http://www.elections.foxnews.com

The mudslinging between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton hit an all-time high in the past two weeks, but more than just their reputations as patriotic churchgoers and honest storytellers is at stake. The heightened competition has also led Obama and Clinton to make wilder and wilder blanket statements, not least last week at the Democratic debate in Philadelphia, where both candidates made solemn vows not to raise taxes on people earning less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year. Obama committed himself to Charlie Gibson’s request for a “rock-hard pledge” that “we will be out of Iraq in 16 months… no matter what the military commanders” say, and Clinton has similarly promised to begin withdrawing troops soon after entering office.

These guarantees on Iraq pose much more of a threat to the Democrats’ chances in November than cracks at their lapel pins. Neither of the candidates can pretend to know what the best course of action will be in Iraq a year from now, and doing so only makes us question their credibility and common sense. As we begin withdrawing, we may face any number of challenges, ranging from the logistical difficulties of transporting hundreds of thousands of troops and technocrats from Iraq to possible retaliatory attacks on the soldiers left behind after each stage of withdrawal. The details of these risks will remain unclear until we face them, but we know that they will be complex enough to challenge any hard deadline for withdrawal—especially one inside 16 months. When choosing their outline for Iraq, then, these self-imposed deadlines may very well force both candidates to choose between two paths: unabashedly reneging on their vows, or hurrying a withdrawal to comply with their promises. Obama and Clinton may both then be in the unfortunate position of either compromising their integrity or acting against their better judgment.

If faced with this trade-off, the irrationality of a hasty withdrawal would be the more worrying fault between the two. The war in Iraq has included considerable massive human loss and great catastrophe, but just as upsetting for most Americans was the blitheness and single-mindedness with which President Bush seemed to plow ahead. Acting similarly single-mindedly, even to pursue opposite ends, is just as disquieting. It suggests that the candidates believe that average Americans don’t understand the intricacies of the war and can be comforted by empty promises. Instead, it seems reasonable to believe that the average American appreciates the grave risks associated with a hasty withdrawal and wants a president with the sound judgment to pull out our troops as soon as possible—but not so soon that the withdrawal itself further endangers American lives.

This concern is heightened because, despite the Democrats’ relative popularity abroad, they would continue to face huge obstacles in the foreign policy arena if elected. Both Obama and Clinton would surely be able to get some easy wins, firstly by renouncing all forms of torture and secondly by taking the initial steps to close Guantanamo Bay and our secret prisons. Beyond declaring good intentions, though, things get murky: We will still pursue our national interests abroad, and certain groups abroad will still want us to do things we cannot. We will continue to resist pressure to join the International Criminal Court, threatening our relations with Europe; we will still refuse to take a hard line on Israeli militarism against Palestinians; and we will still drag our feet on trade, compromising our economic ties in the Americas. Even the initiatives we hope to genuinely dedicate ourselves to, like global warming, will continue to face an intransigent Congress.

So we should savor victories when we can get them, and making false guarantees on timelines for withdrawal endangers a Democratic win on Iraq. Any “rock-hard pledge” on the war simply sets the Democrats on the path of broken promises and poor management of the war that ruined President Bush’s international reputation in the first place. The Democratic candidates should therefore merely show a new attitude toward the war and reaffirm their commitment to closing the door in Iraq as soon as is justifiably possible. They should play up their judgment and common sense—besides, that’s what Bush was missing all along.