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?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
War is failure. Our involvement in Iraq, unfortunately, became long-term the moment we stepped foot into it. I don't care which party is in control of the White House and Congress when we are finally able to pull out. It doesn't really matter anyway, because both parties will claim it was THEIR ideas that got us out. Politicians are the best at patting themselves on the back and this group of candidates, Democrat and Republican, are no different.
Resolving the Iraq debacle at this point means minimizing the deaths on both sides. The surge did turn things more favorably away from the violence, and I hope that it stays that way, enough so that our troops can come home.
Peace
How do you win an occupation? The republicans have convinced us that if were doing badly we should stay and if were doing well we should stay. There is no exit strategy, there never was. I honestly believe they screwed up the early portion of the war precisely so we would have to stay. Colin Powell warned them that if they break it they own it. What he didn't realize is that's exactly what they wanted, to own Iraq.
If things are going so well in Iraq, why aren't we bringing the troops home? Of course most of the decreased violence is a result of the fact that most urban areas have been ethnically cleansed. When the millions of internal and external refugees can return home, and Iraq is able to stand without over 100,000 foreign soldiers, I'll concede that things are going well.
All the Democrats need to do is stop discussing the war against Iraq in Republican terms. And they should be discussing the economy, housing, healthcare and other issues regardless.
The cost in lives and money are way too high and we win....nothing.
If Iraq becomes stable the Shia controlled government will cozy up to Iran and create a far greater threat to the West then Saddam.
That is why it was insane to remove the weak Saddam, he kept Iran in check.
Look at how strong Iran has become. Read Bush the Firsts book...he puts this forward as the reason he left Saddam in power.
When things are insanely violent and then become terribly violent,,things aren't better.
Could you walk alone and openly down the street in an Iraqi city?
I can walk down the street in the worst crime ridden parts of my local big city during the day with no problem.
The Iraqis have stood down for now, but that will probably not last.
There is too much power and money at stake.
What about the real war, The one in Afghanistan, the war that we were justified in fighting and are losing in a big way as the Taliban resurges.
What is it that we are winning anyway?
I must be in a minority. I don't lesten much to the news coming from iraq. Everything has been skewed so much why listen?
For me the war was and will always be based on lies. And that's wrong. Period
Winnable for who, big oil? Americans must never be allowed to forget the hundreds of thousands of people killed and maimed in this war, the two trillion and counting price tag, the record oil prices caused by this war of aggression in the middle east, the resultant double-digit inflaiton and collapse of the economy and housing market, and collapse of US esteem and the dollar throughout the world, all propagated illegally by bush/cheney oil cartel.
The Democrats take credit for pressuring Bush into abandoning the failed strategy when the Republicans were in charge and their was no pressure to improve the situation in Iraq because of the rife graft and corruption that the Republicans were benefiting from.Until the 2006 elections nothing was being done to resolve the Iraq mess that Bush created.
Spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin ...
So grab a gun and take off. Let us know how it goes.
Spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin ...
Mr. Dreyfuss's post raises some interesting questions, but it is based on the premise that the ongoing military occupation of Iraq is the primary issue determining the outcome of the presidential election...which, of course, it isn't.
Even amongst the anti-war progressive Democrats, a great many of us have long acknowledged (perhaps even conceded) that the majority of Democratic candidates simply have no plan for immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq whatever the outcome. Which is not to say, we won't continue to argue the point, but it also explains why we are pressing the candidates on other issues which have immediate effect upon everyday Americans.
Fair trade, health care, food and energy prices are VASTLY more important to the average American than the outcome of a five-year military fiasco. Let's face it, no one was asked to sacrifice for that foreign policy blunder other than our armed service members....who, incidentally represent less than 1% of our total population.
The Democratic field of candidates, while having nominal differences on Iraq, maintain relatively similar positions regarding the party's core principles. Simply put, it hardly matters who wins the nomination. Now, contrast that with the upheaval within the GOP and the rejection of the Republican party by self-identifying voters, and you'll see more clearly the likely outcome of a Democratic landslide in 2008, irrespective of the situation in Iraq.
Counting your WMDs before they've been located, Mr. Dreyfuss? Take it from a Red Sox fan: declaring victory before making the playoffs is a surefire way to jinx things. We don't cheer until the other team's third out in the ninth, and you shouldn't either.
It's this kind of pointless "what if" nonsense that makes me want to vomit. And, so what if it becomes "winnable"? It doesn't change how veterans are being treated and how the whole affair was badly planned.
Aren't the democrats adult enough to have many issues and not just rely on us losing a war?
God, I'm tired of this poo.
The Democrats need reminded voters that "winning" has yet to be defined.
The road may be less bumpy because of ehtnic cleansing, but it's still a road to nowhere.
Furthermore, the Democrats need to remind voters every day that we are only in Iraq because Bush lied the nation into war and tie that lie to Bush's credibility on every policy issue.
Assuming "winning" were ever defined, let alone achieved, it is fair to ask if the cost is worth it and if any human life, solider or civilian was worth the cost of allowing a President of the United States to lie the nation into war and get away with it.
The Dems keep losing the plot. Even if there is less violence, the war was still a "mistake" at best, a nefarious plot at worst.
Reduced violence due to the "surge" or just because much of Iraq is now ethnically cleansed, doesn't change the fact that there is no "winning".
The Dems need to stand up to Bush and remind him that the best case scenario for Iraq is still a nighmare and that the President is a liar, lacks basic credibility, and cannot be trusted to discern what "winning" is anyway.
The neocons are lying to you again. The socalled drop in civilian deaths is a result of reclassifying all male deaths as being Al Qaeda.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/15/61643/014
Can you say General Westmoreland?
Would have been nice to see such great concern over the state of security in Iraq before it became a political liability for Republicans here in 2008.
Now you give a crap. Quit your gloating, toetappers. You still have an airport bathroom toilet overflowing with problems.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
