Fast forward to 2008, and the Iraq War has taken a back seat because of the success of the troop surge, which has quelled the sectarian violence. Nevertheless, the war is still a crucial element of this campaign because the next president will likely determine how long American troops will remain in the Middle East. Regal Magazine looks at Barack Obama and John McCain’s stance on the war and how it will affect the security of Americans abroad and at home.

”Here is the truth: fighting a war without end will not force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future,” Obama said. “And fighting in a war without end will not make the American people safer. So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden-as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer.”

According to Obama’s official website, more than 1,000 American troops have died since the surge began, despite the increased security, and the Iraqi government has not stepped forward to assume responsibility of leading their country. The website goes on to say that more than 1.75 million soldiers have served in the Iraq War or in Afghanistan, and of those troops, more than 620,000 have completed multiple deployments. Furthermore, military equipment is wearing out at nine times the normal rate as a result of wear and tear in the harsh environment of Iraq.

Senator Obama believes the decision to invade Iraq prevented Americans from going after Osama bin Laden and others involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Iraq War has lasted longer than World War I, World War II and the Civil War with more than 4,000 Americans killed and more than 60,000 wounded.

Obama’s campaign says the removal of American troops will be responsible and phased with the consultation of military commanders and the Iraqi government. His website states that military commanders believe combat brigades can be safely redeployed at a pace of one to two brigades per month, meaning all would be removed within 16 months of him taking office.

However, Senator McCain believes a speedy withdrawal of American troops would only lead to instability in the Middle East, making it less safe for Americans at home.

”I do not want to keep troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there,” McCain said. “Our goal is an Iraq that can stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighborhood. Our goal is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops. And I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine. But I do not believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for President that they cannot keep if elected. To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility.”

McCain has been a leading advocate of the troop surge since day one. According to his official website, sectarian violence has been reduced by 90 percent from June 2007 to March 2008. Deaths of civilians and coalition forces have also been reduced by 70 percent.

McCain believes it is imperative that the Iraqi government be able to support themselves before the end of the Iraq War and he believes that is possible through an improved Iraqi economy. He believes that if there are more jobs for Iraqis, fewer citizens will be interested in joining insurgent groups. Until that occurs, he is against ending the War in Iraq.

The moment Hillary Clinton withdraws from the 2008 Presidential campaign, the Iraq war will begin to dominate the general election debate between John McCain and Barack Obama. A preview of what will become the defining issue of the 2008 Presidential election campaign could be seen this week in the Senate during the questioning of General David Petraeus by both candidates. Each candidate’s questioning of General Petraeus highlighted the differences on the Iraq issue between the two men. McCain’s questions were concerned with military tactics for success while Obama was clearly looking for a strategy for a complete military withdrawal.

The truth is that the outcome of the 2008 Presidential election depends on the events of the next six months in Iraq. In fact, for the last several years, election results have tracked the public’s perceptions about the progress of the war. The Democratic success in the 2006 congressional elections correlated to a low point in the public’s opinion of the war. More recently, the resurgence of John McCain’s candidacy has followed an increased public optimism about the success of the troop surge and the decrease in U.S. fatalities in the country.

It has recently become evident that the situation in Iraq will not be resolved by the time that George W. Bush leaves office in January 2009. More than 140,000 United States troops will likely remain in the country when a new presidential administration takes office. As a result, it will be up to the next President to handle this increasingly costly war. It is clear that a McCain administration would continue the policy of the current Bush administration in Iraq. Under McCain, Iraq will not be given a timetable for U.S. withdrawal. However, Democratic candidate Barrack Obama favors a troop withdrawal timetable and what he calls a “diplomatic surge” to include Iran.

Obama favors a diplomatic surge with Iran because, according to General Petraeus, Iran is behind much of the current violence in Iraq. Last week, Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Iran has “fueled the recent violence in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support of “special groups”. These “special groups” are “funded, trained, armed, and directed by Iran’s Quds Force with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq’s seat of government (the Green Zone) … causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital.”

Also consider General Petraeus response to Senator Joseph Lieberman’s question about the threat of Iran to American fighting men and women in Iraq. “Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?” Liberman asked. “It certainly is. … That is correct,” said General Petraeus.

It is clear that the United States backed government of Iraq is fighting a proxy war with “special groups’ backed by the government of Iran. An escalation of violence in Iraq during the next six months without any hope of immediate resolution would probably help the candidacy of Democrat Barack Obama.

However, the recent comments from General Petraeus may also be a prelude to a general escalation of a conflict between the United States and Iran, a conflict to be initiated before George W. Bush leaves office. The fact is that, in addition to contributing to the violence in Iraq, Iran continues to enrich uranium. The enrichment of uranium continues despite three United Nations Resolutions and Sanctions.

It is evident that the nations of the West (including Israel) will not accept a nuclear Iran and that the United Nations has not been effective in stopping the ongoing Iranian nuclear enrichment program. In addition, the United States cannot withdraw military forces from Iraq with the Iranian-sponsored violence in the country. As a result, the Iranian problem in Iraq could well act as a military cover for a United States bombing campaign designed to address not only the problem of the Iranian sponsored “special groups” but Iranian nuclear facilities as well.

It is a long way to the United States Presidential election in November. A lot can happen in the war in Iraq during the next seven months. However, as in the last several American elections, the status of the war in Iraq will play a major role in deciding the outcome. It probably would not help the candidacy of Republican John McCain if the recent violence in Iraq escalates or if the war expands into Iran by election day.

Now the media is basically reporting that we are involved in a Civil War in Iraq, and we are losing it. Somewhere in between the two ends of the story is the truth and you need to know it, so that you don’t have to be inundated with bias from all sides of the media, both liberal and conservative. Let’s go through the great myths of Iraq.

Myth 1 – Invading Iraq has helped us with the War on Terrorism

Nonsense, there is no war on terrorism in Iraq. Osama Bin Laden attacked the two World Trade Center buildings in NYC more than five years ago. Hello, has anybody heard recently whether anybody is looking for Bin Laden anymore. If so who, what resources are being devoted to taking down this awful, hateful man? I suggest very little is being done. Everyone’s attention is on Iraq.

Saddam Hussein was not an exporter of terror. He used terror as an internal weapon inside Iraq to control the very people that we obviously can’t control. These people do not want a democracy, if they did, they would fight for it. Instead, they fight each other, even in the same neighborhoods. It’s a Civil War folks, pure and simple.

Myth 2 – The military’s post war planning was okay, not great, but okay?

Really, Donald Rumsfeld’s Defense Department could not have done a worse job if they had set out to do one as an objective. There was literally ZERO post war planning, compared to the actual invasion that took place. The looting of the civil infrastructure after our invasion, including the pilfering of museums was a tip-off as to how undermanned, and under planned we really were.

Myth 3 – If only we “Stayed the Course” as the President is fond of saying, it will work out in the end.

There’s a line that goes, “If you always do, what you always did, you’ll always get, what you always got.” In life, if something isn’t working, YOU CHANGE IT. You do something else. You do not just keep doing what you were doing. This President is stubborn without being wise. Perhaps more than anyone else in the history of the modern Presidency, he shows a reluctance to learn from his mistakes, and total lack of desire to inquire as to alternative options. He’s LOCKED into a thinking that just doesn’t work. He has never allowed the decision making process to be VETTED by opposing thinkers. In this behavior, he is unique, and foolish.

Myth 4 – Iraq will become Democratic in time.

Sure, and I believe in the tooth fairy. This is not the American Revolution, a unique era with a unique group of the best read, self-educated men in history. Unrivaled in courage, our founders had the desire to stand against England, and form a Republic for which it stands. President Bush is right, when he says; I haven’t seen Thomas Jefferson in Iraq yet. Jefferson doesn’t exist in Iraq, and perhaps never will.

Myth 5 – Our situation in Iraq has made our position stronger in the world?

Really, do you really want to argue this one? Iraq had the 4th or 5th largest standing army in the world. We demonstrated that we could take it apart, and destroy it in 29 days. This was a valuable lesson for the world to learn. In the aftermath, we demonstrated that we could not govern. We could not influence events. Our influence frankly just broke down, and we did it in the face of the world, while everybody was watching.

Our enemies and our friends recognize that we do not have the capacity to back up our rhetoric with military action anywhere else in the world, while we are bogged down in Iraq. Placing 140,000 troops currently in Iraq has made us incapable of operating anywhere else.

If North Korea were to create a provocative act TODAY, what would we do? If Iran were to send troops into the Iraqi desert, or better yet to Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, what would we do? We no longer have a draft. The military is having major problems fulfilling their current manpower requirements. Has anybody noticed the disproportionate number of officers at the lieutenant level and above that are dying in Iraq. Last week, 3 lieutenant colonels were killed in action. This is unheard of in previous wars. It is because they are dying from roadside bombs that can strike anyone within a specified distance.

Myth 6 – Those roadside bombs are made locally in terrorist hideouts in Iraq.

Those bombs are being manufactured in Iran, and transported across the border with Syria’s help, and we are doing NOTHING ABOUT IT. These are not simple devices. They are technologically sophisticated. They required advanced machinery, and skill to produce. This expertise is not available in Iraq. These are shaped charges, and they are adjusting to the changes that the United States is making on the battlefield. Only Iran can produce such technology in that area. The United States has never held Iran accountable for its actions, or even mentioned it on the world stage. What is going on here?

Myth 7 – The military was in agreement with Rumsfeld’s policies or they would have protested?

Do you think so, do you really honestly think so? Very few generals have what it takes to blow away a career by protesting about decisions being made by superiors. What we are seeing is what many of us thought we’d never see again – the Viet Nam syndrome coming back to haunt us. During Viet Nam hundreds of officers knew our conduct of the war wasn’t working. They kept their mouths shut, and said that some day when they had the power they would never allow this to happen again.

Here we are 30 years later, and you guessed it. The young officers who made those statements are now leading the armed forces of the United States, and they are just as quiet as their superiors were during the Viet Nam war. Every one of these officers knows that we went into Iraq on the cheap, in terms of our manpower. Oh yes, we had enough to destroy the Iraqi army, but certainly not enough to secure the peace.

Colin Powell who knows a thing or two about waging war felt 300,000 plus troops were needed. Powell was smart enough to get out of government before it hit the fan. So what do we do now? We declare victory in the field, and also declare an inability to build a democracy for a people where democracy is everybody’s second choice. We then must concentrate on terminating Bin Laden, and being a responsible superpower.

Richard Stoyeck

In an interview with GQ Magazine to be released on September 10, 2007, General Colin Powell (retired General and former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) is questioned on a range of subjects. It is his comments on the planning for the Iraq war that caught my attention. The article states that Powell and others in the Bush administration debated strategy in the lead-up to the war. However, Powell did not think the Pentagon and then-secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had planned for what would happen after Baghdad fell. ( Quoting Colin Powell From GQ Magazine ): “That was the big mistake. Don had written a list of the worst things that could happen, but we didn’t do the contingency planning on what we would do about it. So we watched those buildings get burned down, and nobody told the divisions, Hey, go in there and declare martial law and whack a few people and it will stop. Then the insurgency started, and we didn’t acknowledge it. They said it wasn’t an insurgency. They looked up the definition. They said it was a few dead-enders! And so we didn’t respond in a way that might have stopped it. And then the civil war started at the beginning of last year. I call it a civil war, but some say no, it’s not a civil war, it’s a war against civilians. In fact, we have total civil disorder.”

Looking back to April12, 2003, right after the fall of Baghdad, here was the Iraq exit strategy as reported by this Bloomberg headline: “The U.S. has no exit strategy or timetable for withdrawing its forces from Iraq and a pull-out depends on the readiness of the Iraqi Security Forces,” The story went on to quote Donald Rumsfeld as follows: “We don’t have an exit strategy, we have a victory strategy,” he told soldiers during a surprise visit to Baghdad, “The goal is to help the Iraqi Forces develop the skills and the capacity to provide their own security.”

Eight months later on November 12, 2003, the Administration’s exit strategy had not developed very much. Here is a quote from Rumsfeld again “Our exit strategy in Iraq is success; it’s that simple, “The objective is not to leave,” but rather is “to succeed in our mission.”

It was not until January 28, 2005, nearly two years after the invasion of Iraq, that some discussion occurred to begin the process of winning the peace in Iraq. This was reported in the Guardian: “The agreement was reached on Monday between the US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, and his British counterpart, Geoff Hoon. It was based on recommendations from retired US general Gary Luck, sent to Iraq by the Pentagon last month to look at the failings of Iraq’s security force. The more aggressive police force is designed gradually to replace the 150,000 coalition troops and will form the centerpiece of plans for Britain and the US to quit Iraq. Although no deadline has been set for withdrawal – partly, British sources say, because it may encourage the insurgents – Britain has made a phased pull-out its top priority. “Everything the Defense Secretary is working towards now is an exit strategy, but without a public timetable,” said a British military source.

It is clear that winning the peace was never in the plan for the war in Iraq. It was not a planning priority before the invasion. There was no real evidence of even discussing a plan for leaving Iraq until early in 2005 (Rumsfeld meeting with the British) when several countries of the U.S. led world coalition began withdrawing their military forces weary from Iraq’s developing civil war and ongoing insurgency events.

Since that report in the “Guardian” twenty months ago, nothing much has changed in Iraq. Consider the findings of a report issued in late August 2007 from the U.S. Government Accountability Office on the status of 18 military and political goals set by Congress for Iraq. The report found that the Iraqi government has not yet met its requirement concerning 13 of the 18 goals including:

*Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations.

*Ensuring that the Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for outlaws, regardless of sectarian or political affiliation.

In Iraq, since April 2003, we have seen insurgency, civil war, troops reduced, troop surges, and the Iraqi government’s failure to meet benchmarks. We have seen these setbacks because the Bush Administration had a plan to win the war, but never developed a plan to win the peace. There was no contingency planning to govern Iraq after Baghdad fell and there never was an Iraq exit strategy.