writing at the Weekly Standard blog on McCain's more aggressive rhetoric regarding the relationship between Iraq and the larger WoT:

Certainly McCain has never backed away from the decision to go to war, but I'm not sure I've heard him affirm that decision so forcefully in the past few months. Obama could beat Hillary up over her vote in support of the war because she no longer stood by it, but there is nothing to re-litigate here. McCain is for destroying Saddam--who isn't? McCain was against the failed tactics--who else was? And he's talking about honor. Obama doesn't. Americans still care about honor.

But the phrasing also reminds the public of the danger that Saddam represented. Obama wants to re-litigate the war, but the decision wasn't to go to war or not, it was to depose Saddam Hussein or leave him in power.
[my emphasis]

Maybe. To me, it sounded too much like the Nixon formulation of "peace with honor" (which of course meant dishonor for us, and nearly endless bloodshed in Southeast Asia). I'm afraid it'll resurrect the cries of "quagmire!" from the Iraq = Vietnam crowd.

On the other hand, people now know, from the rise of the Taliban, what happens when America withdraws from an area too suddenly—leaving a vacuum of power. It didn't work out too well in Afghanistan.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 1 kb.