Under such conditions, a withdrawal could be completed by 2010. It is my belief that neither candidate is in a position to manage the economic crisis. For instance, both have made energy independence a strong component of their policies, yet energy independence is a decade or two away. This is a noble long-term goal but will not address today's economic issues. McCain's economic ideologies are rooted in 20th century economic logic. His reliance on the trickle-down approach fails to recognize that capital is fungible. Therefore, applying more capital to the top of the economic food chain will not necessarily increase wealth at the bottom. It may merely be investing outside the country if opportunities overseas are better, which at present they often are. Holding the line of taxes will not spur growth, nor will it reduce consumer debt. Moreover, he cannot balance the budget in light of his lack of a withdrawal plan for Iraq and support of the $700 bailout. His tax strategies do not address to inequities of the current tax system. Moreover, lowering corporate taxes from 35% to 25% will not address the myriad of other political and economic factors that companies take into account when deciding where to set up shop, such as wages, market opportunities and trade barriers.

Obama's economic plan is more trickle-up, which is stronger in principle but there are limitations. American consumer debt, for example, is a constraint on growth and represents a transfer of wealth overseas. Obama's tax cuts are unlikely to translate into a reduction in consumer debt. More likely, that money will go to China via Wal-Mart and Saudi Arabia through the oil companies. This is an oversimplification, but more money in the hands of consumers is not going to stop the massive transfer of wealth overseas. Increasing taxes on the wealthy and the windfall profits tax on the oil...

His support of the $700 bailout will burden the U.S. economy as well. He stands a better chance at balancing the budget if he can get out of Iraq safely, however, which will help finance his plans.
In terms of Iraq, both strategies have merit. McCain's plan is less risky in terms of Iraq success, since it is a direct follow-through on the strategies that have been employed for the past couple of years. That strategy does have drawbacks, however, especially in its myopia. The war in Iraq opened up a new front for al-Qaeda and allowed them to accelerate their recruiting. The badwill generated from the occupation and the stretching of the American military has made the war in Iraq a negative for U.S. foreign policy. McCain is more likely to "win" Iraq by virtue of his willingness to win via attrition, but it does not address broader global security issues. If his strategy works, Iraq will be completely pacified but it could take years to redeploy to other areas of concern such as Afghanistan.

Obama's Iraq strategy essentially illustrates a belief that Iraq is ready to go its own way. His desire to hold the Iraqi government accountable for its own security is noble, but also represents a strong risk. They have demonstrated little ability to rule their country effectively, and therefore a strong risk of sectarian violence still exists if U.S. forces leave. While Obama's strategy for Iraq is weaker, it is taken in the context of his overall security strategy. Shifting the focus back to al-Qaeda and getting out of Iraq will reduce al-Qaeda's recruiting power, and increase the likelihood of their marginalization. It is riskier because Iraq could deteriorate, but if successful would be the better of the two plans.