Barack Obama has criticized John McCain for (once again) making factual errors with respect to the foreign affairs of the United States, McCain's supposed strongpoint. On the heels of confusing Shiites with Sunnis and arguing that Iran is hosting anti-Shiite al-qaeda sympathizers (which the media now ubiquitously refer to simply as "al-qaeda"), McCain is now asserting that US troops are at pre-escalation (or pre-"surge") levels.   

However, as the Washington Post points out in this story:

All of this is true, but seems a little beside the point. The important part of this story, in my opinion, is McCain's belief that, despite the fact that "it's hard and it's tough and there will be setbacks," the US occupation of Iraq is going to conclude peacefully. 

There will, of course, be intervals of less violence during the course of the occupation. People get tired of fighting, after all. However, it is short-sighted to think that, even if violence trails off at times, that we are headed towards an Iraq that is tangibly more peaceful than it is today.

Indeed, the continued American presence in Iraq is a polarizing one, and it is polarizing Iraq in two important ways. As is often the case with foreign interventions, the introduction of the United States into Iraq has heightened tensions which previously were not very pronounced. The one thing about Iraq that our government and media "knew" prior to the invasion was that there was no such thing as Iraqis. From day one, we have approached the country as a sectarian jigsaw puzzle composed of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. Why then would Iraqis act any differently when articulating their needs to Americans, or to each other? People speak to power in the discourses that are imposed upon them. Power leaders in Iraq looking for support employ these discourses and now Iraqi politics is largely dominated by them. The American presence has created tensions where they did not exist beforehand.

The second way in which the US occupation is polarizing Iraq is by dividing Iraqis into those who work with us and those who don't. The longer we stay in Iraq, the more complicated and difficult it will be for people to stay neutral in this conflict. Indeed, within both Sunni and Shiite communities, divisions have been created between those who cooperated with the occupation authorities and those who haven't. 

If we stay in Iraq for four more years, there will certainly be quiet periods. The months immediately following the American military escalation of last year constitute one such period. But McCain is out of touch if he sincerely believes that this mission is ever going to be "accomplished." One way or another, we will leave. The question is how much long-term damage we will have inflicted upon the Iraqi people during the course of our occupation. In my opinion, the longer we stay there the worse they'll be in the end; more divided, and more embittered against one another not only with respect to sectarianism, but also with regard to the question of who gained power (and money) via the Americans and who didn't.

So yes, I can see that, once again, McCain appears to have little command over even the most basic facts regarding the only policy area he is actually supposed to know something about. But to me, the bigger problem is that McCain sees the "setbacks" as the exceptions, when they are clearly the rule.