Traveling the World

Gail Collins is the “Not MoDo” of the NYT’s Op-Ed page. Sometimes she irks me and sometimes I find her snark charming.

I just like this column. She hits most of the right spots and connects some dots. So, I thought I should share.

July 19, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

Summer Travel Plans

By GAIL COLLINS

Barack Obama is visiting ... wherever. (Security is so tight for this trip that we cannot even talk about not talking about it.)

Suffice it to say that he intends to check out the big Middle Eastern trouble spots, to meet with officials and generals, and to speak with ordinary citizens to the degree possible for a man surrounded by more armor than a Transformer movie.

“I think he wants to get out and do as much as he can ... I don’t think he’ll be strolling around the market in a flak jacket,” said Susan Rice, a senior Obama foreign policy adviser, speaking from a plane en route to ... someplace.

That was, of course, a reference to John McCain’s visit to Baghdad last year when he strolled through a market, swaddled in a flak jacket and protected by so many soldiers, helicopters and sharpshooters that it looked like a new invasion. The entire expedition provided as much information on real-life conditions in Iraq as a walk down the old “Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves” set at Universal Studios. Nevertheless, McCain declared that he was witnessing evidence that the country was returning to normal. The next day, a number of Shiite workers from the market were murdered.

McCain, who had been demanding that Obama visit Iraq, is now denouncing him for not having gone sooner, more often and before making policy speeches on the Middle East. “He’s never been to Afghanistan and I’m astonished,” he added.

You could pose the question in the opposite direction. Why is Obama going at all? Given the constraints under which he has to operate, the chance that he’ll see something enlightening seem to be lower than the chance of being shown something misleading. (See above: McCain/marketplace.) Really, anybody he needs to talk to would be happy to pick up a phone.

On the other hand, it’s always useful to get out and about. President Bush has been traveling around the world like crazy recently. A friend of mine refers to this late-breaking interest in globe-trotting as “a taxpayer-funded junior year abroad.” But let us try not to be bitter.

Bush has been touching all the bases — April with NATO, the Middle East in May, Europe in June, Asia in July. And look at all the progress we’ve seen since. The United States and Iraq have suddenly agreed to a “general time horizon” for future troop reductions. (Not a timetable! Everybody knows that timetables are playing into the hands of the enemy. This is an “aspirational goal.” Totally, totally different.)

And we’re talking to Iran about its nuclear weapons! This also is not a change of policy. Just ask the administration. “The United States is determined to have negotiations only when Iran has suspended its enrichment and reprocessing,” said Condoleezza Rice firmly. Talking with the top Iranian nuclear negotiator is not a negotiation! It’s talk. A get-to-know-you thing. Like speed dating.

Americans seem confused about how Iraq fits into the presidential race. Polls tell us they want the troops out, but when it comes to judgment in foreign affairs, they have more faith in McCain, who wants to stay in.

There’s a kind of strange symmetry in Iraq. Earlier this week, The Times’s Sabrina Tavernise and Richard Oppel talked to Iraqis in various parts of the country and reported that most seem to have a very high opinion of Obama for reasons that include: 1) his name; 2) the fact that although he is not and never has been Muslim, there’s a connection there somewhere; and 3) in the words of one Baghdad businessman: “He seems like a nice guy.”

If you feel as though these explanations lack a depth of political sophistication, try asking American voters how they feel about Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

The Iraqis who talked to The Times were less enthusiastic about Obama’s position on — well, Iraq. Although most of the people interviewed wanted the Americans gone, they also wanted assurance they would still have the pathetic modicum of security and stability they have now. Which requires the American troops. That seems to put them closer to John McCain’s position. But they like Barack better. Once again, we see citizens of our two very different nations united by love of democracy and voter irrationality.

The confusion about whom to trust on Iraq may go back to the fact that both candidates were right about the war, in different ways. Obama opposed the whole thing. (“Dumb” was the operative word.) McCain thought it was being badly executed. Recently, his passion to demonstrate knowledge of military tactics has been so intense that he appears to be running for secretary of defense.

Obama underestimated the potential of the surge, but was way ahead of McCain in recognizing that the big problem in the region was Afghanistan, not Iraq. Yes, even though he had never been there, Obama was able to figure out that the region where Al Qaeda was actually located posed more of a danger to American security than a benighted country where it wasn’t.

Until, of course, George Bush invaded and Al Qaeda moved in. But he was much less experienced then. It was before the junior year abroad.

Like I said, I like this column and the snark.