Now that tonight's presidential debate can count on both candidates
showing up, there's some speculation over what will actually be
debated. Originally the focus was intended to be on foreign policy,
but with the economy dominating headlines there's the possibility
things could change. The New York Times this morning quoted debate moderator Jim Lehrer as writing via e-mail: “I am not restrained from asking questions about the financial crisis. Stay tuned!”
How
much attention is given to Iraq (and perhaps veterans) is still up in
the air but that doesn't mean people aren't talking. Even as Iraq
remains largely absent from the front pages around the country, there's
a number of stories out there tackling politics, Iraq, and veterans
reactions to it all. But first let's take a look at what some vets are
saying about the debate. John Soltz, a veteran and co-founder of
VoteVets.org, lists five main points he believes vets of Iraq and Afghanistan will look to be addressed by both candidates:
1) Will the candidates (and the moderator) note the difference
between "tactical" success of the surge, versus the overall strategic
goal of the surge, and whether that was a success?
2) Will the candidates be challenged on the deteriorating
situation with Pakistan? Will Obama hold to his position that we must
act to strike terrorists officially inside Pakistan's borders, and will
McCain hold to his view that Obama is wrong to strike in the ungoverned
parts of Pakistan without the expressed consent from Islamabad?
3) Will the candidates speak about our inability to take care of our current military commitments, let alone new ones?
4) Will the candidates lay out what steps short of military action they would take to prevent a nuclear Iran?
5) Given news that Prime Minister Maliki has hinted that he
prefers a timeline that removes troops by 2010, but was pressured to
accept a 2011 timeline due to U.S. political considerations, will the
candidates consider moving a timeline to exit Iraq back to 2010, or do
they consider that unrealistic?
Perhaps the candidate's respective answers to the first question
may prove to be the most revealing (should the question come up). The
answers would reveal their ability to break past the restrictions of
these catch phrases and explain how well they're able understand how
nuanced the situation in Iraq can be. Tactics and strategy, while they
go hand in hand, are most certainly not exclusive barometers of success
or failure. There's no way to tell exactly what veterans as a whole
will use to judge the debate, but it's pretty safe to say that the
questions Soltz lists are on the minds of most American's as well.
Even
though Gov. Sarah Palin seems to have monopolized vice-presidential
candidate coverage, Sen. Joe Biden made an interesting proposal on
Monday before a Baltimore convention of National Guardsmen. Citing
that vast number of National Guard members serving in Iraq and
Afghanistan, Biden said a representative of this branch should sit on
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Associated Press reports on Biden's comments and one Guard general's reaction:
"Tell me why there's any rational reason why you shouldn't have a
seat at that table," Biden said, speaking one day after Republican
presidential candidate John McCain addressed the group.
Maj. Gen. Frank Vavala, adjutant general of Biden's home state of
Delaware and president of the Adjutants General Association of the
United States, said such recognition, similar to that given the Marine
Corps after initial representation by the Navy, is long overdue.
"It's something that we certainly are advocating as an association,"
said Vavala, who noted that more than a third of the Army and Air Force
consists of National Guard units, and that the Guard numbers almost
500,000 men and women.
"Our people are fighting the war every day," he said, adding that
the notion of Guardsmen as "weekend warriors" no longer applies.
Biden's eldest son, Delaware attorney general Beau Biden, is a
captain in a National Guard unit that is to report for training next
month before being deployed to Iraq.
An op-ed writer for the Indianapolis Star takes note of an unpublished opinion piece penned by a member of Iraqi parliament,
Sami al-Askari, who expresses his support for John McCain. The
argument is based mainly on that fear that Obama will prematurely
withdraw troops from Iraq. He also says that Iraqis and Republicans
have come to understand each other over the years of war, and an influx
of Democrat-minded policy decisions could set back whatever progress
has been made:
As the presidential election draws near -- and partly in response to
Obama's selection of Joe Biden as his running mate -- Askari apparently
has softened his rhetoric on the U.S. presence.
He still favors
withdrawal of U.S. forces by the end of 2011, as proposed in the
security treaty. And he figures that the deadline will be honored by
whoever wins, if only for the sake of the 2012 American elections.
But
changing now from a Republican to a Democratic administration would be
problematic, he says -- not least because Obama has said the U.S.
Congress should be involved in any status-of-forces agreement with Iraq.
Askari
also expressed concern about Biden's 2007 plan to divide Iraq into
three semi-autonomous regions -- Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni -- with a
central government in Baghdad. He called the Biden plan "the essence of
a nightmare feared by Iraqis."
"Not that any of Biden's proposals
will take effect, as the socio-political reality in Iraq is
undividable," he continued. "But Iraqis will pay dearly until Biden and
his camp are convinced that his 'theory' is inapplicable in Iraq."
In contrast, Robert Diamond, chairman of New York Veterans for Obama, penned a highly critical piece in the New York Daily News
taking issue with McCain's record on his support for veterans. Diamond
argues the image of McCain's concern for veterans issues is largely a
myth created by McCain himself:
As both an Iraq war veteran and a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy,
I am intimately familiar with John McCain's valiant and honorable
military service. McCain, as far as I am concerned, is a true American
hero. Unfortunately, his heroism in the Vietnam
War has been allowed to morph into a patently false "record" -
ceaselessly touted by his campaign - that McCain is a strong advocate
for veterans. That could not be further from the truth...
...The nation's largest Iraq veterans organization, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America,
a nonpartisan organization, grades members of Congress on how they vote
on legislation that "affect[s] troops, veterans or military families."
This includes votes on such issues as expanded health care services for
veterans and reservists, military death benefits, traumatic brain
injury research and adequate rest for service members between
deployments, just to name a few.
Of the 155 votes tracked by IAVA since 9/11, John McCain received a
grade of "D." While no senator earned a grade of "A," Barack Obama got
a "B ."
Words on Iraq by the candidates themselves still continue to
follow the same lines of reason and criticism. Writing on a Wall
Street Journal blog, Elizabeth Holmes described John McCain's appearance at the same National Guard convention at which Biden spoke.
During his speech McCain took the opportunity to combine the economy
and Iraq in order to highlight his opponent's lack of leadership:
“Whether it’s a reversal in war, or an economic emergency, he reacts as
a politician and not as a leader, seeking an advantage for himself
instead of a solution for his country.”
Later a spokesman for Obama was quoted striking back at McCain's words:
“John McCain is so out of touch that he wants to keep spending $10
billion a month in Iraq indefinitely while the Iraqi government sits on
a $79 billion surplus and our economy is in turmoil.”
