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 for this post are now closed
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
Mr. Schoen, the Iraq war is not merely a domestic political issue; nor are the results of the surge necessarily a minor improvement. What the Democratic party leadership must do is both enjoin the nation in a collective sense of the gravity of the humanitarian failure of being led around by the nose by this administration and present a serious plan for redeployment. Americans from all sides see the government as their enemy and are evermore alienated by its workings. The leadership of the Democratic party needs to convince the American populace that government can work to benefit them not just the government elites, and not just for political positioning.
Here's the deal. If the Dems don't have the votes to override a veto, but have the votes to pass legislation of their choosing, then, by contrast, the GOP does not have the votes to pass the legislation of its choosing.
Get it? The Dems don't have to vote on anything they don't want to. The down side, nothing gets done. The up side, nothing gets done -- least not with new money. The solution is simple. Just say no and mean it. The idea that Dems are being held hostage to an intractable President is nonsense. They are holding themselves hostage.
The better plan for the Middle East. Remove our troops from the region. Call a regional peace conference for Israel and Palestine which does not end until the deal is done. Begin talking, rather than threatening, Iran, Syria and Jordan. Stop loving the Sauds no matter what they do.
re: "Democrats simply do not have the votes to force a unilateral withdrawal,"
AND NEITHER DOES THE GOP HAVE THE VOTES OR THE POWER TO INTRODUCE LEGISLATION TO CONTINUE THE WAR INDEFINITELY. The lack of votes is a 2 way street. Someone has to blink. Thusfar, it has ONLY BEEN THE DEMS THAT BLINK. It's time for a change. NOW
The Democrats and media both need to find a backbone! Representatives and media should not to succumb to political and economic pressure of the executive branch.
Democrats were elected to bring about a change in policy (not strategy) with regard to the Iraqi war. Yet, they've continued funding requests by the administration ($500 billion) to stay the course, given approval to continue illegal (warrantless) surveillance upon U.S. citizens, after knowing the FBI and administration has overstepped the bounds of propriety and legality, and have been unable or unwilling to adhere to the will of the people who elected them.
A government that cannot function without lies, secrecy, "privilege," is not democratic, but every bit as totalitarian as the regime we overthrew in Iraq. The use of signing statements and recess appointments to avoid Congressional oversight, review and approval and to jeopardize individual liberty from executive-branch tyranny needs to stop! Candidates who seek campaign funds from corporations and special interest groups are ripe for dereliction of their sworn duties to protect the Constitution and represent their constituents. Our representatives were eager to get on vacation in August and did not object to re-authorization of clearly illegal claims of the administration that law enforcement and intelligence must not be subject to the constitutional and other safeguards.
The media, is equally to blame. Rather than investigating, doing research, reporting facts, the press lead by FOX surrendered journalistic integrity and truth to political and economic pressure. The media is a co-conspirator in the administration's debacle. It has allowed this administration to elude accountability for seven years. I did not read or hear reporters and journalists question the policies or investigate the actions of this administration: lucrative no-bid contracts, our soldiers lacking equipment to guarantee their safety, inadequate pay and benefits for veterans, not to mention nearly $18 billion "lost" or misappropriated in Iraq, a national debt nearly $9 trillion (double the amount before this administration) and reckless deficit spending while tax cuts for the wealthiest increase. The list goes on.
"Tonight on the News Hour, Mark Shields came out and said that the Democratic base (as represented by MoveOn, anyway) are'nt even Democrats! He is attempting to marginalize his own Party's base over one word in a headline! Either he does'nt get it, or he does'nt want to."
Both Shields and the News Hour should be told that they must explain this comment.
Meanwhile, the News Hour has seen fit to broadcast comments such as this - as well comments by David Brooks comparing bin Laden's quotes to bloggers. Under these circumstances, the News Hour should provide bloggers with the opportunity directly to respond to these sorts of comments and Lehrer should explain why he permitted these statements to proceed unchallenged.
welcome freedomis ... you're among friends. re the article- i like the part where the neocon blogger says: "the situation in iraq is either getting better, worse, or staying the same depending on whom you ask..."
mr. schoen: the situation in iraq has never changed. it is wrong to invade other people's countries without very great provocation; invading iraq was a wrong against humanity of stalinist proportions. george bush, all the congress, and all the troops are guilty of hideous soul-damning enormities against millions of human beings for which their recompense will be grave and eternal. that is the situation in iraq. it has never changed even in the slightest. and it will never change under your party. you will invade another country when you take power because it's who you are and what you do.
I've seen some contorted reasoning in my time but this proposal that we should some compromise with evil takes the prize.
Mr. Schoen, I demand that you give me all of your wealth. But if you are a sweet fellow and compromise with me, I'll only take half now. (We can discuss the rest some other time.)
Somebody needs to explain to me how this "moderate" approach ends the war. If it doesn't end the war, if it just keeps the war going, then there's nothing "moderate" about it.
Your recommendations are hogwash. The polls continually report the Democratic-led Congress is even "less popular" than Bush. Why? Absence of a backbone. Cowardly, weak, pathetic attempts to get cover from sympathetic Republicans to force an Iraq withdrawal on Bush.
Hasn't happened yet, nor will it ever. The one and ONLY weapon Dems in the House have to end the war is to DEFUND IT.
Maybe they should adopt the Lieberman strategy and launch an invasion of Iran. He is supposed to be the paragon of "Moderate Democrats".
How are Democrats supposed to win in 2008 by ignoring the Will of the People? They were elected because Americans hate being in Iraq. If they act as Bush's enablers, then why vote for them? Democrats have to learn that they will always lose by playing Republican Lite. Either you want the real thing, or nothing to do with it.
I'm all for reaching across the aisle, but so far that has gotten the Democrats where? That's right, no where.
Do you think our withdrawal will be anything other than organized? That's more Bush camp nonsense.
Let's tell it like it is. When we withdraw Sunnis and Shiites will go to war. Could be bad or very bad. There will be atrocities.
What we don't know is how much fight either side has in them or how well they are organized militarily. Does either side have access to heavy weapons (via proxy countries)? An undersized Sunni force could defeat a larger Shiite and Kurd force if they have heavy weapons. The reverse is true for the larger Shiite force; a civil war wouldn't last long if they roll through Sunni areas with tanks or level towns with bombs and artillery.
To date only one or two Republican senators have broken ranks with their party to vote with a Democrat conceived plan.
When men like Warner and Lugar put their money where their mouth is all Reid is doing is pulling another Neville Chamberlain, appeasing the side I see as the enemy.
The only logical course for the Dems is to impeach Bush and Cheney simultaneously.
Anything else is BS, including bills to end or defund the war.
Listen, you guys and the clintons are the republican/DLC wing of our party. What you did to it was to run us into the ground, took away the spines of the elected dems and tried to make us shadow republicans.
The democratic wing took control, strengthen our party, redefined our messaage and image and made the party democrats again.
We do not want your brand of quasi republicanism in our party. We like where we are going. We are not only winning but, we can be proud once again.
What you guys did to our party is best exampled by what happened to Harry Reid.
He was the lion who never would say die and stood up to the republicans in the Senate that kept some of the most odious bills from passing. Now he is a spineless shell of his old self. And the democrats are furious with him.
We liked the old Harry so much better.
We respected and cheered him on.
We don't want your brand of Leiberman traitor garbage. This is a major reason I don't support Hillary and will work against her.
I am supporting Barack Obama and the progressive agenda. The progressives are rising and the DLC is not relevant anymore, thank god.
I wish you and the Clintons would just leave us alone and take your union busting friend, mark penn with you. We don't need your brand of mushy and spineless advice.
Careful Lafrance. If you vote for a new guy with $58 million behind him, you may get the same kind of "change" that JFK brought us in the early 60s -- all charm on the way to Vietnam.
Any politician with that kind of backing is in debt, and not to me or, I'll bet, your pals either.
Has everyone forgotten the soldiers that are being wounded and killed everyday for this BS going on. Bush received every $ he requested for last 6 years.
Bush has cut the health care to the soldiers , destroyed their hospitals & care , deaths cause by lack of equipment , Rumsfeld said you go war with what you have & they never fully upgraded.
But they have d... well handed over the tax dollars to the war contractors , lost 100,000 AK-47's , contracts unfinished , soldiers charged for meals they never received , our soldiers were given sewer water to bathe and drink, while the illegal religious , conservative , right wing mercenary army was paid as much in one month as our soldiers received in a year. Billions of dollars ""LOST??"" , stolen and un-accounted for.
Can you immage when Cheney ran Halliburton from Halliburton's office instead of from the Vice President's office what would happen if just couple of thousand dollars were missing from Halliburton's accounts ??? Heads would roll!!
This administration is using our military , our tax dollars for their own policies & wealth. This is why Cheney's policies are NATIONAL SECURITY & probably shedded , just like the millions of emails republican used for their policies.
Republicans call Americans which disagree with their corruption; terrorist & anti-Americans. They outed a covert CIA agent (TREASON) & no one have paid a d... penny or time for this disgraceful act. But moveon.org McClain says should be kicked out of OUR country for calling BS ,,, BS.....
Democrats have been slanders , lies on , BS about , called anti-American , terrorist & any d... name a republican wishes & still nothing was done to stop this.
What happened the investigations about treason , illegal spying , pre-Iraq war lies , lost & thief of billion of our tax dollars , miss use of the Money and lack of response to the disaster of New Orleans.
NOW I HEAR THAT WAXMAN IS GOING TO INVESTIGATE CLINTON'S ADMINSITRATION BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS WANT IT...
We have at stake something greater than Iraq. We are in imminent danger of losing the American republic. We progressive Democrats must get it right this time for this is our only chance. If we choose the wrong strategy and employ the wrong tactics from now through the election next year, it won’t be Iraq we lose. We will lose America. This nation cannot afford another fascist Republican.
Realistically, what Schoen says about the lack of votes by Democrats in Congress is true. I am amazed at the failure to grasp this simple fact of arithmetic. Rather than rehashing old ground, let me put it a different way. Do you seriously believe Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Maxine Waters, Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Robert Byrd would not have stopped George Bush dead in his tracks if they really had the votes to do it? Do you seriously think these Democratic leaders are really guilty of that kind of perfidy? If the votes were really there, at least one of these, or others, would be screaming that fact to the heavens.
There is another set of numbers not mentioned in these debates. Exit polls in the last two elections 1/3 considered themselves conservative and 1/4 considered themselves liberal. The remaining plurality, or 42%, considered themselves moderate. This plurality will elect the next President and Congress, not we in the 25% liberal group. We must have just over 60% of that 42% to barely win the next election. Most of these people desire we leave Iraq but not if wanton slaughter follows in our wake. We must find a way that satisfies us and assures them, not an easy task.
Vote numbers, the true rulers of democracy, may force us to compromise. Even this would be progress for Harry Reid has not yet compromised, he has only caved. Zealousness for the right must not afflict us with puritanical rigidity. What have we gained by being right if we lose America to fascists?
Loading comments…
Posted September 14, 2007 | 03:43 PM (EST)