THE MEDIA KEEP FALSE SIMPLICITIES GOING, WHILE COMPLEXITIES DROP OUT

One example of a false simplicity that returns front and center and there persists after the underlying complexities get a brief hearing is Obama’s supposed refusal to visit wounded troops. The charge, made in an ad by the McCain campaign, that Obama passed up a chance to visit the wounded in Germany because he wanted to go to the gym instead was quickly shown to be false, as was the alternative charge that he didn’t make the visit because he wasn’t going to be allowed to bring photographers. I believe the ad, not widely shown to begin with, has been withdrawn. However, the explanation of why he didn’t go is a little complicated and it will not be remembered. What will be remembered, and this may well have been the effect aimed at with the advertisement, was that Obama for some reason or other passed up a chance to visit the wounded. A more important example of a false simplicity holding on front and center is the issue of whether the Surge succeeded. Even those who claim that it did, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, readily agree, at least when questioned, that other factors operated to bring about the reduction of violence in Baghdad – including former Sunni militants becoming allies of the present Iraqi government; the main Shiite militia standing down at least for the moment. Would these factors have operated without the Surge? How did the Surge affect them? Sorting out the answers to these questions would take time that the media did not take; but it would have been helpful at least just to have the public bear in mind that the questions needed to be looked into before judging just what the success of the Surge amounts to. The public has not been encouraged to bear this in mind. On the contrary, the debate has reverted to the simple issue of whether the violence diminished after the Surge, which invites the fallacy that if it did it was because of the Surge.

CAN OBAMA GO TO IRAQ AND NOT BE TRAPPED INTO AGREEING WITH BUSH, PETRAEUS, AND MCCAIN?

McCain is eager to have Obama go to Iraq. And why? Obama will then have to consult with Petraeus and it is predictable what Petraeus will say, though perhaps not so entirely predictable as it was before the Iraqi Prime Minister defied the Bush line and called for a timetable forwithdrawing U.S. troops. Obama might make sure that he has military men of standing with him who will not let Petraeus get away with just repeating the "stay-the-course" testimony that he has twice given Congress in the last year. They could help him take and keep the initiative from the beginning by asking Petraeus how he would carry out the time-tabled withdrawal that Malliki is calling for within the 16 months that Obama has been specified. Obama should not accept any profession from Petraeus that he does not have a plan for withdrawal or know of any such plan. Obama should insist that Petraeus cannot estimate the costs of withdrawal unless he has such a plan to refer to. Petraeus must understand that Obama is moving into a position to change his marching orders and if necessary change the man who will do the marching.

HAS AMERICAN POLITICS TAKEN A HOLIDAY FROM ILLOGICAL DISCOURSE?

The blog continues to be open for business and I am on the watch for lapses in the logic of public discourse in the campaign for U. S. President. However, the last several weeks have not offered much of importance in such lapses. No doubt I could find some by moving farther afield than I have been doing, and watching the Fox network or Rush Limbaugh. I would rather not do that. For one thing, they do not have the audiences that I want to reach – audiences ready to correct lapses. In what I do watch, there have been continued distractions from talking about the great issues before the country: Jesse Jackson’s unbuttoned opinion of Obama; Phil Gramm’s condemnation as "whiners" of people who have not prospered as much as he. There is perhaps the beginning of the sort of lapse topic that I am looking for in Obama’s ill-directed charge that critics from the left "have not been listening to what I’ve been saying." In the vote for renewing FISA, it was what Obama did in voting for it that was the target; and even if he defended his vote (a defense that has not come my way), supporters could listen and still condemn. But I do not have information complete enough to survey the protests and Obama’s responses. I’ll keep watching for lapses in discourse. Meanwhile, I’d welcome suggestions from readers.

IS IT IMPIOUS TO QUESTION MCCAIN'S QUALIFICATIONS?

Wesley Clark, who given his extraordinarily gallant service in Vietnam has himself a claim comparable to McCain’s to being a war hero, dared question whether McCain’s military service qualified him to be President. The reactions have been silly all around. It may be that Obama had to accept the feature of the situation created by the media that evidently makes it impious to question the bearing of McCain’s military qualifications on his candidacy for President. Nevertheless, it was perfectly irrelevant for Obama to thunder that military service, McCain’s included, deserved unquestioning respect. Clark was not questioning the respect; he was questioning the relevance. Honorable as it was, McCain’s military service does not qualify him for every office: not for being Secretary of Agriculture, not for being head of the National Park Service, not for being President. McCain adopted a pose of sanctimonious long-suffering in the face of Clark’s remarks, a reaction as irrelevant as Obama’s. McCain’s long service on the Senate Armed Services Committee is much more relevant than his military service to making the strategic decisions that a President has to make. Unfortunately, his record with regard to these decisions is not convincing: He was a cheerleader at the outset for the war in Iraq; and he has, I believe, never appreciated the folly of getting involved in Iraq before the war in Afghanistan was settled, with the Taliban destroyed and bin Laden captured.