Note to Democrats: Weakness on War Dooms Party

The current Democratic weakness in opposing Bush's war could have fatal long-term consequences for the party -- as well as for our troops -- now that Democrats have largely abandoned efforts to push for firm timelines on withdrawal. (Today, The Washington Post reports, this cave-in to Bush is being repackaged as "incremental" change.)

By allowing the war to drag on with over 100,000 troops likely to be in place by next November, the party is dooming itself to long-term disaster, unless Congressional Democrats find the will to effectively oppose the war (if pushed successfully by anti-war groups). That's because the complete unraveling of Iraq and much of the Middle East will likely take place on their watch, not under Bush, when a Democratic president begins large-scale pullouts on behalf of a public clamoring for change, a long-overdue withdrawal that will take place without the necessary planning for a safe, fully-funded, responsible withdrawal that should have started years ago.

Instead, since taking office, they've veered off-course and failed to effectively make the case for a timetable withdrawal from Iraq that most Americans want.

As Juan Cole astutely points out this week:

The central question is whether the Democrats can force a significant reduction of troops from Iraq on Bush's watch, so as to avoid Iraq becoming exclusively their headache when they (as is likely) take over the White House in January of 2009. If they could, this drawdown would be the best option. Certainly, that is what a majority of Iraqis thinks, according to the new BBC/ABC poll.

But the answer is: No. The Democrats cannot get the troops out of Iraq because they cannot overturn a Bush veto in the House of Representatives, and because they cannot overcome the need for a consensus of 60 senators in the Senate. Some Democrats, such as Joe Lieberman, oppose a rapid withdrawal. And the likelihood that 11 Republican senators will suddenly become withdrawalniks between now and November, 2008, is negligible.

The testimony of Petraeus and Crocker may marginally reinforce the will of the Republicans to stay the course, but I do not think it is decisive. In all likelihood, the Republican senators would have continued to block their Democratic colleagues from doing anything really dramatic, anyway.

If the Democrats cannot prevail in withdrawing before Bush goes out of office (and they cannot), and if they then rapidly draw down the troops on taking office in 2009, they face the real prospect of a "Gerald Ford meltdown" of the sort that occurred in 1975 when the North Vietnamese and their VC allies took over South Vietnam.

You will note that Ford only served a couple of years as president and lost his election bid to a relative unknown named Jimmy Carter. Although economic stagflation and the stain of Watergate contributed to his defeat, I think the spectacle of the debacle in Indochina harmed Ford a great deal. The United States lost a war, and lost out to its ideological rival in an entire subcontinent of Asia in the midst of the Cold War. That would cause at least some Republicans to stay home in 1976, a sure way for Democrats to win an election.

Could 2010 look for Iraq like 1975 looked in Vietnam? Yes. I just do not see evidence that either the new Iraqi political class or the Iraqi security forces are likely to have the maturity to avoid a conflagration when the U.S. military withdraws.

The Democrats are still struggling to shake off 60 years of being derided as traitors and weak on national security, as analyzed by one of the GOP conservatives who helped contribute to the tarring of Democrats, Pat Buchanan, in a column called "Why the anti-war Democrats will retreat." Obviously, he despises Democrats and progressive principles, but he's accurately diagnosed the Democrats' ailments on national security; in fact national security is its "third-rail" issue, as shown by their caving on the FISA warantless wiretapping in August.. This continuing weakness has been ably diagnosed by Glenn Greenwald in Salon in discussing the hypocritical rantings generated by the controversial Moveon.org ad on General Petraeus. He highlights this quote from Buchanan:

What happened to the party of Speaker Pelosi and Reid, which was going to end U.S. involvement in the war and not permit Bush to pursue victory the way Richard Nixon pursued it in Vietnam for four years?

Answer: Terrified of the possible consequences of the policies they recommend, Democrats lack the courage to impose those policies.

When it comes to issues of war, Democrats are an intimidated lot. Sens. Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd and Reid were all stampeded by Bush into voting him a blank check for war in October 2002. Why? Because they feared Bush would declare them weak or unpatriotic if they denied him the authority to go to war, at a time of his choosing, until he had made a more compelling case for war.

Now they regret what they did. But, in a showdown, they will do it again. For Democrats have been psychologically damaged by 60 years of GOP attacks on them as the party of retreat and surrender.

Greenwald points out, "It really is the height of strangeness to witness the shrieking and self-righteous rage over the MoveOn ad as though such insinuations are prohibited in American political debates, the Line that Cannot be Crossed. That line is crossed routinely, and has been for decades, including when directed at a whole array of American combat veterans. Ask George McGovern about that. The only difference this time -- the sole difference that has so upset Joe Klein and his fellow media mavens -- is that it is being directed at the side that typically wields such accusatory rhetoric, rather than by them. "

But what's more depressing, actually, is the conventional wisdom in Washington now, after the Petraeus testimony, that a huge troop presence is required through the end of 2008. Bush wanted to buy time to kick-the-can of the Iraq war into a Democratic administration, and he's succeeded. As Greenwald summarizes the current thinking:

[It] is inescapably clear to everyone (rather than just bloggers) that we will remain in Iraq in full force through the end of the Bush presidency, and... according to a Fox News report this morning, "'everyone in town' is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months"....

Endless war and dying in Iraq, while planning for an Iran attack continues apace. What will it take for Congress to put a halt to this madness?

Comments

[dajson]

Here's what's got to happen, and what's going to happen. We progressives, the previously apathetic discusted, and previous non-voters will now take over the Democrat party and run all these beltway phoneys out of our party. Then we will finish off the repusive Republican party of non-hetorosexual family value fanatics. We will work with whoever fills the void made up of conservatives who already call themselves Independent anyway.

[jhNY]

The gravy train that is the money-carrying transport for all DC politicians is too finely-tuned an apparatus to be tinkered with by fools ignorant of its delicate workings. Right now, the train's engineers, the corporate sponsors of democracy, mean to continue on the route of endless wars for profit, and will dole out money to those passengers of either party who if they don't like the traveling conditions, at least have sense to roll down the shade if the scenery gets too bloody.

Both parties have their hands out to the same sponsors. Both parties have too much at stake in the status quo, in fact or in hope, to let the gravy train run off the tracks. The Republicans wear a smiley face mask as they ride first class, while the Democrats prefer to appear as Willie the Weeper, Emmet Kelly's old character, although in fairness, since theirs is the role of a tramp, they have learned to be content with riding the rails.

[NavyMom]

If war funding bills were sent to Bush despite veto threats, at least Bush would have to publicly defend the war costs. I'm thinking of a sort of passive resistance-wear down the GOP, put them on the defensive. The Dems are too often giving up without even a semblance of a fight. Think back to Ghandi and the liberation of India, even to the American Revolution and Washington's tactic of keeping together an army to harass the British. He lost battles,retreated, and fought again until he won.

[itmaybetoolate]

Nothing will change the course now. We will stay in Iraq indefinitely and we will bomb Iran. What is there in place to stop it? bushie can even claim he has a plan to withdraw the troops. I had to laugh at an article in my local progressive paper that urged me to write to my representatives about the war. Been there and done that! No more hope in that approach! BTW, NBC is reporting from Tehran today - the war drums are starting. Expect more. Meanwhile, expect more soldiers to die in Iraq, more smirks from bushie, more hypocrisy from the republicsums, and more hot air from the dims. As for the ad, when the scums scream that loud, you know you have hit a nerve!

[bethinCary]

So where are those contempt charges for not cooperating on other investigations?
Use what you have to pressure.

[snaggster]

"For Democrats have been psychologically damaged by 60 years of GOP attacks on them as the party of retreat and surrender."

So, why not surrender again? To King George W. Fools! They deserve the fate that awaits them. I am tired of their apologists saying that they don't have the votes. They do have the votes. If W doesn't like their bills, they just shouldn't pass any! Problem solved.

[itmaybetoolate]

Now that is a plan a like, snaggster!

[syllepsis]

The death of the Democratic party would be a good thing. A lot of people have been waiting till now to accept what we all know, that the Dems are useless and consigning our nation to destruction at the hands of Bush.
Pelosi's tenure as Speaker has been shameful. No one will regret seeing her gone. Hopefully, a new party will take the Dems' place, much as the Republicans took the Whigs' place when that party was unable to cope with the crisis of slavery.

[Wilbur]

Why would you wish for the death of the Democratic Party and not for that of the GOP? Unless, of course, you're really a GOP troll masquerading here as a progressive (as are so many other Dem bashers on this site).

Eighty-percent of the Dems in Congress have voted at various times this year to ratchet down things in Iraq while, at most, only two percent of the Repukes have done so. Yet you blame the Dems for everything Iraq-related? Such powers of perception!

Wilbur

[jfor]

The Dems have had ample opportunity to show us some backbone. Unfortunately the spineless jellyfish leading Congress are to busy skating, skirting and skedaddling away from the most important issue facing America. Have all our pathetic leaders Retarded or Demented forgotten that polls actually represent something and that would be WE THE PEOPLE.

Bush is awful, but damn if the Democrats are not proving to be completely worthless.

[Wilbur]

You people just don't get it! How the hell can the Dems do ANYTHING without some help from Republicans, particularly in the Senate, where there are 49 each of Dems and GOP'ers and two independents (Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who opposes the war, and Joe LIEberman of Connecticut, who wants only more war). Yes, the Dems TECHNICALLY are in control of Congress, but their small margins in each house preclude getting anything passed (or overridden, in the case of vetoes by Dumya) without GOP support.

Those who blame the Dems for the lack of progress in ending the war are, IMHO, closet Republicans who are trying to depress the Dem voting base in '08. Put the blame where it has always belonged - on Bush and his fascist GOP minions!

Wilbur

[CornellRedneck]

Willie, you are absolutely right-- for the most part. This Dem majority *has* flexed its muscles.
Really. Look at all the new post offices and Federal buildings that have been named during this Congress' brief tenure!

[jfor]

wilbur, I am not sure who "you people" might be, but if they are the ones who are not partisan hacks then count me in. You amuse me.

[wldnswmmr]

The Chinese government has figured it out for us. Not to worry. They're getting ready to call in their 1.3 trillion marker, in the form of U.S. treasuries. The threat to impose a tariff of 27% on Chinese imports was the last straw. We have put 2 wars on Chinese credit cards during the last 6 years, and run up the national debt by 1/2 trillion each year. When Bush is seen begging for "emergency funding" for his vanity war with a cratering U.S. dollar and a decomposing stock market as a backdrop, things will change quickly. We are imagining that the financial status quo will hold till January 2009. This is very wishful thinking. Things are about to change in a very fundamental way.

[Spookcatcher]

Madness is correct. Is there a Doctor in the House or Senate, literally? The President and the Vice President are delusional psycopaths. Their mania to maintain power and control no matter and to remain indifferent to the evidence of their activities and what it costs their country (US) and with no regard for human life and suffering, no matter how many people are murdered and maimed , Americans as well as other all the other nationalities abroad (especially the innocent Iraqiis), is legal physical evidence of severe mental illness. And that my fellow Americans is Constitutional (and rational)grounds for removal from office. Seriously, we need to have the Ambulances pull up and have these men straitjacketed and confined for the safety of our Nation and the World.