The American Debate: 2 paths voters might take on war

From time to time we run excerpts from Dick Polman's blog, "Dick Polman's American Debate."

Not surprisingly, over the past few days we have heard nothing further from President Bush and Sen. John McCain about "defining moments" and government "strength" - because, as it turns out, [prime minister Nouri al-Maliki's] Iraqi security forces (the forces that we have long been training to stand up, so that we can stand down) failed in their mission to tame [the militia-backed cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's] fighters. Maliki had vowed a clear victory; instead, Sadr's militia ceded almost no ground, and fought government forces to a standstill.

The result - for now, anyway - is a negotiated ceasefire . . . .

McCain's reaction? . . . On CNN, he tried to characterize the cease-fire as "very helpful." Then, finally, he admitted that Maliki's military campaign, conducted by his U.S.-trained forces, "was not the success, apparently so far, that we hoped it would be."

All of which prompts these questions: Amid all the attention being paid to the steel-cage match between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, will McCain be closely questioned about his fealty to the ongoing Iraq fiasco - and to the Bushspeak that, for five years, has repeatedly been contradicted by the realities on the ground? Or are the Iraq realities - all those Shiite factions warring with each other, plus the discontented Sunnis - simply too complicated for most Americans?

Here are two possible scenarios for next November:

(1) Voters simply tune out the war. They have no patience to differentiate between Shiite factions or keep the names straight. Being Americans, they prefer a clean fight with designated good guys and bad guys; denied that in Iraq, they wash their hands of the whole mess and go to the mall. They look at the candidates, and figure that maybe the one with the most military and foreign policy experience is best qualified to clean things up, whatever that means. Advantage, McCain.

(2) Voters lead busy lives and don't have the time to figure out all the factions in Iraq. So they skip to the bottom line and instinctively recognize that the constant ebb and flow of sectarian fighting, and the shellings of the supposedly safe Green Zone, are all signs of the ongoing chaos that undercuts Bush's incessant booster rhetoric - and here is McCain saying the same stuff. Advantage, Democrats.