“What do you see as the lessons of Iraq?” is the question that should have been the focus of last Friday night’s debate on foreign policy — though it took a back seat to the current economic crisis. It could have been the decisive point of the debate, when Senators Obama and McCain could have abandoned their generic one-liners to deliver substantive and detailed information about their plans to manage and bring an end to this travesty. With such high expectations for the senators, it goes without saying that I was deeply let down.

McCain had the chance to show the judgment and experience he claims to have as a result of his military service, but he failed to seize the opportunity. Instead of acknowledging the poor judgment that lead to this war, he went on with his usual narrative of having better judgment because of his support of the surge. Not only did he refuse to acknowledge this was an unnecessary and unjustifiable war, but he also misled the public when he attempted to explain the reasons behind the current downward trend in the levels of violence in Iraq.

The surge was accompanied by many events and changes in strategy that made it what McCain calls a success. The most important development was the Sunni tribes’ decision to break their alliance with al-Qaida and fight against them. Also, the American military’s decision to arm the Sunni tribes and fund them led to the formation of what is now known as the “Awakening Councils.” And last but not least, the American military decided to pay reparations to the families of some of the Sunnis killed by U.S. forces during the period predating the surge. All of these factors collectively led to the current relative peace — I use this term generously — in Iraq. So in reality, John McCain’s decision to support the surge was not a result of superior judgment but a lucky gamble taken by a candidate whose campaign was left for dead at the time.

McCain also insisted the US is “winning” in Iraq and that there should not be a withdrawal until this “victory” is made permanent. This statement was brought to you by the ever-illusive definition of victory in Iraq — if you think you know it, you’re probably wrong. Although to McCain’s credit, he did acknowledge the learn-as-you-go strategy pursued during the war was one the main reasons behind its failure.

However, McCain was not alone in his failure to properly address the issue of the Iraq war. Even though Obama clearly acknowledged the war was a mistake, his candidness stopped there. Over time, Obama’s position has changed from a very specific timetable of withdrawal to the vague notion of consulting with the generals on the ground and keeping the troops there for necessary prolonged security. On face value, this might seem like a perfectly reasonable plan, yet it’s the fact that it gives Obama perfect deniability when it comes to delivering on his promises that raises suspicion. Because any failure to do what he promised could be justified by claiming it conflicted with the advice of the generals.

With the diametrically opposing, yet conveniently vague positions of both senators on the table, one would wonder what Iraqis think about the ongoing occupation of their country. It would be nice if they had a truly democratic government to represent them. After all, that is one of the supposed reasons the U.S. invaded Iraq. But the facade of a government you see is no more than sellout politicians playing make-believe governance. The current Iraqi government can’t do anything without U.S. approval — not that it needs the U.S. to stifle progress, since it can’t move beyond the country’s sectarian bickering. Yet the one thing people in Iraqi government seem to agree on is that the U.S. needs to leave. And even though the administration has assured us the U.S. shall remain in Iraq only as long as the Iraqis permit our presence, the answer to Iraqi demands of withdrawal has been a resounding, “No.”

To make matters even worse, the U.S. is witnessing one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression. So to have the audacity to condemn Congress for letting federal spending get out of control and at the same time defend a $10 billion a month war is a logical fallacy that should mean political suicide for a fiscal conservative. But if the last two presidential elections proved anything, it’s that if you tell a lie long enough, it’ll pass for truth. So far, the Iraq war has cost more than $550 billion in taxpayer dollars — a figure that should make any American cringe with disgust. Yet conservatives have resisted any attempt to associate the current economic crisis with the mushrooming federal deficit from the war in Iraq, even though defense spending accounts for more than a third of the total federal budget.

You would think a veteran of war and a former prisoner of war would be reluctant to send others into harm’s way — or keep them there — irresponsibly. You would think a veteran of the Vietnam War would have a greater skepticism towards ill-advised military endeavors that result in the devastation of sovereign nations and the massive unjustified loss of lives. And normally you’d be right — except in the case of John McCain.

With over 90 thousand civilian Iraqi deaths and countless injured — the equivalent of roughly 30 Sept. 11s — one can’t help but hope to see an end to this war. And when it comes to who is more realistic and pragmatic about bringing an end to the Iraq war, the answer is clearly Barack Obama. Even though his plans for withdrawal are becoming increasingly vague, they’re far better than the unattainable victory John McCain seeks but fails to define.

Ammar Al Marzouqi ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in computer science.