WILLIAMSBURG, Va.- Vice President Joe Biden warned Friday that the United States faces a tough – and dangerous – task as it shifts the military from Iraq to Afghanistan.

“The road remains incredibly, incredibly perilous” in both countries, President Barack Obama’s No. 2 told House Democrats just before embarking on the first foreign trip by a top Obama administration official.

Obama made an Iraq drawdown and an Afghanistan buildup a foreign policy cornerstone of his presidential campaign, and the administration is set to move forward toward both goals in coming weeks.

The president dispatched Biden to a gathering of House Democrats at a retreat southeast of Washington to deliver an assessment of international challenges ahead. Biden’s somber take on foreign policy – in contrast to Obama’s feisty campaign-style pep talk on the economy the night before – appeared intended to lower expectations for an immediate troop withdrawal in Iraq and a quick turnaround in Afghanistan.

“The progress is real in Iraq,” Biden said before invoking a bit of football lingo. “We’re on the 20-yard line moving in but there’s an awful lot to be done.”
 
He said the administration must be “very deeply involved” not just in drawing down troops in a careful manner but also in helping Iraqis reach true political reconciliation. “We’re going to have to get in there and be much more aggressive in forcing them to deal with these issues,” he said.

In Afghanistan, Biden said, “The economic and security and social conditions there are daunting” and the United States has “geography, demography and history working against us.” Returning to football analogies, he said the United States has 80 yards in that country to bring stability and eliminate terrorist strongholds.

“We have a long, long way to go there,” Biden said.

But he also says the deteriorating situation and Taliban resurgence is a global problem, and there is no solution in Afghanistan without Pakistan.

“We’ve got to make Afghanistan the world’s responsibility, not just the United States’ responsibility,” he said, eliciting cheers.

The U.S. has some 33,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, and Obama is expected to send another 30,000 this year as his administration shifts its focus from the war in Iraq to the Afghan conflict.

Biden, the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, spoke to the Democratic rank and file just before leaving for a security conference in Munich, Germany. He also was slated to hold bilateral meetings with Russia, Georgia, Germany, France and Britain.

RALEIGH, N.C. – Luther H. Hodges Jr., a long-time North Carolina public servant and business ambassador, will soon be blogging as he travels to Sulaimani, in the Kurdish region of Iraq.

You can track Luther’s adventures, currently an adjunct professor at UNC’s Kenan-Flagler Business School, by following his daily blog at www.tarheeldemocracydispatch.com, presented in association with Kohn Associates, LLC.

Tarheel Democracy Dispatch provides media outlets, institutions of higher learning, and all engaged North Carolinians with a direct look into the culture of a developing northeastern Iraq city, through a daily blog composed by Luther himself.

The first blog post from Iraq will begin on Feb. 6 as Mr. Hodges is expected to arrive in Sulaimani to begin his stent at American University’s Executive MBA program teaching business law and ethics. 

The American University of Iraq in Sulaimani is a private, non-profit, comprehensive liberal arts, American style university situated in the progressive and safe city of Sulaimani, in the Kurdish region of Northern Iraq and opened its doors in October 2007.  At all levels of instruction at AUI-S, learning is enhanced by way of small, interactive classes and close student-faculty relationships and the language of instruction is English throughout.

Hodges currently lives in Chapel Hill with his wife Cheray and their three wonderful Labrador Retrievers. 
Luther graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1957 and went on to Harvard to receive his Masters in Business Administration, which he completed in 1961. 

Upon his graduation from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, he served as an officer in the United States Navy.  He ran for United States Senate from North Carolina in 1978, later he served as Acting Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Commerce under President Jimmy Carter.  Currently, he serves as an Adjunct Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Kenan-Flagler Business School, along with serving on various boards of directors.

(Richmond Times-Dispatch, 02-01-09)
Donald Nuechterlein, a political scientist, is the author of “America Recommitted: A Superpower Assesses Its Role in a Turbulent World.” Contact him at nuechtd@cstone.net.
CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. – The United States has fought four costly wars since 1945 and none of them ended as World War II did, with complete victory.

In Korea, after nearly three years of huge American troop casualties, the war ended in 1953 in a draw with North and South Korea divided along roughly the same border they had at the start of the war.

The Vietnam war, begun in 1965, was an even costlier one for U.S. troops. And it ended in defeat when North Vietnam’s army took control of the south after Congress cut off funding for U.S. operations in 1975.

The third and fourth wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, are still in progress. Although the outcome in Afghanistan is not clear, Iraq appears to be on track to become a stable but fragile democratic state.

In Afghanistan, U.S. and allied forces that ousted the Taliban regime in 2001 now find a resurgent Taliban that threatens security in large parts of the country. Many experts conclude that Afghanistan is a fractured country, threatened by Taliban forces in the south and east, and by warlords elsewhere. Unlike Iraq,
Afghanistan has never had a government that controlled the entire country.

In all of these wars, the presidents made difficult choices: Agree to an unsatisfactory outcome (Korea), accept a stalemate and eventual defeat (Vietnam), persevere to achieve success (Iraq), and, until recently, neglect the enemy’s resurgence (Afghanistan).

LET’S EXAMINE the choices made on Vietnam and Iraq by presidents Richard Nixon and George W. Bush and consider the alternatives President Obama has as he deals with Iraq and Afghanistan in the coming years.
A noted historian, Margaret MacMillan, authored an excellent book two years ago titled Nixon and Mao: The Week That Changed the World. She recounts how Nixon and his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, secretly planned a presidential trip to China in 1972 to end a 23-year freeze on U.S. relations with Communist China. Here, according to MacMillan, is the situation that Nixon faced when he entered the White House in 1969:

“The Soviet Union and its allies had watched with pleasure as American power failed to crush North Vietnam. American allies had watched uneasily as their superpower showed its weakness. Their publics had increasingly turned sour on the United States; in Canada and Western Europe, huge demonstrations demanded that the United States get out of Vietnam. Much of the criticism, and not just from the left, was disturbingly anti-American. The United States was portrayed as an international bully.”

Nixon believed that opening relations with China would persuade both China and the Soviet Union to support a negotiated settlement in Vietnam that preserved the south as a viable state. Although he succeeded in withdrawing American ground troops in 1973, he failed in Vietnam when North Vietnamese forces took over the south in 1975 and forced a humiliating evacuation of all Americans.

In Iraq in 2007, George Bush faced this difficult choice: whether to withdraw American forces, as domestic and international opinion was demanding, or order a surge of forces in an effort to reverse the downward trend in security that threatened to turn into full-scale civil war. He chose a surge. After a year of sustained operations, it brought security to nearly all of Iraq’s cities as well as countryside.

WHAT ARE Barack Obama’s options in Afghanistan and Iraq?

U.S. commanders in Afghanistan have asked for 30,000 more troops to fight the Taliban and to strengthen the Kabul government. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said last week that he has recommended about 12,000 additional troops. Yet, none of our NATO allies, with the exception of Britain, Canada, and the Netherlands, is willing to add to current forces. Germany doesn’t currently permit its troops to engage in combat.

If the president adds troops in Afghanistan, he will need to decide soon whether to seek a negotiated settlement of the war, one that doesn’t result in a withdrawal of American forces. Secretary Gates has stated that the United States will continue to pursue al-Qaida leaders hiding in neighboring Pakistan. The alternative to a negotiated settlement is adding many more combat troops in an effort to stabilize the entire country.

The president’s choice in Iraq is far easier. He will be able to withdraw the troops within 16 to 18 months and be reasonably confident that the new government, which assumes power this month, will take responsibility for policing the country. Washington will continue to provide logistic, intelligence, and training support.

If things go well in Iraq in the next two years, Barack Obama will see the country’s successful transition to a stable, democratic government. And if so, part of the credit will go to George Bush, who was not willing to accept a defeat.

WASHINGTON – President Bush said Friday that the fight in Iraq has been longer and more costly than expected, but he defended the U.S.-led invasion, saying the world could not risk leaving Saddam Hussein’s power unchecked.

In a speech he was delivering later on Friday, Bush defended his Middle East policies, claimed some progress and outlined his view of what President-elect Barack Obama will inherit there. Bush said state-sponsored terrorism continues to destabilize the region, people still live under oppression, political and economic reforms are advancing “in fits and starts,” and Iran’s uranium enrichment remains a threat to peace.

The president said that while it’s true that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was not connected to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the decision to oust him cannot be viewed in isolation.

“In a world where terrorists armed with boxcutters had just killed nearly 3,000 people, America had to decide whether we could tolerate a sworn enemy that acted belligerently, that supported terror and that intelligence agencies around the world believed had weapons of mass destruction,” Bush said, referring to intelligence reports that later proved false.

“It was clear to me, to members of both political parties, and to many leaders around the world that after Sept. 11, this was a risk we could not afford to take,” the president said about the Iraq war, which has claimed the lives of more than 4,200 U.S. military personnel.

Bush also credited the Iraq invasion that deposed Saddam with persuading Iran to suspend its nuclear weapons search. He noted the U.S. intelligence community has timed Tehran’s halting of a key part of its nuclear weapons program to 2003 – the year the war began.

“The defeat of Saddam … appears to have changed the calculation of Iran,” Bush said.

More broadly, he defended his administration’s approach to diplomacy with Iran, which so far has been unsuccessful.

“We have made our bottom line clear,” Bush said. “For the safety of our people and the peace of the world, America will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.”

Bush said that after Saddam’s regime had been toppled by U.S.-led forces, his administration chose to stand by the Iraqi people, help nurture a budding democracy – even launch a military buildup when increased violence threatened to tear the nation asunder.

“When Saddam’s regime fell, we refused to take the easy option and install a friendly strongman in his place,” he said. “Even though it required enormous sacrifice, we stood by the Iraqi people as they elected their own leaders and built a young democracy.”

Earlier this week, Iraq’s three-member presidential council signed off on a new U.S.-Iraqi security agreement, which requires the nearly 150,000 U.S. troops to leave Iraq by January 1, 2012. It also requires American soldiers to withdraw from Iraqi cities by the end of June 2009. On Thursday and Friday, Bush called several Iraqi leaders, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, to thank them for their work in getting the agreement approved.

Bush said his policies in the Middle East have not always been popular and sometimes have fallen short of the administration’s goals. “For example, the fight in Iraq has been longer and more costly than expected,” he said.

Bush called the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the most “vexing” problem in the region – something that his administration has been seen as slow, at least in his early years as president, to aggressively mediate.

Still, he noted that he was the first U.S. president to call for a Palestinian state and said he sees progress toward reaching a two-state solution. After months of publicly insisting that an agreement between the two sides could be sealed by a year-end deadline, which was set by the two sides and Bush last November in Annapolis, Md., the Bush administration has conceded that it will hand the fragile, unfinished U.S.-backed peace effort to Obama.

Bush recalled the status of the Middle East talks when he came to office, following former President Bill Clinton’s inability to forge an agreement at Camp David in 2000. The collapse of those talks gave way to the Al-Aqsa intifada, which broke out a couple of months after the Camp David peace summit in July 2000.

Bush said that in 2001, more than 500 Israelis and Palestinians were killed. He called the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat a “terrorist who stole from his people and walked away from peace.”

He also criticized former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. “Sharon was elected to fight terror and pursue a ‘Greater Israel’ policy that allowed for no territorial concessions,” he said. “And neither side could envision a return to negotiations or the realistic possibility of a two-state solution.”

Even as the U.S. presence is on the verge of receding in Iraq, America needs to stay engaged with that key Middle Eastern nation, two international experts said in Richmond on Wednesday.

“Iraq could be a positive force in the region,” said former Iraqi defense official Nazar Janabi.But, Janabi said, “that will require some strategic patience” on the part of America.

Beyond that, said former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq David G. Newton,”America has an obligation to leave a viable [Iraqi] government behind.”

Besides, Newton said, “We do not want to have to go back there a third time.”

Janabi is now with The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Newton is with the Middle East Institute in Washington.

The two spoke to about 150 people at a World Affairs Council of Greater Richmond program at the Omni Richmond Hotel on Wednesday night.

Continued engagement with Iraq is important because that country has about 10 percent of the world’s oil reserves, and sits in the middle of one of the world’s most volatile regions, Janabi said.

“It could be come a terrorist safe haven and the scene of future regional wars,” he said, “or it could become a stable and prosperous U.S. ally.”

And the U.S. has a moral obligation to the Iraqis to help repair the damage of the war, Newton said.

“What matters now is not how U.S. presence in Iraq started,” Janabi said, “but how it will change in the next four years.”

America’s infusion of troops into Iraq last year — the “surge” — has reduced violence and that “makes other things possible” to help build a stable society there, Newton said.

Though he decried the Bush administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq, “we can now have more hope,”

Newton said. “You can talk about success, if you define it carefully.”

Still, the retired diplomat said, “the progress made in Iraq is fragile.” Violence could easily flare up again.

The challenge facing the United States, Janabi said, is to prevent the emergence of authoritarian regimes — civilian or military — again in Iraq.

“It can do this by ensuring free and fair elections in Iraq in 2009, in the hope that this leads to the emergence of countervailing centers of power to check that of the central government,” the Iraqi analyst said, “and by maintaining a residual presence in Iraq beyond 2011 to deter the military from undertaking a coup.”

Janabi served from 2004 to 2006 as director general for defense policy and requirements in the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. He now focuses on Iraqi and Middle Eastern security issues and democratization in the region.
Newton served as the U.S. ambassador to Iraq from 1984 to 1988 and as ambassador to Yemen from 1994 to 1997.

CHICAGO – The bitter general election campaign behind them, President-elect Barack Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain met Monday to discuss ways to reduce government waste, promote bipartisanship and find other ways to improve government.

The two former rivals met in Obama’s transition headquarters in Chicago. Obama said before the meeting that he and McCain planned “a good conversation about how we can do some work together to fix up the country, and also to offer thanks to Sen. McCain for the outstanding service he’s already rendered.”

Obama and McCain sat together for a brief picture-taking moment with reporters, along with Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s incoming White House chief of staff, and South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, McCain’s close friend. Obama and McCain were heard briefly discussing football, and Obama cracked that “the national press is tame compared to the Chicago press.”

When asked if he planned to help the Obama administration, McCain replied, “Obviously.”

After the meeting, Obama and McCain issued a joint statement saying: “At this defining moment in history, we believe that Americans of all parties want and need their leaders to come together and change the bad habits of Washington so that we can solve the common and urgent challenges of our time.”

“It is in this spirit that we had a productive conversation today about the need to launch a new era of reform where we take on government waste and bitter partisanship in Washington in order to restore trust in government, and bring back prosperity and opportunity for every hardworking American family,” it said. “We hope to work together in the days and months ahead on critical challenges like solving our financial crisis, creating a new energy economy, and protecting our nation’s security.”

Obama and McCain clashed bitterly during the fall campaign over taxes, the Iraq War, and ways to fix the ailing economy. Things got ugly at times, with McCain running ads comparing Obama to celebrities Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and raising questions about his rival’s distant relationship with a 1960s-era radical, William Ayers.

Obama’s campaign, meanwhile, labeled the 72-year old McCain “erratic” and ran a campaign ad falsely suggesting that McCain and Rush Limbaugh shared similar anti-immigration views. McCain delivered a gracious concession speech on Election Night, paying tribute to Obama’s historic ascendancy as the nation’s first black president. The two agreed that night to meet after the election when McCain called Obama to concede defeat.

Sen. Elizabeth Dole said today she would support the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, as long as it was based on ground conditions and had the support of the military.

WASHINGTON – Republican John McCain expressed incredulity in the presidential debate Tuesday that Democrat Barack Obama would tip off the enemy by saying publicly that he’d attack al-Qaida in Pakistan under certain conditions. “Remarkable,” McCain said during the presidential debate, meaning remarkably irresponsible.

Lost in his withering criticism: McCain took the same position as Obama, a year ago, when he said, “Sure. We have to,” when asked if he’d go after Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

Both candidates stretched facts, sometimes past the breaking point, as they addressed the financial crisis and misrepresented each other’s position on health care during their second presidential debate.

One of the night’s sharpest exchanges was over what should be done if the U.S. knew the whereabouts of bin Laden and his terrorists in sovereign Pakistan, and Pakistani officials were unable or unwilling to strike. Obama repeated that he’d attack across the border in that instance.

“Sen. Obama likes to talk loudly,’ McCain said in response. “In fact, he said he wants to announce that he’s going to attack Pakistan. Remarkable.”

McCain went on: “I’m not going to telegraph my punches, which is what Sen. Obama did. And I’m going to act responsibly, as I have acted responsibly throughout my military career and throughout my
career in the United States Senate.”

In an October 2007 interview with Military Times, however, McCain’s position was indistinguishable from Obama’s.

Asked if “you’d go get him” if U.S. forces had a fix on bin Laden in Pakistan, McCain said: “Sure. Sure. We have to, and I’m sure that after the initial flurry, that whoever our friends are, wherever he is, would be relieved because, as I mentioned to you before, he’s still very effective in the world, very, very effective.”

McCain broadened that threat to say he’d target the Taliban operating in Pakistan, too: “I think that if we knew of al-Qaida – more specifically Taliban, it’s mainly Taliban that are operating in these places – that we have to do what’s necessary. We don’t have to advertise it. We don’t have to embarrass or humiliate the Pakistani government.”

Also in the debate:

OBAMA: Said McCain’s proposal to give people a tax credit in exchange for treating employers’ health insurance contributions as taxable wages amounts to “what one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away.”

THE FACTS: Obama’s suggestion that McCain’s health care plan is a wash for families is misleading. McCain offers families a $5,000 tax credit to help them buy health insurance. The corresponding increase in taxable wages would result in a much smaller cost than the value of the tax credit, at least at first. Over time, the value of the tax credit may diminish as premiums rise. However, the Tax Policy Center estimates that McCain’s plan would increase the federal deficit by $1.3 trillion over 10 years – mainly because it would lead to less tax revenue coming in, meaning it is a true tax break overall.
      —

McCAIN: Said he would provide a $5,000 refundable tax credit for families to buy health insurance “rather than mandates or fines for small businesses as Sen. Obama’s plan calls for.”

THE FACTS: Obama’s health care plan does not impose mandates or fines on small business. He would provide small businesses with a refundable tax credit of up to 50 percent on health premiums paid on behalf of their employees. Also, large employers that do not offer meaningful coverage or contribute to the cost of coverage would be required to pay a percentage of payroll toward the costs of a public insurance plan. But small businesses would be exempt from that requirement.
      —

OBAMA: “Actually I’m cutting more than I’m spending so that it will be a net spending cut.”
 
THE FACTS: Obama has many ambitious plans to spend more taxpayer dollars on a variety of federal programs, including clean energy technologies and job training. He’s said he’ll cut pork-barrel programs and the costs of the war in Iraq to pay for it – as well as raise taxes on the wealthy – but the specifics of his new spending plans greatly outweigh the few spending cuts he’s identified.
      —
 
McCAIN: Said one way out of the financial crisis is to “stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don’t like us.”

THE FACTS: Although he didn’t spell it out, he was referring – as he has in the past – to purchases of oil from countries hostile to the U.S. The figure is inflated and misleading. The U.S. is not spending nearly that much on oil imports and roughly one-third of what it does spend goes to friendly countries such as Canada, Mexico and Britain.
      —

OBAMA: Blamed some of the problem of terrorism in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region on Bush administration policy in Pakistan, saying “We can’t coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him billions of dollars and then he’s making peace treaties with the Taliban and militants.”
 
THE FACTS: Obama oversimplifies ex-President Pervez Musharraf’s approach to making peace deals. In fact, the U.S.-backed Musharraf focused more heavily on military action, launching blistering attacks on the militants at times and negotiating peace deals with them at others. Obama also ignores the fact that Pakistan’s newly elected civilian government, also U.S.-supported, is seeking the same kind of peace deals and has stepped back from heavy-handed tactics that were pursued by the Musharraf government.
      —

McCAIN: Said Obama had voted for tax increases “94 times.”

THE FACTS: This inflated count, heard before, includes repetitive votes as well as votes to cut taxes for the middle class while raising them on the rich. An analysis by factcheck.org found that 23 of the votes were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all, seven were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, 11 would have increased taxes on only those making more than $1 million a year.
      —

OBAMA: “I believe this is a final verdict on the failed economic policies of the last eight years, strongly promoted by President Bush and supported by Sen. McCain, that essentially said that we should strip away regulations, consumer protections, let the market run wild, and prosperity would rain down on all of us.”

THE FACTS: McCain has indeed favored less regulation over the years but supported tighter rules and accountability on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years before the start of a financial crisis prompted in part by those giant mortgage underwriters. Obama was not a leader in that unsuccessful effort. Some of the current problems can be traced to legislation passed in 1999 that lifted many regulations over the financial industry. That deregulation was championed by then-Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, a McCain supporter, but also by President Clinton, who signed the legislation, and by former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, now a top Obama economic adviser.
      —

MCAIN: “Oil drilling offshore now is vital so we can bridge the gap between imported oil … and it will reduce the price of a barrel of oil. … We’ve got to drill offshore and do it now.”

THE FACTS: The government estimates that opening the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and eastern Gulf of Mexico to drilling “will not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.” Even then, it would only increase domestic oil production by 3 percent.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Leading in the polls, Barack Obama hopes to cement his standing while John McCain is trying to turn his fortunes around in their second presidential debate – with economic turmoil bordering on chaos suddenly serving as the backdrop.

Exchanges between the candidates have grown ever more acerbic with just four weeks to go until Election Day. Tuesday night’s debate gives Republican McCain one of his last chances before a nationwide TV audience to halt the Democrat’s momentum and convince voters he is capable of addressing the crisis in the credit, housing and stock markets.

The town hall format at Belmont University will allow voters to ask questions while NBC’s Tom Brokaw moderates. The candidates’ third and last debate will be Oct. 15 at Hofstra University in Hempsted, N.Y.

If Tuesday night’s confrontation echoes the most recent campaign exchanges, it could be far more personal and pointed than the two men’s Sept. 26 encounter. McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, has raised Obama’s ties to 1960s-era radical William Ayers and to the Democrat’s former pastor, the incendiary Rev. Jeremiah Wright. On Monday, McCain accused Obama of lying about the Republican senator’s record, and asked, “Who is the real Sen. Obama?”

Obama’s campaign rolled out a video recounting McCain’s involvement in the 1980s Keating Five savings and loan scandal, while Obama himself accused McCain of engaging in “smear tactics” to distract from economic issues.

Both nominees have condemned character attacks in the past, and some supporters are urging them to cool the rhetoric.

McCain in June told reporters, “Americans are sick and tired of the personal attacks, the impugning of integrity” in campaigns.

Obama told an Iowa crowd in January: “We can’t afford the same old partisan food fight. We can’t afford a politics that’s all about tearing opponents down instead of lifting the country up.”

Some Republicans, while defending McCain’s recent tactics, feel he needs to engage voters on the issues, not character, to overtake Obama. Scott Reed, who managed Republican Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign, said of the economic crisis: “McCain is suffering because Americans typically punish the party in power.”

McCain’s best bet, Reed said, is to show voters “who has the best solutions.”

Obama adviser David Axelrod told reporters the Democratic nominee wants to focus on economic issues but “we’re prepared for a very aggressive debate” if it becomes more personal. “We’re running for president of the United States,” he said. “It’s a rough, tough pursuit.”

The debate was being held at a time most Americans have a dismal view of the country’s direction.

A Gallup Poll released Tuesday showed just 9 percent say they’re satisfied with the way things are going, the lowest ever recorded in the 29 years Gallup has asked the question. Asked to name the country’s major problem, 69 percent said the economy. Next closest: 11 percent cited the Iraq war.