FOREIGN TO THEM BUT IRAN, IRAQ WILL RETURN IN ELECTION

Foreign policy has slipped to the periphery of presidential politics, displaced by a nonexistent recession as the voters' preoccupation. Come autumn, however, Iraq and Iran might be central subjects, Iraq as a bigger problem for the Democratic nominee than for John McCain, and Iran as a problem for McCain. And the presidency might be won by the candidate who embraces a modest conception of that office.

Regarding Iraq, Democrats have won a retrospective argument: Most Americans regret the invasion and execrate the bungled aftermath. But that will not enable the Democratic nominee to argue prospectively that what America's sacrifices have achieved should be put at risk by the essentially unconditional withdrawal of forces that both Democratic candidates promise.

Nancy Pelosi says the surge has not "produced the desired effect." "The"? The surge has produced many desired effects, including a pacification that is a prerequisite for the effect -political reconciliation- to which Pelosi refers.

The Democratic nominee will try to make a mountain out of McCain's molehill of an assertion that it would be "fine" with him if some US forces are in Iraq for "maybe 100" years, if Americans are not being harmed. Voters are not seething or even restive because US forces have been in Japan and Germany for 63 years and in South Korea for 58. McCain's real vulnerabilities are related to four questions about Iran and one about Iraq. By answering all five he will reveal what constitutional limits -if any- he accepts on the powers of the presidency regarding foreign and military policies.

First, he says war with Iran would be less dreadful than an Iran with nuclear arms. Why does he think, as his statement implies, that a nuclear Iran would be, unlike the Soviet Union, undeterable and not susceptible to long-term containment until internal dynamics alter the regime?

Why does he think, as his statement implies, that a nuclear Iran would be, unlike the Soviet Union, undeterable and not susceptible to long-term containment until internal dynamics alter the regime?

Because the Russians were ideologues, not frothing at the mouth, murderous religious lunatics

http://www.glumbert.com/media/rave

2 posted on 02/17/2008 2:43:40 PM PST by bill1952 (I will vote for McCain if he resigns his Senate seat before this election.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.