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
Things are better for whom? Using what as a low(est) bar? How many people aren't getting blown up today vs. last week? How many people have two hours of electricity vs. none? How do you even create benchmarks for "creating" a society that has utterly different customs, protocol, etc? What does it even mean, with the speed in which the world changes day to day? Too much of a mess, too many weapons,too many insurgents, too many refugees, too much.
Look, we're stuck over there, which is exactly what the profiteers want, and the box can't be closed now.
Bob, I don't really understand any of your blog. I guess I'm just not smart like you. I voted democratic in '06 because they promised to end the war.
After the dems got in power on my vote they turned around and told me "just kidding, ha ha"
It seems pretty simple to me: In 08 the repubs will say that the dems were not against the war at all, otherwise they would not have funded the war. I'm not sure how I could prove the replubs wrong, can you?? I do hear what you say about all the democratic protests, huffing and puffing, etc. Heck, Bob, I can do that myself. I don't need a Democratic congressman to yell and scream. I need him to do something.
At this point it is impossible to forecast an election this far in advance. All polls notwithstanding, only one poll counts. However, 5 years and a trillion dollars later, not to mention $100/barrel price in oil, I can only imagine the GOP has left us all with a bitter aftertaste. Just because dust starts to settle in Iraq doesn't mean it will anytime soon here.
The Democrats just need to push the Republicans on one key question: What is victory in Iraq?
That's the weak point for the GOP. They insist that we're fighting for victory, but they won't tell anybody what that means. The Democrats should redefine victory to mean that Iraq has a constitutional democracy and full diplomatic relations with the U.S. and its allies. We won, so now we can leave.
An excellent analysis, and clear in a way that's rarely seen in Iraq war commentary. That's the crux of the problem: Democrats wanted to be "tough on terror," just like the Republicans, so they've tagged along on the war, continuing the funding, just long enough for the Iraqi insurgents to tire of the life of constant battle, and for the ethnic cleansing to be completed. No political progress has been made in Iraq, but that's too subtle an argument to influence the American voter. The question always is: have we won or not? Never mind what that means. Was it worth it in lives and treasure? Well, the dead are dead and the money's spent. As soon as they came into office in Jan. 2007 the Democrats needed to refuse another dime for Iraq except to extract the troops. They couldn't bring themselves to do that, and now they're stuck. They were betting against the "surge," and they may have lost that chicken-out bet. And they'll never have the nerve to argue the "illegal war of aggression" line -- way too "radical" for the Dems.
Well there is part of your article that I agree with. The media coverage is becoming less. Is this happening because we are maxed out on the whole thing? The msm has been a tool for the conservative agenda. Would it surprise anyone that they decided to do this for political reasons? It is like a house burned but if we won't let anyone go there some can say it never happened. The word win is a massive stretch to be associated with Iraq or conservatives efforts there. Maybe they are just taking a break from killing each other. I guess you can dream what you like. Mentioning a poll shows the weakness of your article. There have been a lot of bogus polls in the last seven years. For some reason this article makes my skin crawl.
Good article. But the anti-war sentiment runs deeper than the current Iraq war. Regardless if we make headway (albeit after five years), the fact still remains that a large percentage of the country just does not believe in war in general. And in respect to this particular war, we still have never had an official reason reason to go in, nor a solid connection to 9/11.
Winning an unjustified war is not really winning.
This is a sad display of the democratic party. Instead of showing some relief or, God forbid, happiness that things are starting to turn around for the better in Iraq, you and others are concerned that success may spell defeat for the dems. Sad! What a terrible place to be, success for your country means defeat for your party. You made your bed.
Of course they won't. The dirty little secret has always been that this was an invasion to get control of the oil as well as enrich the defense contractors. So Edwards is really the only hope. He is arguing against the premise from the get go. He renounced his vote. He is a lobbyist for us, the people. The likes of Biden, clinton, dodd etc. really are just the establishment washington elite. HUGE defense contracts and oil that is it. Why else are we there???? Believe you me the defense biz gives a bunch of money to the likes of Clinton etc. so this idea that it was "mismanaged" as opposed to "immoral" sells better to apac,ge,lockheed, general dynamics etc. the core of progressives and people fed up with the b.s. is growing by the minute. Hopefully fast enough to elect the courageous John Edwards. Power to the people
you are so right. the main problem with the "you break it, you bought it" theory is that the neocons always wanted to buy Iraq, and they preferred it broken, so they could "fix" it in their own inimitable way. what powell meant as a warning, they took as a blueprint. and the problem with the "unwinnable" war theory is that once we look like winners after all--well, Americans love a winner. don't we?
An excellent analysis.The Democrats dilemma is this; In 1972 they nominated George McGovern who
pledged immediate U.S. withdrawl from Vietnam and George lost 49 states.In 1984 they nominated Walter Mondale who said Ronald Reagan was provoking the hard-liners in the USSR.Mondale lost 49 states.The moral of the story for the Democratic establishment is the Democrats must never be seen as the anti-war party for to do so means political disaster.That's why they will continue to have this muddled position on Iraq and the war on Islamo-fascism because they have to accomodate the loony leftist base without alieanating the vast American majority.
Good luck!
As usual, the Fightin' Demos are getting rolled by the 'pugs in the PR/propaganda battle. We aren't "winning" in Iraq (and anyway, the occupation isn't a game that can be "won"), violence isn't down *because* of the surge, we aren't going to EVER strongarm our way into getting what we want from Iraq - see Soviet Union v. Ossama's Afghan Rebels.
But you won't hear anything like that out of leading Demos in Congress or on the campaign trail. The lot of them make me sick - and I'm a die-hard Secular Progressive of the ilk Bill O'Reilly would like to tase.
The reality is that roughly half of American citizenry could care less about doing their duty in monitoring their elected officials, and a sizable chunk that do pay attention work from completely selfish or superstitious (lookin' at you, christians) motives. Shame on us all that we swallow the crap spoonfed to us from the White House propaganda machine and, I'm sad to say, Reid's and Pelosi's equivocation/duck-and-feint strategy. You aren't fooling us, Harry and Nancy, you simple-headed twots!
Jeff Tweedy wrote in a song: "Every moment's a little bit later", and I've about decided it's too late for America.
But I'm gonna vote for Dennis Ku in the MA primary anyway. NEVER GIVE UP, PROGS!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
