Kevin Drum snarks that “the surge is working so well that we have to keep it up forever.”

What this highlights is the gap in strategic vision between proponents and opponents of the war. To opponents, the deep U.S. military involvement in Iraq has become a problem. The problem needs to be solved. That doesn’t mean we need to start sprinting for the exists in a mad dash tomorrow, but it does mean that we need to be taking troops out as rapidly as can be done in a safe and responsible way. On another view, though, an indefinite military presence in Iraq isn’t a problem, it’s the goal of the policy. Under the circumstances, a policy is “working” not if it contributes to solving the problem, but just if it makes the continued presence of U.S. troops somewhat less costly.

U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Timothy Kingston

Tony Cordesman is a brilliant analyst, so I don’t take issue with him lightly, but I think he ought to have re-read this sentence a few times before framing his op-ed the way he did:

Meaningful victory can come only if tactical military victories end in ideological and political victories and in successful governance and development.

That’s, like, hard to do, man. And more to the point, if you start out with a grain of sand, then add another, then another, then another, etc. eventually you have yourself a heap of sand. The relationship between “tactical military victories” and “ideological and political victories [and] successful governance and development” isn’t like that. We’re not a dozen tactical military victories away from bringing successful governance to Iraq. I’d say we have no idea how to bring successful governance to Iraq. This isn’t what our troops are trained and equipped to do, and it seems cruel to toss them into the theater for an indefinite period of time based on the vague hope that a formula for achieving this other stuff will emerge.

Via Spencer Ackerman, this is considerably more forward-leaning than I’d heard previously from Obama:

“I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud ap-proach to Israel, then you’re anti-Israel, and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel,” leading Democratic presidential contender Illinois Senator Barack Obama said Sunday.

“If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we’re not going to make progress,” he said.

He also criticized the notion that anyone who asks tough questions about advancing the peace process or tries to secure Israel by anyway other than “just crushing the opposition” is being “soft or anti-Israel.”

This is music to my ears and, frankly, very much the attitude that’s Israel’s long-term future requires. Still, in some quarters the man may as well have just festooned himself with swastikas.

I think Hillary Clinton’s major foreign policy address from yesterday is pretty good. The key implicit critique of Obama:

The symbol of our presidency – the American Eagle – holds arrows in one talon and an olive branch in the other. Both are symbolic tools of what we need to keep our democracy strong and our nation safe— tools that a President must know how to use in the daily course of events, but also when that 3 a.m. phone call comes to the White House because an unforeseen crisis has erupted without warning. In that split second the president has to respond and make a decision that could affect the safety and lives of millions of people here in our country and around the world. Whoever sits at that desk in the Oval Office on January 20th, 2009 needs all the tools available, all the resources at our disposal, and the wisdom to know how to use them.

This sometimes gets lost in the heat of a campaign, but I really do think Barack Obama’s lack of administrative or executive experience is problematic. I don’t find Hillary Clinton’s claims on her own behalf in this regard nearly as convincing as she does, but it is a real problem with his candidacy. Still, as we get down to a choice of two people I do think this line of argument runs smack into the brick wall of the 2002 Iraq vote. Do I worry that Obama might screw up? Yes. Does voting for the woman who got the single most important call of her legislative career wrong seem like a reasonable alternative course of action? Not really.

This sort of hangs like a cloud over a lot of the speech’s best moments:

On my first day in office, I will announce, as I have repeatedly in this campaign, that the era of cowboy diplomacy is over. That includes the doctrine of pre-emptive war. I have been against that for many years.

I like these words. I’m against the doctrine of pre-emptive war, too. But this is the woman who, when casting a vote to authorize a preemptive (really preventive) military invasion of Iraq said “my vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose.” Under the circumstances, it’s hard to know what her opposition is supposed to amount to. It — especially in combination with a refusal to deal with the issue directly and clearly — leaves me confused, not understanding who I’m supposed to be voting for.

But all that is, at it were, external to the text at hand. What’s on the page here is very good, including a very thoughtful take on the diplomacy with adversaries issue and a strong statement about the need to avoid the many false choices with which the Bush administration has sought to present people.

This sounds like an interesting initiative:

The multi-million-dollar Iraq/Recession Campaign, which launches Monday, seeks to remind voters, in the words of organizers, that, “As economic concerns weigh heavily on the minds of Americans, opposition to President Bush’s reckless war in Iraq continues to grow. The massive cost of the war in Iraq – hurtling toward one trillion dollars – has increased demand for a strategy to bring U.S. troops home. The Iraq/Recession Campaign will highlight the majority of Americans who want to see leadership on investing in critical priorities at home and establishing real security throughout the world.”

In addition to John and Elizabeth Edwards, those involved in launching the campaign included Service Employees International Union secretary-treasurer Anna Burger, MoveOn executive director Eli Pariser, VetsVote chairman Jon Soltz, USAction executive director Jeff Blum, Center for American Progress president John Podesta and Americans United for Change president Brad Woodhouse.

The trouble is that, as Paul Krugman has pointed out a few times, the short-term impact of the war is to serve as a form of economic stimulus. Perversely, it might be good for the economy for the war to take a turn for the worse — an uptick in the quantity of vehicles and other military equipment destroyed in Iraq could stimulate orders for replacements.

Which isn’t to say that war is good for the economy. If we could go back in time and invest the hundreds of billions spent in Iraq on something more productive, we’d be in better economic shape today. Alternatively, if we could take the vast sums we’re currently spending in Iraq and somehow frictionlessly transmute that into some kind of better-designed domestic stimulus, that would help the economy over the short run. But in terms of actually available policy options (the time machine would be handy, though) bringing the war to an end, though strategically vital and good for America’s long-term economic outlook, doesn’t seem to me to be something likely to help the country with our short-term economic challenges.