After Petraeus, Conciliation: The Report Must Not Derail a Moderate Democratic Strategy

On the heels of General Petraeus' report, there is no doubt a temptation in the Democratic camp to dismiss the more unsavory findings as the work of a political lackey. The general did not recommend a substantive timetable for withdrawal, much to the ire, though not surprise, of the Left. Also unsurprisingly, he argues that there has been modest progress.

The situation in Iraq is deteriorating, improving, or staying the same, depending on who is asked. To dispute minor improvement accomplishes little. If the Democrats are serious about winning in Iraq, building their majority, and taking the White House, they will "stay the course" -- the moderate course of the past few weeks, that is.

After months of demanding a hard-and-fast deadline for an American troop withdrawal, Harry Reid recently changed his tune, calling for a strongly bipartisan approach. The move was both sound policy and shrewd politics; it puts the security of American troops first, and ultimately sets the Democratic Party up for victory in 2008.

Gone is the posturing and preaching that marked Reid's pronouncements earlier in the year (when he announced solemnly that the war in Iraq was "lost.") The new Reid appears better in touch with reality: Democrats simply do not have the votes to force a unilateral withdrawal, and advocating such a position is bad for America and bad for the Democratic Party.

The Petraeus report must not distract from this logic.

The electorate has had it with the war in Iraq -- close to two thirds want an orderly withdrawal of troops to begin immediately. That being said, the American people understand that to withdrawal completely and unilaterally without a clear strategy for pacifying the country is risky.

Petraeus, of course, argued this very point before Congress on Monday. His personal approval ratings -- coupled with findings this week that the public most trusts the military to make decisions on Iraq -- ensures that the Democrats could shoot themselves in the foot by resurrecting the divisive rhetoric of early 2007.

Indeed, what Reid has recently advocated -- a bipartisan approach that takes into account relevant recommendations of the Iraq Study Group -- is overwhelmingly supported by vast majorities of the American people. An orderly drawdown of the troops must take place on a schedule that is agreeable to the military and not just the political leadership.

This movement away from unilateralism, threats of filibusters, all-nighters, and rhetorical excess could well win the 2008 election for the Democrats. Bringing back acrimonious and partisan tones could prove disastrous.

Polling from Penn Schoen & Berland shows a strong desire for the parties to work together to develop coherent, long term strategies to fight terrorism and protect American interests around the world.

Right now, Democrats clearly have the '08 advantage. The American people are fed up with George Bush and the Republicans. Democrats have opened up double-digit leads on party identification and the generic congressional vote.

But the Democratic Party is also vulnerable on Iraq, where the lead over the Republicans dropped 10 percent in August to a narrow four percent margin. Rather than harp on the withdrawal, the Democrats should continue to strike a bipartisan tone and refocus the debate to other international and domestic issues. This will help them carry the day in November 2008.

The only way that the Democrats will lose the 2008 election is through self-inflicted wounds. The electorate is demanding a fundamentally different methodology to policymaking. Partisanship will mollify only the base; conciliation must rule.

Hopefully Senator Reid's approach of late will not be thwarted by the Petraeus report. On the contrary, it must carry over to other foreign policy and domestic issues.

Comments

[Qbear]

You don't fight the INSANE policies of Cheney/Wolfowitz, and their ABSOLUTE EVIL, by being some milquetoast enabler, or capitulate to them. They will run you over with a tank if you do.
Just ask the moderate Republicans WHO USED TO BE IN CONGRESS.

[marbiol]

can someone tell exactly what is our party's plan for victory in iraq?? I must have missed it!! I've been a registered D since 71--but since the Gulf War in 91 I'm not too inclined to vote D at the national level...even tho I do vote D for state and county offices. I really do think our national office holders would rather lose/leave than WIN!!

[BushSunkOurShip]

I am sick as hell with people telling us that staying the course is the way to do. Democrats have lost support and rating from when they were elected in 2006 and I wonder why.
Bush is still in office and the Iraq war has not decreased but INCREASED>>>>>>
If democrats wish to have the majority of voters on their side then they should put an "REAL EFFORT" instead of "TALK" to withdraw for Iraq instead of increasing and staying in Iraq "PERIOD"!!!!!

[SadSong]

It still never ceases to amaze me, logic, the science of reason, is so often conflated to be use with sophism in the same reference.

Funny that.

[Qbear]

not one more death
not one more dime
not one more day

[rmwarnick]

So, the Democratic strategy is to let another 1,600 or so American soldiers die for nothing in Iraq over the next year? While the Dems play political games. And you think that people will sit still for this?

[realitytrumpsbull]

Here's a winning stratmegemnity: 'End the war'. Let those people find their own 'way forward', meanwhile start the trials against the oil moguls and the rest of the clowns that pushed for this entire fiasco....

[RogerHWerner]

I suppose Schoen may be correct in his analysis if in fact Iraq were purely a political game. I suspect that this man and his fellow gamesters forget that politics affects the lives and aspirations of billions: It isn't a private party for the amusement and fiduciary benefit of participants.

Iraq has become a political football. This is not to denigrate that fact that there are serious differences of opinion on the subject but sadly what ever differences exist have been lost and all that matters now is to use the football to "win"...which means different things to different people. What happens when those in the political game cease to think about what their game actually represents is national malaise, public disinterest in the body politic, and, ultimately, an overall weakening of the country...but hell as long as someone "wins" the game that's what counts.

While Schoen and his fellows play politics, approximately 75 of our people die every month with many more wounded. We spend $40 Billion dollars a month. A few thousand Iraqis are die every month and more are displaced as refugees. While Schoen and his fellows pass the political football around with an eye towards 2008, I suggest he do the math and figure out the real cost in lives and dollars. I would bet that if Schoen and those involved with politics were doing the fighting (and dying) we'd have an end to this nonsense PDQ. As long as we permit these people to play their game at our expense we deserve whatever comes our way.

[YankeeCanuck]

Americans are mad as hell – that’s a good sign. Here’s what it would take to break the impasse in Congress: 17 Republican votes.Let me ask you this, friends. How many of us voted in the midterm elections? The usual 35% voter turnout? Could we have possibly voted in a few more Dems and given them something to work with?
Good comments here about campaign spending --- it’s obscene. Joe Biden call is that way too.
Our recent culture of money and celebrity has dazzled us into abdicating some of our responsibilities as citizens in a democracy. We owe it to ourselves to get involved, to be informed, to choose a candidate who makes sense to us, read their policy papers, to send them contributions --- let’s face it, the big money candidates don’t need our help—they’re celebs. Perhaps some of our anger is directed towards ourselves --- we let this happen. We must not now throw up our hands and say the Dems could do more. WE could do more. If we don’t, we will be abdicating even more of our rights as citizens in a democracy.

[Shadow51]

Couple of things in your article that you should explain:

What is "winning" in Iraq? I agree with Mr. Reid's statement that the war is lost. It was lost the day we invaded Iraq for no reason and no plan except "kick their asses". Do you mean permanent occupation of the country?

How would we "pacify the country"? Perhaps we could call Mr. Putin, after all the Russians did their 20+ years in Afghanistan and look how well that turned out.

Could you explain the risk to us if we pulled our troops out of Iraq? If it's the "fight 'em over there or over here" logic, I don't buy that argument. If anything we'd be pissing off less people so America would be safer.

We all know at this point there are ways for our Dem leaders to force the criminals running this country to withdraw our troops, yes they are extreme and some political careers will take the hit. On the other hand, during the '06 elections, the "Left" (which seems to be including more and more of the "electorate") made it clear that change was expected. You seem to imply that just letting things slide until the election will put the whole Iraq monkey on the Repubs backs, but don't be too sure. The "business as usual" approach to gain the Dems a political advantage in '08 may not turn out to be as successful as you imagine.

People are dying. Call me old fashioned, but you seem to be missing the important issues here by urging our Dem leaders to calculate political advantages instead of forcing an end to the dying and impeaching the people responsible. These people have threatened our system of government and our way of life more than any terrorists ever could, and more people in this country are realizing that every day. We can only swallow so many lies and so much hypocrisy from either party before we finally get fed up. I predict the electorate is as fed up with "conciliation" as they are with GWB.

[noam4prez]

"It's not whether you win or lose..."

If the Democrats act like Republicans, why would anyone vote for them?

[noam4prez]

From Doug's bio: "Dr. Schoen was President William Jefferson Clinton's research and strategic consultant during the 1996 reelection...".

Bill Clinton is the very definition of "Republican light". NAFTA, welfare "reform", bombing former Yugoslavia to "send a message" about U.S. power in the region.

If we compromise our principles, we get what we desreve: screwed by both parties.

[LittleBrother]

Cindy Sheehan, whose virtues include being a surprisingly eloquent and witty writer, recently compared the Democrats in Congress to Pomeranians who bark furiously at would-be intruders while remaining under the couch, shaking.

Mr. Schoen would have Democrats unapologetically and enthusiastically embrace their failed and pathological accommodationist practices of Keeping Their Powder Dry, Picking Their Battles-- and, of course, Not Letting the Perfect Be the Enemy of the Good.

Arrant nonsense-- although I believe that, in fact, this is already the weak substitute for a philosophy long since adopted by the co-opted and feckless Democratic leadership. As the comments here reflect, it has a certain comforting "common-sense" appeal to moderates not gifted with penetrating intellects, and who WANT or NEED to trust and believe in party leaders.

I wouldn't trust any alleged statistical evidence presented by Schoen in any event, but one of the inevitable canards presented by those who act as though they are trying to coax We the People off the ledge before We jump is to claim that a substantial majority of citizens wants the parties to abandon divisiveness and Make Nice. This claim is proffered merely to shame or frighten strays and doubters into rushing back into the Democratic Lesser-Evil fold one more time.

Accommodationist, lesser-evilist propaganda like this article may lure back a few disgusted partisan Democrats, but I doubt that it will attract independent voters who will no longer hold their noses in order to vote. The Democrats elected in 2006 proved to be so lame and hypocritical that the partisan Dem moderates' finger-wagging imprecation that those of us who refuse to be fooled again are Part of the Problem has become utterly impotent.

Time will tell.

[Uselessboy]

"WINNING!!!" Bwa-ha-ha-haaaaa!!

1. You can't win somebody else's civil war.
2. You can't win an occupation.
3. You can't win a nationstate collapsing into warlord tribalism.

You can't even pacify a region with only 5% of the troop strength generally known to be required for it.

4. It's Clinton's fault. Soon, both of them.

[Dap]

==

)))))))))))))))) EXACTLY (((((((((((((((((

One (in this case the Democratic Party) should *Never* do the correct thing, because it is the correct thing to do, especially if it places ones political arse on the line.

It is much better to go along, to get along.

Appeasement is indeed the safe way.

[Dap]

Let us be reasonable.

[Dap]

History clearly shows that appeasement is the best way to confront war mongering.