As primary candidates on both sides fight fiercely for poll position and the nomination, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan actually find themselves on a temporary backburner. The expectation for 2008 was that the war in Iraq, would be the front-and-center issue. Democrats stormed upon Capitol Hill victorious during the mid-term Congressional elections of 2006 on that issue, driving withdrawal as the key solution.
Over one year after Democrats take power, electoral leverage hardly translated into desired result. After wrangling over troop timetables, force funding and everything from the overall defense budget to leave rotations for American troops, Democrats emerge winless in constant head butts with President Bush. Ironically, it’s the Democratic majority overseeing dramatic U.S. troop increases in Iraq.
The political landscape is now torched by focus on the economy: Rising gas prices, rising food prices, foreclosing homes, a weakening dollar and worries over job security. Candidates flesh out economic plans, while the Bush administration seeks stability through a controversial $150 billion stimulus package. The election appears heated enough to distract voters from the war itself.
Clearly, there is steadfast American public opposition to the war in Iraq. The perception of a failed Bush administration foreign policy (based on false premise and unfounded claims) reigns supreme. Iraq is most prominently discussed, debated and displayed. The larger War on Terror, prompted by 9/11 and the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, is still an acceptable goal for elected officials, so long as its promoted under the notion of “keeping Americans safe.”
Yet, despite public opinion against the war, there is a perennial Catch-22 blocking any effort to end it: The troops. This will factor heavily in the presidential race as candidates stake out the most politically viable positions. Americans, on the whole, appear eager to stop the war, but emotionally hamstrung on one critical path to that objective -- decreased funding. Decreased funding for the war assumes the risk of decreased troop protection in Iraq, Afghanistan or abroad. Having it both ways won’t be an option.
African Americans appear steadfastly opposed to the war. In a recent BlackAmericaWeb.com poll, participants were posed with the observation 46 percent of participants agreed with that “swift, complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq is a reasonable expectation for the next president.” Yet 26 percent slightly agreed, with eight percent being unsure. Eleven percent slightly disagreed, with 10 percent disagreeing, which, on some levels, reflects the typical 80/20 split between African-American voters, in terms of Democratic and Republican party support. Still, to have 26 percent slightly agreeing means that the black electorate is somewhat conflicted over what direction to take.
Interestingly enough, African-Americans want decisiveness on the war, seeking a candidate who will be frank and direct on ending it. Fifty-nine percent agreed that “a candidate’s proposal on how to end the war in Iraq, as well as how he/she responds to conflict elsewhere in the world, will be a major factor in my decision to vote for that candidate.” Twenty percent slightly agreed, while there were very low numbers on “not sure (six percent),” “slightly disagree (six percent)” and “disagree (five percent).” Black voters may only mull their opposition to the war, but they are fairly insistent upon a candidate who can provide clear guidance on withdrawal.
Still, the overall war on terrorism does not rank as high a priority amongst African-Americans, which is expected. Recent polling data from various sources suggest that African-Americans are mainly concerned with domestic, “kitchen-table” issues, including the economy, education and affordable healthcare. Since the African-American electorate constitutes a dominant and powerful voting bloc within the Democratic party, it’s important to note that black focus on domestic issues could drive Democratic primary candidates further away from a focus on Iraq or terrorism as they drive into states with large black voting populations. Only 17 percent agreed with the statement that “the war on terrorism tops my list of issues to be addressed in the 2008 presidential campaign.” Twenty-seven percent slightly disagreed, and 10 percent were not sure. Yet, 26 percent slightly disagreed, with 21 percent outright disagreeing, which may show that African-Americans appear more concerned about the economy.
Still, the emotional considerations moving the larger American electorate and its inability to decide between ending the war outright or to continue funding troops out of empathy is problematic for candidates. Presidential candidates in 2008, for the most part, don’t want to inherit a foreign policy quagmire when taking office in January 2009. And there is the fear of what an American withdrawal means in terms of tainted global reputation. Top tier Democratic candidates voice opposition to the war, but there is a troubling pause when pressed to pledge a full troop withdrawal when they take office. The Democratic candidates most vocal in their displeasure with the war and willing to pledge a troop withdrawal are either marginalized to the cold fringes of the Democratic primary and debating schedule or they have already dropped out. Congressman Dennis Kucinich and Gov. Bill Richardson, each offering consistent pledges to simply stop the war in Iraq, are now off the stage; former Sen. Mike Gravel beats an empty drum.
Keeping it real on the war in Iraq means much more than simply stating opposition to it; opposition speeches come a dime a dozen. The real meat in this discussion is the plan: What do you propose we do? Clearly, the BlackAmericaWeb.com poll shows a strong African-American desire for decisiveness or a plan. Yet, there is a common theme between the three remaining, viable Democratic candidates: All oppose the War in Iraq, but each stops short of proposing a full troop withdrawal or even pledging to such. The suggestion is to, instead, focus on a withdrawal that still leaves a smaller number of U.S. troops in permanent “counterterrorism” bases throughout Iraq. These positions are unspoken recognition that the Democratic electorate may be united on a passionate animus towards the current President, but ideologically split on undoing the hallmark of his legacy.
Thus, candidates find the safe position. Sen. Barack Obama can claim opposition to the war all along, not having to suffer from a bad conscience over voting to authorize the war as both Sen. Hillary Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards did in 2002. However, Obama voted to continue funding, which posed the above dilemma. Still, his initial judgment against the war fuels the characterization of Obama as authentically anti-war, thereby helping him with younger voters and black voters. Edwards apologizes for the fateful authorization vote while he was in the Senate, urging -- in a stab at Clinton -- other senators to “search their conscience.” Clinton is having trouble connecting with many primary voters as she refuses to budge on the question of withdrawal. Yet, her background on the Senate Armed Services Committee may prove useful in attracting those who want experience in and knowledge of such issues.
Meanwhile, Republicans have no such dilemmas over either war authorization or war engagement. Their devil is in the details of deployment and strategy, finding the best way to “win” as opposed to simply withdrawing. In terms of African-American voters, there is clear misalignment of priorities which won’t help the GOP with any black outreach efforts in November. There is a general feeling amongst African-Americans that the war -- misguided and misdirected -- only drains resources from other priorities: Schools, infrastructure, social programs, jobs and other domestic “front yard” issues. Republican voters, dominated heavily by conservatives, may be sour as far as the Bush administration’s strategy in the Middle East, but there is consensus surrounding a desire for victory in Iraq. Only Rep. Ron Paul, the true fringe and maverick GOP presidential candidate, appears completely set against the war, using the debates as opportunities to ramble on into libertarian diatribes on present U.S. foreign policy. Still, his anti-war positions and rebellious nature are the reasons why Paul gains fanatic support on the Internet, breaking online fundraising records within spans of only 24 hours.
The candidate to watch on Iraq, however, is Sen. John McCain, particularly as he gains ground from the back as new frontrunner, a new strength found in perceived (albeit questionable) “success” with the U.S. troop surge in Iraq. Other GOP frontrunners -- including former Gov. Mitt Romney and former Gov. Mike Huckabee -- want to appear tough and strong on “terror” and “Jihadism.” Romney appears comical and robotic; Huckabee seems clueless and uncomfortably affable. This allows greater flexibility to avoid addressing Iraq without completely ignoring it. The goal here is to distance the candidate as far from the current president as possible without alienating the GOP base.
Still, one should watch McCain on the war equation and what that might do for him and Republicans in 2008. The present strength of the surge may be working to his favor amongst Republican primary voters who, ultimately, are looking for strength. If the surge continues on a positive course throughout the primary, McCain could find himself the GOP nominee in November; yet, that’s a risk considering the surge is going well without a coherent political solution in Iraq (which was the point of the surge in the first place). But, the question is whether or not McCain’s stand on the war is a liability or an asset. The thought is that only the uncertain and changing global political climate can tell. If there is a major terrorist event or strike against U.S. interests during the election, there is an assumption that such an event would turn the political tide to the Republicans' favor. Could it work amongst black voters looking for decisive direction on the war when November arrives? There is serious doubt surrounding that, considering African-Americans also want an end to it. But, McCain definitely appears to, at least, be the most consistent since he has favored troop increases from the very start. This maintains his reputation as a “straight-talker.”
CANDIDATE POSITIONS
DEMOCRATS
SEN. BARACK OBAMA: “I made a different judgment. I thought our priority had to be finishing the fight in Afghanistan. I spoke out against what I called 'a rash war' in Iraq. I worried about an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences. The full accounting of those costs and consequences will only be known to history. But the picture is beginning to come into focus.”
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: "We have heard for years now that as the Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down. Every year, we hear about how next year they may start coming home. Now we are hearing a new version of that yet again from the president as he has more troops in Iraq than ever and the Iraqi government is more fractured and ineffective than ever.”
FORMER SEN. JOHN EDWARDS: "There is no military solution to the chaos in Iraq. Instead, the Iraqi people must solve the problem politically by taking responsibility for their country. By leaving Iraq, America will prompt the Iraqi people, regional powers, and the entire international community to find the political solution that will end the sectarian violence and create a stable Iraq."
REPUBLICANS
FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY: "I think many of us still fail to comprehend the extent of the threat posed by radical Islam, by Jihad. Understandably, we focus on Afghanistan and Iraq ... We think in terms of countries because we faced countries in last century's conflicts. But the Jihad is much broader than any one nation or nations.”
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: “There are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. More troops are necessary to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; to dismantle al Qaeda; to train the Iraqi Army and to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units. Accomplishing each of these goals will require more troops …”
FORMER GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: “As president, I will fight this war hard, but I will also fight it smart, using all our political, economic, diplomatic and intelligence weapons, as well as our military might.”
REP. RON PAUL: “The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them ... We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.”
---
BlackPolicy.org is a comprehensive source of online public policy and political information impacting African-Americans. It is a flagship media project of the Center for African American Policy at the University of Denver.
