Obama, Clinton, and McCain on Iraq

Obama, Clinton and McCain all have a course of action for Iraq they wish to implement.

But beyond the rhetoric how will the candidates have to approach Iraq when they win the presidential election.

The two Democrats' plans to withdraw US troops quickly, for instance, may be tempered by the practical realities of what that entails. If Republican Sen. John McCain is president, he would need to be responsive to the electorate and find a US troop level for Iraq that is sustainable.

The reality is that the American Idol culture of America has tired of Iraq. But there aren't the high body counts so the Media has nothing sensational to show adrenaline junked Americans who love to watch Die Hard on their evening news.

Obama's rhetoric is the furthest left of center. Obama plays the same tired tune since the campaign started that he would have never gotten into Iraq in he first place. This argument may help when the debate turns to Iran, but the immediate problem is Iraq and how to win in Iraq-or not to win as the case may be.

Obama is a foreign affairs neophyte and severely lacks any credibility in foreign affairs. His stance on Pakistan alone shows he isn't ready for prime time.

Fortunately, for Obama, an advisor, Samantha Power (who was fired for the Clinton is a monster comment), leaked the truth to his plans for Iraq. "Obama's plan to remove most US troops from Iraq within 16 months was 'a best-case scenario." This will hopefully soften the blow to his left wing radical supporters who expect Obama to abandon Iraq on day one of his presidency.

The left wing extremists are still crucifying Hillary Clinton for not admitting her vote to authorize force in Iraq was a mistake. For the record she's said that she would start pulling troops out of Iraq within 60 days. Her advisers say the policy is a little more nuanced, "counsel from the Pentagon staff could result in a slight tweak of her plan to remove troops at the rate of one to two brigades a month, to suit the realities at the time."

John McCain who supported the troop surge has a different problem. How long will he keep troops in Iraq? America would obviously like to win in Iraq, but at what cost. The human toll is not as great as it was before and during the beginning of the surge, but how much will the fiscal toll of Iraq extract from the US? That is and easy number to come up with and an quick number to tally, but how much will it cost the US to lose the Iraq war? That number isn't as easily formulated. The loss will mean a foothold for al Qaeda and Iran in Iraq possibly creating a larger foreign policy dilemma in the future. As much as America is sprinting towards alternative energy, America will still be fiscally tied to oil for the next decade at a minimum. America cannot write off the Middle East just yet.

American troops are still in Germany, Japan and Kosovo a decade after President Bill Clinton said US troops would have been out of Kosovo.

The hardest sell will be for the Democrats. The Democratic president will be seen as the president that either didn't pull out troops quick enough for the left wing extremists, or abandoned Iraq and allowed al Qaeda, Iran, sectarian violence and possibly civil war rule to overtake Iraq. Although the surge didn't foster a quick political solution, it proved the US can maintain order within Iraq and quell the violence.