McCain, Obama, and the consequences of defeat

Some conservatives, the late William F. Buckley for one, expressed the sentiment that had we known what we know now--that Saddam Hussein's Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction, then they would not have approved the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But we're there now, and of those "second-thought" conservatives, few if any approve a withdrawal from Iraq at this time.

One of the most enduring, and frightening images from the 1970s is right above: pro-American Vietnamese being evacuated from the US Embassy in Saigon as the Communist forces are on the verge of overrunning the city.

John McCain understands the consequences of defeat. I'm not so sure about Obama, nor does Bret Stephens in the Wall Street Journal.

Yet what distinguishes Mr. McCain's foreign policy from Mr. Obama's is not about the nature of America's commitments in the Middle East. It is about their understanding of the consequences of defeat. Mr. McCain seems to have some. It's not clear whether Mr. Obama does.

In his speech, Mr. Obama rightly observes the paradox of Mr. McCain's position on Iraq. The Arizonan, he notes, argued in 2006 that the U.S. could not withdraw because "violence was up," whereas now he argues the U.S. cannot withdraw "because violence is down." "Success," says the Illinois senator, "comes to be defined as the ability to maintain a flawed policy indefinitely."

A fair point. But here are questions for Mr. Obama: Could there be something worse than the indefinite maintenance of a flawed policy? What if, following a U.S. withdrawal, Iraq collapsed into chaos? What if U.S. embassy personnel have to be helicoptered to safety from the roof of the Baghdad embassy? It's not as if this hasn't happened before.

Nowhere in Mr. Obama's speech is that scenario entertained, and one wonders why. Perhaps it is a function of biography. With the exception of a failed congressional bid in 2000, defeat has not formed a significant part of Mr. Obama's upwardly mobile life experience. Or perhaps it is a function of philosophy. Not everyone share's Mr. McCain's view that the defeat in Vietnam was a "disgrace," or that the result of a war carried out "Not In My Name" nonetheless has bearing on the worth of one's country.

I've excerpted the below passage from Obama's Audacity of Hope several times on this blog. The bold print emphasis is mine.

In my teens, I became fascinated with the Dionysian, up for grabs quality of the era, and through books, films, and music, I soaked in a vision of the sixties very different from the one my mother talked about: images of Huey Newton, the '68 Democratic National Convention, the Saigon airlift, and the Stones at Altamont. If I had no immediate reasons to pursue revolution, I decided nevertheless that in style and attitude, I, too, could be a rebel, unconstrained by the wisdom of the over-thirty crowd.

Does Obama understand the consequences of defeat?

Technorati tags: Obama politics Barack Obama Election Democrats McCain John McCain Republican GOP Iraq العراق Vietnam War