Archimedes famously boasted, “Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.” In the world of politics there is a comparable rule: With the right policy and effective delivery, the world of public opinion can be moved. Democrats have an opportunity to shift the national debate on Iraq. Doing this will require true leadership.
At the moment, 60 percent of Americans disapprove of the way President Bush is handling Iraq. (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) Nonetheless, the electorate isn’t climbing on board the Democratic bandwagon. A recent RT Strategies poll indicated that 70 percent of Americans feel that Dems criticism of the war hurts troop morale.
The electorate continues to stereotype the GOP as hawks and Dems as doves. From this perspective, it’s easy to characterize their positions on Iraq as “stay the course” versus “cut and run.” Reacting defensively, many Washington Democrats are willing to do anything to avoid being characterized as “weak” on Iraq. As a result, prominent Dems, such as Senator Hillary Clinton and Congressman Steny Hoyer, take positions indistinguishable from those of Bush.
At the moment, there are three Iraq strategies circulating in Washington. On the one extreme, there is the President’s plan to maintain our current force levels until the Iraqi Army is able to provide security, however long this takes. On the other extreme, there is the proposal of House Democrat John Murtha to bring our forces home ASAP, perhaps in six months. In between there is the perspective of many Democratic Senators that we should withdraw our troops within two years, but now is not the time to announce this.
Which Iraq plan a particular politician supports often depends upon personal considerations. George Bush wants to prove the invasion wasn’t a ghastly mistake. John McCain wants to win - he’s replaying Vietnam. Joe Lieberman wants to protect Israel. John Kerry wants to prove he’s smart. Hilary Clinton wants to show she’s “strong.” Steny Hoyer wants to replace Nancy Pelosi as House Minority Leader. Rahm Emanuel wants Dems to keep their options open in the mistaken belief that this will help them win in 2006. And so on.
Real leadership means setting aside personal objectives. Actually looking at the facts of the situation. Leadership means knowing the difference between an “optimal” and a “satisfactory” solution. Confronting the reality that there is no longer an optimal solution to Iraq: It’s too screwed up. If we stay we will sink deeper into the quicksand. If we leave Iraq there may be an all-out civil war.
Objectively, there are three factual considerations: Assessment of the current situation in Iraq - the prospects for stability. Impact of the occupation on the health of American forces. Appraisal of the relationship of our occupation to the overall war on terror.
In his November 30th speech, President Bush was upbeat. Maintaining that the situation in Iraq is improving, Bush provided a series of metrics to proves this: trained security forces, among others. “USA Today”
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-30-bush-speech-cover-story_x.htm)
examined these claims and found many to be questionable. Congressman Murtha indicated that rather than getting better, the situation is deteriorating. “[Iraq] is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion…The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq.”
A critical concern is the impact of a prolonged occupation on our troops. After talking to key Pentagon commanders, John Murtha believes that “Our military is suffering.” He noted that 50,000 soldiers have incurred “battle fatigue.” The Administration isn’t concerned about this.
Finally, there is the crucial question of how best to fight terrorists. The President believes, “Better to fight them in Iraq, so we don’t have to fight them here.” Nonetheless, this week the bipartisan 9/11 “Public Discourse Project” gave the nation failing grades on preparedness for another attack. “There is a lack of a sense of urgency.” The nation has lost focus. Republicans such as Regan-era National Security Agency director, Lieutenant General William Odom, call the war in Iraq, “the greatest strategic disaster in United States history.” We have funded an occupation when we should be fortifying America.
When he announced his plan, decorated war-veteran Murtha concluded, “The future of our country is at risk... It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.” Withdrawal is a satisfactory solution.
True leadership requires the recognition that there is no optimal solution in Iraq. By advocating withdrawal Democrats indicate that they understand America’s number one priority – fighting the war on terrorism. This doesn’t mean that our others goals for Iraq are wrong, merely that they are less important than defending the homeland. The US can’t do everything.
The situation in Iraq is beyond repair. Political posturing will not fix it. Someone in Washington must make difficult choices and focus on defending the USA. If not the Democrats, then who else will do this? Public opinion can be moved if the Democratic Party stands for truly protecting America.