“War … What is it good for? Absolutely nothing.” While the song doesn’t have it completely right, our most recent wars do much more to confirm this position rather than oppose it. Disregarding the faulty reasons for initiating them, the wars in Vietnam and Iraq did and are doing, respectively, much more harm than good.

Yes, Saddam Hussein was a crappy guy. But false evidence was presented in order to initiate this war that is approaching six years in length, 4,500 in American deaths, and $1 trillion in costs.

Given this sentiment, it should be no surprise that I, like millions of other Obama supporters, will vote for him in November largely because he was against the Iraq War from day one.

As he said in a speech in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002:

“I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”

He got it all right.

Though I empathize with John McCain, who now assuredly regrets his support of the resolution, I hate to think of what could have been. The man has military experience and congressional clout. If he had utilized this to call for further evidence and to question the Bush administration, he might very likely have my vote.

Alas, he did not.

And now, rather than admit that a country can end a war without clearly winning or losing it, McCain focuses on nothing but his push for the counterinsurgency surge in Iraq. Touting this is like giving your whole family the flu then offering them each a glass of OJ: it’s a start, but it doesn’t make up for anything.

McCain is so jaded by surge-success that he envisions troop presence in Iraq for a hundred years, claiming that it is a no-brainer for the US to “maintain presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.”

Obama, on the other hand, knows that Al Qaeda is doing all of this on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border now, not in Iraq. He return focus to al-Qaeda, but first he will deal with Iraq intelligently.

He will prudently bring troops home and will not create permanent military bases in Iraq — the fundamental reason for Islamic anti-Americanism in not only Iraq but every other Middle Eastern country. Additionally, he will provide $2 billion in relief for the 2.5 million refugees who left, combating the “brain drain” and enabling the country to rediscover the stability that comes through economic success. Most importantly, Obama will use diplomacy — the future of American relations with the entire Middle East, according to Central Command head David Petraeus — to support the sovereignty of Iraq that the Bush administration promised.

Whether talking to Iraq’s government or Taliban leaders to create stable and American-free countries; to the leaders of nations which may be pursuing nuclear weapons; or to the international community, Barack Obama will talk in order to keep disasters like Iraq from ever happening .

McCain, however, will not.

— Steve Adams is a graduate student in political science from Annapolis, Md.