On the campaign trail or in the debating chamber, there’s just no escaping it. Like the spectre at the feast, the Iraq war is dominating the White House race in a contest in which every word counts.
The eight hopefuls chasing the Democratic Party nomination for the 2008 elections to replace President George Bush seem united in their calls to end the unpopular, bloody conflict, now in its fifth year.
But their methods and timetable differ.
Republican candidates have an even more difficult tightrope to walk: how to reconcile the mind-numbing violence and loss of American life with their desire to stay in line with Bush’s Republican administration and the surge strategy.
New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who is leading the polls in the Democratic party race, has bluntly and repeatedly promised: ”If the president does not end this war before he leaves office, I will.
”It is abundantly clear that there is no military solution to the sectarian fighting in Iraq. We need to stop refereeing the war, and start getting out now,” she said Wednesday.
But Clinton has just as frequently been called upon to defend her decision to vote in favour of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, aimed at toppling the then dictator Saddam Hussein.
In reply she has blamed Bush, saying US lawmakers were misled at the time.
Democratic rising star Barack Obama is not tainted by such questions, as he wasn’t even in the Senate when the vote was taken.
In May the young Illinois senator voted against a $100-million war budget in Congress, telling Bush ”enough is enough”.
”We must negotiate a better plan that funds our troops, signals to the Iraqis that it is time for them to act and that begins to bring our brave servicemen and women home safely and responsibly.”
Obama also believes there is no military solution to ending the sectarian violence and the counter-insurgency in Iraq, despite recent signs that the surge plan is helping to stem some of the bloodshed.
And he won praise from some war veterans this week for having the courage of his convictions, when he stood up at their convention in Kansas City and told the hardened soldiers that the situation in Iraq was a total failure.
Two other Democratic hopefuls, House Representative Dennis Kucinich and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, share a one-point plan — ”get out.”
But faced with the realities on the ground, the other candidates are increasingly choosing their words carefully, with some seeming to envisage that some kind of long-term US presence will have to be maintained in Iraq.
As for the Republicans, they are mostly erring on the side of caution, awaiting a key report from the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, due on September 15, which is likely to determine US policy.
Rumours are already floating that the US administration, frustrated at the lack of political progress by the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, is preparing some kind of gradual draw-down plan.
The New York Times reported last weekend that Bush intended to announce plans for gradual troop reductions from Iraq, but at levels far short of those sought by his congressional critics.
The current Republican polls favourite, former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, sought to distinguish himself, however, from the Bush administration in a recent CNN interview.
Asked what he would have done about Iraq if he had been president at the time, Giuliani replied: ”I would have removed Saddam Hussein” before adding as an after thought, ”I just hope I’d do it better.” — AFP
