Iraq and the Democrats 2008: Uh Oh!

The improved security situation in Iraq has exposed the ugly underbelly of the Democratic Party's lame opposition to the war in Iraq. It remains to be seen whether or not the uneasy stability taking hold in Iraq will boost the GOP's chances at the polls next November.

Since 2003, the central theme of the Democrats' opposition to the war was that it was mismanaged, that the Bush administration didn't send enough troops to do the job, and that big mistakes were made. All true. But few Democrats, except for the hardy band of progressives, denounced the war for what it was: an illegal war of aggression against a country that represented no threat to the United States.

Many Democrats, including the leading ones running for president, have based their opposition to the war on the notion that U.S. forces are stuck in the middle of a civil war between Iraqi factions determined to destroy each other. It's an unwinnable war, and we have to leave, they say. Far less often do we hear that the war in Iraq was a naked attempt by the United States to plant its flag at the heart of the world's oil region. Rarely do the Democrats explain - as General Wesley Clark now does, explicitly - that the war in Iraq was only the first of seven wars and regime change operations that were planned for Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Lebanon to remake the Middle East. And never, ever do the Democrats explain that a big reason for going into Iraq was to eliminate one of Israel's chief regional enemies, in a war designed by neoconservatives closely allied to the Israeli right.

So what happens to the Democrats if the unwinnable war starts to look, well, winnable?

To be sure, Iraq could explode again. Muqtada al-Sadr's rag-tag army is seething with resentment over U.S. raids into its strongholds. The intransigence of the Shia-led Baghdad regime, which refuses to accommodate the Sunni-led opposition, could reignite Sunni resistance. And the Kurds' insouciant efforts to build, willy-nilly, an independent Kurdistan complete with illegal oil deals could spark war over Kirkuk. Still, there's a 50-50 chance that Iraq will continue to improve through 2008.

Recent polls show that Americans are beginning to accept the notion that things in Iraq are getting better. In February, only 30 percent of those polled felt that the war was going well, while 67 percent said it was going badly. By November, the public was evenly split, 48 to 48 percent. So far that hasn't translated into a kinder, gentler feeling toward the White House, but pollsters I've interviewed suggest that there is a long lag time between results on the ground in Iraq and political perceptions. Maybe, next November, voters will still blame President Bush and the GOP for Iraq, but maybe by then, they won't.

How they feel will depend a lot of what the Democrats do. For the past four years, the Bush administration has argued that the continuing violence means that the United States has to stay in Iraq. Now, they're suddenly arguing that the relative calm means that we have to stay, too. Will Democrats buy that argument? Many leading centrist Democrats believe that the United States ought to stay in Iraq, albeit with a reduced military role, for many years to come. They've bought Colin Powell's pernicious Pottery Barn argument, and they argue that having broken Iraq, we own it. The Bush administration is already negotiating a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq by treaty - a treaty, incidentally, that might be in place before the next president takes office.

It's clear what Democrats ought to do. They should strongly oppose the idea of a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq. They should oppose the treaty that was announced between Bush and Prime Minister Maliki this week, and they should demand that it be subject to a vote in Congress. (The Iraqi parliament isn't exactly receptive, either.) They should oppose the creation of permanent bases in Iraq. They should seize the relative good news in Iraq to bolster the argument that it's time to inaugurate a complete withdrawal of all U.S. forces. They should hammer away at the fact that the Bush administration's war in Iraq was a war of aggression. And they should remind American voters, time and time again, of the lie-filled case for war that was cooked up in 2002.

But I don't expect that to happen. Already there are signs that if Iraq continues to quiet down, and if the media coverage of Iraq continues to shrink, then the Democrats will simply change the subject to a subject they feel more comfortable talking about: the dismal U.S. economy, the housing bubble, and the threat of recession in 2008. That would be a big, big mistake.

But Democrats never make mistakes. Do they?

Comments

[Tankan]

As with any war, unless you have the people behind you, it cannot be winnable, you are defeated already, no matter how long you remain.
If you find yourself standing in a deep hole and you wish to climb out, the beat thing you can do is stop digging!
Wake up and smell the coffee, simple common sense!

[BUSHsurvivor]

Since the administration is spinning the news out of Iraq...what would one expect. We used to have the military telling us who got killed. Now it's the Iraqi Police Force telling us.

The surge has not reached it's intended goals. The military part is improving, but the political part seems nowhere near completion.

If things were so good, would they still need the billions of dollars Bush requested that we need for domestic issues?

[Hastings]

During the darkest days of Iraq did the Democrats inspire the nation to stand united with courage, strength, reslove, and patience? No, they did not. Instead they inspired the nation to be weak, whining, defeatist cowards, and quiters. Because of this they will, and should, lose the election. On the bright side it appears to me that our next President will be Mike Huckabee and all you Huffers will have a grand old time trashing him.

[Think82]

The political solution Joe Biden has proposed, which is within the framework of the Iraqi constitution, is the only logical way out without leaving chaos behind, by giving more power to local regions with a loose central government. Dodd and Clinton voted for it, Obama was not there for the vote but has said it "might be the way to go."

www.planforiraq.com

[castlerider]

It's not a war... Its an occupation­/colonizat­ion for resources and corporate and logistical revenue and power..
Truly mired in fascist and dishonest ideals that will have their people forever hating and wanting to kill us. The idea that we are their to give them democracy is a farce.
Anyone who tries to talk against this illegal engagement, being so disatrous to our nation, its economy and worldwide credibility and calls it a "war" loses the argument before they've begun because Americans must support each other and their troops to success in any battle, or war; It's the only way.
Being an illegal and misguided occupation damages the very integrity of what America is made of, and its honor now and in the future. And this is absolutely what our campaign in Iraq has always been.

This is why Dems must unite and stop calling this a war. It is an occupation.

[Qbear]

The only rational democratic response to Iraq, snatch the White Housen 08 and send Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Gonzales to the Hague as war criminals.

[Vajara]

There is nothing to win by continuing this criminal activity that Bush and company launched in the first place. You are so right that the subject will be changed and the Dem's. will not call Bush a liar that he is. Everything, meaning all that comes out of his mouth is a lie. He doesn't know what Truth is and never has. His followers are the same and every democrat knows it, but just won't speak out and express the Truth as it is.

Yes, impeachment is the proper action as this is the only way the Truth will come out of the hidden places or secrecy that is protected by the courts.

Let's continue the mantra....bring all the troops home now. Impeach the criminals that have gotten us into this mess.

[Doofus]

'Democrats will simply change the subject to a subject they feel more comfortable talking about: the dismal U.S. economy, the housing bubble, and the threat of recession in 2008.'

Y'know, Demos always prefer to run on domestic
issues, not foreign ones, so: Yes, it's likely
that they will (try to) frame the election
campaign along domestic issues. Since, Repos
prefer 'national defense' issues to run on,
and since the War is on-going, looks like
they have a big advantage.

Yes, their are important other matters, of
oil prices, national debt, global warming
to name a few, but the simpler, compelling
issue will still be The War.

[Pdubya]

see john bruhns article on the deal made with malaki.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I stand by my current opinion: Impeach.
http://www.impeachbush.org
Do your own independent research, draw your
own independent conclusion­s...Smedle­y
said it best: 'war is a racket'.

[Charles TW]

I'm still angry at the Kerry and the Democrats for not applying the L-word (Liar) in '04 and hammering it in until it remained firmly in place. The President lied, is the gist of this entire Iraqi affair. In the end, that will be all that matters. Now that Bush has done an end around Congress by making a private treaty with Maliki and his toothless, paper tiger quasi-government for a confirmed extended presence of America in the region, the Sunni's who are now officially odd man out and labelled as counterinsurgents are almost certainly going to bide their time before responding with an unprecedented round of violence. Sadr has already made it known that an American presence in Iraqi is unacceptable under any circumstances. A Shiite-Sunni coalition to drive America from their homeland may seem improbable, but not as a last resort.

Since Bush will no longer be president when his betrayal of the American people and its principles, he will be safely ensconced back in Crawford immune to accountability for what he had wrought, while corporate interests descend upon Iraq and the rest of the region like magpies at a worm feast.

You are prefectly right in calling for the Democrats to take a bold stand against Bush's now blatant attempt at American imperialism that cannot help but to lead to a mind numbing loss of American lives and maybe ignite a global conflagration unprecedented in world history.

If only Kerry had made "liar" the centerpiece of his campaign, maybe Americans would have rallied around the truth. Our troops would be home now and the Iraq invasion would be little more than a unpleasant memory.

www.charlestwilliams.com

[realpolitic]

Iraq was one of seven wars planned in the region. Oh, Oh! So far, only two. Cheney wants at least one more war, preferably with Iran. He wants it so badly he can taste it. Every morning he wakes and says. "Ah, the smell of napalm, smells like victory!" Cheney will ask President Bush: "George, for Christmas can't I have one more small war or at least a bombing campaign, please?"

[demigod]

Stealing from a store is not OK if you get away with it. Killing someone is not OK if you beat the rap. Didn't the Republicans always criticize the Democrats and liberals for having "situational ethics" - didn't they always say Right is Right and Wrong is Wrong ? Boy have they gone 180. They used to be against foreign inverventions and nation building, now it's the cornerstone of their foreign policy, and a sham at that. The difference is the Democrats support short-term efforts to stop foreign atrocities, like the rape camps and the refugees freezing on the side of some mountain - that's humanitarian. The Republicans look to see where the oil is, then concoct an excuse to plunge in for the long haul. That's imperialism.

[GoreSavingPlanetForJesus]

We'll see in about 12 months if the democrats that supported the war have the courage to bring the troops home and end it.

"the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry, Jan. 23. 2003

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 16, 1998

[demigod]

First of all, you can't believe a single word out of our Administration OR our military, which are joined at the hip. Both lie blatently about things they don't even need to lie about. Secondly, we heard this many times during the Viet Nam war - we're winning, they're losing, be patient, the body count is blah, blah, blah. It's all LIES. And even if our invasion and occupation ARE being "successful" it encourages exactly the wrong behavior for nations all over the world. Should China take over Taiwan because they could be "successful", should Turkey take over part of Iraq if they can be "successful" - if success is measured in how well you can put down local opposition to your invasion, how well you can take over the national structure and resources of another nation that never attacked you. I can't believe America, which used to rail at the Soviet Union when they did this sort of thing, is in this position and calling it "success." Aggression does not stop being aggression just because you can crush the opposition. We're still hemmoraghing money into the sands of Iraq, even if the blood flow has slowed down.