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
The "winning" or "losing" of the war in Iraq was never about defeating an enemy in any measurable or quantifiable way. The winning or losing has always meant POLITICAL winning or losing here at home. When the Republicans speak of winning the war they are referring to political gains. The Republicans only speak in provincial terms, they are not inclusive by nature. Like when they love to paint liberals as "hating America". They don't consider us to be part of the country - we are separate.
So "winning" and "losing" is just code and propagandistic framing (as most of what they say is). They are only talking about their own narrow interests. Again.
How can you win an unjustified war?
In the modern world, the Iraqi war is called a "WAR CRIME",
no matter what the outcome!
What if every nation started a preemptive war against their "Bad Nation" ?
Everything BushCo says is a deception! Why do you believe BushCo? How many lies does it take for you to learn? The "numbers" all come from BushCo or our puppet Iraqi gov. Reporters haven't been allowed near bombings since may. Deaths usually go down this time of year. We already caught BushCo "Cooking" the numbers. But still idiots believe BushCo.
We have killed more people then Saddam! Worse, we have destabilized the entire world!
At best, we are back to 2005 violence with twice the soldiers. Completely exhausted soldiers as well.
Bring them home!
"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?"
Unfortunately, history shows that they will. Bush has successfully used this same twisted logic once before. I know it has been ages -- anything before 9/11 seems like ancient history to Americans -- but does anyone remember the tax cuts for the rich?
During Bush's 2000 campaign, the economy was going like gangbusters. Bush argued that the government was taking in too much of peoples' money -- I mean, look at that surplus! -- so we should cut taxes.
By the time that Bush took office in 2001, the bubble was bursting. So Bush changed his argument. People needed relief from the bad economic news, therefore we should cut taxes.
The Democrats hemmed and hawed, but ultimately they played along.
I know you thought hard to come up with the question "So what happens to the Democrats if the unwinnable war starts to look, well, winnable?"
Sorry to disappoint you, you it is totally empty. Why? Simply, because you did not define what winning means. What are we after in Iraq? The oil? Helping Israel? Nobody has defined winning, not even you.
So, you saw an Indian Summer and you thought Spring is coming. Think again.
Things have calmed down in Iraq because we have made many deals with the devil. Anbar Province is a primary example of this. As soon as the payoffs and guns from the US slow down or stop, the violence will begin again. These deals with the devil FOR TEMPORARY peace is one of the major things that lost us Vietnam. A war we never should have fought in the first place just like Iraq.
When are the Dems going to realize that calculation is a losing strategy for themselves and for the country?
Strong and well reasoned principle will always win out in the end.
Sorry Robert Dreyfuss, I disagree. Violence may be on the decline but I do not believe that this will mean the Iraqi's will be willing to just allow us to waltz off with control of their oil.
The Democrats are playing a game. They are Republican light. But as you state in your article, some of us know the real reason behind the invasion. Oil feeds industrialism. I don't see them giving that up without a fight.
I agree with most of you that the "Good" news from Iraq should be taken with a grain of salt. However, when it comes to my security I don't trust Hitlery or any other Defeatocrat to keep my family and me safe. The problem isn't enough Government it's Too much government. Hitlery thinks the government can solve every social and economic problem by taxing the rich and giving to the poor. Doesn't work that way. Low taxes = More revenue. Eco101.. WWRD
To be sure, the recent decline in American deaths is a good sign, but such a measure in of itself does not determine victory, nor does it change the reality of Iraq's unstable government.
More importantly, whatever unfolds in Iraq does not change the fact that the Bush doctrine is fundamentally wrong, as is its manifesto for preemptive wars, occupation, and empire. And regardless of what happens in Iraq, Americans will have to contend with the consequences for generations. And that is the ugly underbelly of the Republican party's lame support to the war in Iraq.
I'm relieved and very happy things are looking better in Iraq.....L
We dems need to think very carefully about HILLARY. She has always hedged her bets on Iraq, and I can see her wafffling with it looking stupid next to Julie Annie proclaiming vindication.
The Iraq War was one of the most counterproductive moves we could have made to fight terrorism, and arguably the worst foreign policy blunder this country has ever made. We haven't even started paying for this war yet. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ down the drain.
We need to set the record straight.
Here's what Democrats need to do:
1) Grow a spine. (Major, and most unprobable, step.)
2) Start saying the war ended in 2003, soon after the invasion, thanks to our brave and well-trained troops.
3) Point out that since that time, our troops have been embroiled in a civil war between Shias and Sunnis. Point out that has been fueled by insurgents. Also point out that attacks by al-Qaida have been a very small part of the violence, no matter how much emphasis our president gives it. (Direct everyone to the administration's own National Intelligence Estimate if they dispute any of this.)
4) Be upfront. Explain that many of our troops have died so that Iraq can install a stable government. Explain that if we want to make sure Iraq gets a stable government, we're going to need a troop presence there for many years. Otherwise, chaos, and perhaps a fundamentalist regime, is a very real possibility.
5) Set reasonable benchmarks for the Iraqi government, with real consequences if they are not met.
6) Pledge to get Blackwater out of Iraq. Pledge to hold corrupt contractors responsible for shoddy work.
I don't expect them to ever get past step 1.
"the unwinnable war starts to look, well, winnable?"
Where does one start with this red herring? The Iraq war was a war of choice using unjustifiable reasons for going to war in the first place. It was then conducted with bad decisions/policies and un-mitigaded lying and deception about progress. It has become an albatross and a quagmire. To even consider it a war where we must win is an afront to rational thinking. And what is a "win" anyway? Big oil wrapping up lucrative contracts to exploit Iraqi oil, Micky Dees, Starbucks and the Gap in Baghdad malls and throughout shopping districts in Iraq, i.e., preferential treatment of American business by Iraqi politicians. A smaller death toll per day. What? Certainly none of the political reasons on reconciliation are gonna happen. And they were only brought in after all of the other lying reasons were discarded about WMDs, 9/11 connections, Iraqi democracy, etc, etc, etc. Ignoring all of the infastructure damage, deplaced refugees and ruination of Iraq as a nation are other issues where we can look the other way and say we "won."
Yes, this red herring is an issue that will plague the 2008 elections by spin and overspinning the so-called "progress" in Iraq to the advantage of the right wing fascists seeking to maintain their stranglehold on the US population.
Consider telling the truth, Dems. This war was a crime committed by the Bush admin and they need to be brought to the Hague for trials for war crimes.
So far as I can tell, few of the Democratic candidates for presidents have used the Iraqi misadventure as an Archimedean lever. Personally, I don't believe we should ever have gone; I think the success of the surge is more attrition than achievement; and I fear the destruction of the only secular buffer -- whatever your opinions of Saddam may be -- in the Middle East will haunt us for decades to come.
But! I'm not running for president. For those who are, there are certain realities (having nothing to do with the spread of democracy):
First, oil. Why don't we all finally agree that the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq was all about planting the ExxonMobil flag smack dab in the middle of the richest undeveloped oil field in the world? About the need not just to keep our SUVs running, but the real necessity of keeping the price of oil pegged to the US Dollar? It's the economy, again, stupid -- at its ugliest.
Second, strategic advantage. Let's face it, if the oil wasn't there, we wouldn't be either. But since it is, we're building the biggest, most boondogglish embassy in Baghdad and arranging to make our presence in Iraq 'permanent'. It would seem that our bases in Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia (where -- psst! -- 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists AND Osama bin Laden came from) are inadequate to protect our interests. And I can count on one hand the number of candidates who care to bite the military lobbyists' hands that feed them.
Third... well, I don't know exactly, except there's something niggling in the back of my mind that says "We're fighting over there, so Saudi Arabia can win over here." For some reason, it all seems to be of a piece. Our ports, The Carlyle Group, Citigroup.
"So what happens to the Democrats if the unwinnable war starts to look, well, winnable?"
What if the German Army had closed the gap at Dunkirk? What if the ME 109's had been equipped with extra fuel tanks over Britain? What if Hitler had given Rommel enough resources to overcome the British in North Africa? What if the German Army had realized that defeating Russia would require at least 2 years and prepared for the winter campaigns? That's right; we'd all be speaking German now. How would winning make Hitler's attack on Poland, the start of World War II and the slaughter of 30 million people right? That's right, history would have been written in German.
Robert, you state what we all know. Good news out of Iraq equals bad news for the democrat party. Liberals and leftist democrats have a vested interest in our failure in Iraq. To say otherwise is to deny the obvious.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
