who defines winning and losing? More specifically, what constitutes victory in a conflict such as this one where the immediate defeat and surrender of the know enemy was immediately followed by conflict with an unknown enemy?
Ultimately the People will determine the definition based on who they vote for. By electing Senator McCain, the People would be defining the recipe for victory as a continued surge in troop levels and a corresponding escalation of the conflict. Best case scenario, the surge expeditiously wears down the militias, restores a reasonable degree of peace and allows us to commence the daunting task of rebuilding. Conversely, a far worse scenario is the Iranian influence on Iraq will evolve from clandestine to conspicuous.
My preferences aside, the reality is, if elected, Senator McCain will declare he has a mandate based upon popular support. What do you think about that?
No comments:
Post a Comment