Iraq isn't "fading" as an issue . . . it's just on temporary hiatus

Michael Cohen makes a fantastic point over at DemocracyArsenal: there's been some talk recently about how Iraq is no longer a major focus in the presidential race (his post addresses an article, naturally, by Peter "Failing Upwards" Beinart). This is true, but somewhat misleading.

Iraq will be a huge issue in the 2008 election, probably the most significant and certainly one of the top few. The reason it isn't getting a ton of attention *right now* is because it's primary season, and the candidates in each party simply don't differ that much in their respective Iraq plans/policies. The Democrats all want to end the war, and while they disagree on the exact speed and plan for redeployment, there's not enough variations to make it a hot primary issue, especially among the front-runners. The Republicans all want to stay in Iraq forever. Once we get nominees, there will be plenty of differences to hash out.

And a huge majority of Americans will agree with the Democratic nominee and disagree with the Republican one.

As Cohen says,

[T]he notion that the Iraq war will be a non-story once the two parties settle on a candidate seems pretty far-fetched. If the GOP candidate continues to support keeping troops in Iraq at present levels, does Beinart really think that the Democratic candidate will not remind voters of this fact? With more than 60% of the American people opposed to war that would be some pretty lousy politics. Indeed, I imagine it will be the centerpiece of his or her campaign. We may be getting a temporary respite from talk on the campaign trail about the war, but I, for one, would be pretty shocked if Beinart is right and Iraq is a "non-story" in the general election.

The idea that Iraq won't be a huge issue in the inter-party race, rather than the current intra-party ones, is crazy.