Corriere della Sera, Italy

Iraq has Vanished from the Primaries

By Massimo Gaggi

January 3, 2008

Italy - Corriere della Sera - Original Article (Italian)

Republican candidates for the White House are accusing each other of not being tough enough against illegal immigrants, the tapping of religious intolerance, or having ambiguous positions on abortion and gay unions. Among the Democrats, the competition focuses mainly on fears of the "new poor" who are the victims of globalization, and the difficulties of the middle class who fear losing their jobs and having to paying increasing mortgages on houses that continue to lose value, and their lack of decent health coverage.

In the election campaign that begins with voting in Iowa is a great absence: Iraq. The Gulf War was crucial in the re-election of Bush in 2004 and again, in the early summer, according to Zogby polls, was cited by 56 percent of voters as a factor that would be decisive in their choosing the next president of the United States. But it is practically disappeared from the priorities of the people and the rallies of the candidates. The success of the strategy to strengthen the U.S. military presence in Iraqi cities, the reduction in the number ofl victims of attacks, has not been trumpeted: it has only made the issue slip out of the election. Already by September, when General David Petraeus reported to Congress the first positive results of the surge - the new strategy adopted in Iraq - the Americans who considered the war in the Middle East the main issue of the campaign had fallen to 35 percent. By Christmas, the number had declined to 23 percent - less than the proportion who declared themselves to be more concerned about the risk of recession and the weakness of the dollar.

Not that foreign policy has lost importance, and the Iraqi problem continues, but the next president must also decide on what to do in Afghanistan, the crisis with Pakistan, and the issue in Iran. Not to mention the need to contain Chinese expansionism and 'imperialism' of Putin. These are important issues, but they can not become a priority, because they confuse voters. Candidates have even put aside Iraq: the sharp decline in American victims of the attacks in recent months have eaten away at the anti-war rhetorical arguments of Democratic leaders. Instead of attacking Bush, now Hillary Clinton, Obama and Edwards tend to take issue with the government in Baghdad for its inability to capitalize politically on the successes on the military successes on the ground.

Even Republicans, who have enthusiastically supported the choices of the White House, prefer to focus on other issues: feel that the electorate is raised by the improvement of the situation in Iraq but, nevertheless, wants to be done with it and think of other things. And  John McCain, the only person who has loudly supported the decision of the Bush administration to strengthen military engagement in Baghdad and is getting a modest premium in the polls for his choice in recent rallies has ignored Iraq, preferring to engage the Iran and Pakistan crises. This is all bad news for those who, like Giuliani, have been credited as the ideal President of a country at war.

CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION