The foreign-policy shift that wasn't

Posted By Joshua Keating Monday, November 10, 2008 - 11:34 AM Share

In response to William Kristol's lament that John McCain's advocacy of the surge in Iraq lost him the election while winning the war, Fareed Zakaria writes:

Let us imagine that the surge had not worked. Imagine that over the past year and a half, American deaths in Iraq had soared, the gruesome civil war between Shiites and Sunnis had deepened, the
flow of refugees out of Iraq had increased and the government in Baghdad had lost control of the country to gangs and militias. Would Americans then have turned to the most passionate advocate of the surge and given him the presidency?

Zakaria means this to be a rhetorical question, but I think it's actually worth pondering. If the top story in every nightly news broadcast throughout October had been about terrorists killing U.S. soldiers instead of corporate meltdowns, would Americans really have voted for a candidate who (perhaps unfairly) was best known for his pledge to negotiate with extremists?

When terrorism is at the forefront of voters' minds, they tend to favor more hawkish candidates and Barack Obama actually fared worse than John Kerry with voters whose top concerns were terrorism or Iraq. Luckily for him, there were far fewer of these voters in this election.

Zakaria continues:

The electorate has seemed to sense that there is a new world out there and that the nostrums presented by McCain in his campaign are irrelevant to it. [...] The vigorous unilateralism openly advocated by the administration is recognized by most Americans to have weakened the country's influence abroad."

Wishful thinking. If anything, voters saw Obama's foreign-policy vision as not objectionable enough to outweigh his perceived superiority on economic issues.

It's true that Obama probably has a better chance of enacting change in foreign policy than on the economic conditions that won him the election. U.S. presidents are generally elected for their stances on domestic issues and remembered for their actions on international ones. But interpreting this election as a major shift in how the United States views its place in the world is probably premature.

EXPLORE:BUSH ADMINISTRATION, DECISION '08, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
 

CEOLAF

5:59 PM ET

November 10, 2008

Really suspect logic

The Surge -- which might or might not have been responsible for the reduction in American deaths in Iraq -- was either a doubling down or an all-in on the military strategy.

If it had not worked, and American military deaths were continuing at a rate of about 100/month (i.e the average rate in the 3 months before Bush's announcement of the The Surge in 1/07), how would voters feel about McCain and Obama? That's the question, right?

The war in Iraq was immensely unpopular in the months before the surge was announced, already favored by only a minority of Americans. In fact, support for the war has remained almost entirely unchanged since before the annoucement of The Surge. CNN has kept asking, "Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?" It was 33% in 11/06 and 33% in 11/08. It fluxtuated a little in the middle (30% - 37%), but stayed right around 1/3 of respondents. Opposition has been between 61% and 68%, with under 5% undecided.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Let me me more plain. There is absolutely no evidence that The Surge has had any impact whatsoever on support for the war among the American people. None. An unpopular war all along (i.e. since before The Surge was announced).

Mr. Keating is suggesting that a failed Surge would have...increased support for the war? Increased support for supporters of the war? That seems like truly suspect thinking.

But what is TRULY suspect his his extrapolation of the support of the the war among McCain supporters to the general population. Yes, his supporters still heavily support the war, but that doesn't mean that that the general population does.

This election did not mark a shift in the American people's thinking on the war in Iraq. It's thinking shifted years ago. There is absolutely no reason to think that they would have voted differently if the the war had remained a top important issue. Yes, some Obama supporters would have supported McCain, but some McCain supporters would have bailed on him based on his bad judgement about The Surge.

 

JOSHUA KEATING

7:17 PM ET

November 10, 2008

Thanks for this, Mr. Ceolaf

The surge itself isn't really the point. I'm not saying that the war would be more popular if there were more violence in Iraq now, but I do think that if there were more violence, and therefore the issue mattered more to a greater number of voters, McCain would have had a better shot at winning. I know it's a bit convoluted, but I'm saying that in presidential races, the popularity of specific policies (the war, the surge) matter less than the general perception of who can keep the country safe. Zakaria thinks Obama has changed that perception. I disagree.
Also, we're all friends here. You can call me Josh.

 

JGARZIK

7:48 PM ET

November 10, 2008

The more pragmatic view

At the moment (or at least on Nov. 4th), it is difficult to credibly claim that Iraq is spiralling out of control. But it is credible to make similar claims of financial chaos.

Events, not policy, shifted the focus from a McCain strength and an Obama weakness — war — to an Obama strength and McCain weakness — the economy.

Or more plainly, the danger of Obama causing bloody chaos in Iraq decreased, while the danger of McCain causing bloody chaos on Wall Street and Main Street increased... Poor McCain practically admitted ignorance on economic issues, months ago, and when the economic crisis fell, had a response more scattershot than the Treasury Department's response.

Jeff @ Armchair FP

 

TEODORO

8:30 AM ET

November 11, 2008

Economic and Bailout support

It's been said, and I agree, that had McCain been strongly against the bailout and made that his key economic position in the last days of the election, he could have gained more support of the American people (who were against the bailout in similar % as they are against the war in Iraq).

 

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.

Read More