(Eli Lake of the NY Sun has an interesting piece today on how a surge of U.S. troops in Baghdad would play in the 2008 presidential race. McCain’s been calling for more forces in Iraq since 2003. Today, he supports a surge in Baghdad. The Wall Street Journal editorial page, the National Review, the Washington Times editorial page, and the Weekly Standard have all taken a position on the question of troop levels in Iraq. But what about Mayor Giuliani and Gov. Romney? Do they support a surge? What’s their position on troop levels?) The Iraq War is the biggest challenge facing America. Most agree the stakes couldn’t be higher. Most agree that a totally collapsed Iraq will harm American security for years, perhaps decades, to come. We are at a crossroads. What should we do next in Iraq? On the campaign trail and pre-campaign trail for some, we hear a lot of talk about leadership, the war on terror, and the need to be prepared for over-the-horizon threats. But on the substance of the Iraq War, many likely ’08 candidates have little to say, beyond the usual bromides, on what they would do if they were president today. Do they believe success in Iraq is still possible and, if so, what concrete steps would they take to achieve that objective? Also, the big issue of the day is the size of our military presence in Iraq. Do we have too many troops there, just enough, or do we need to surge more forces into Iraq? That’s a major question President Bush must decide as part of his strategic reassessment. Shouldn’t politicians who aspire to be commander in chief tell us where they stand on the troop strength issue now and not wait a few months to see how things are going in Iraq before taking a firm position? The test of leadership is now. Dodging the above questions would be nothing more than a cop-out, pure and simple. Reporters should start asking for answers to get everyone on record before the ’08 campaign really heats up.
