Mickey Kaus notes that the Democrats have shifted the debate away from whether the war was a good idea in the first place, and asks if this wasn't a dumb thing to do. Answer: yes, but it's much worse than that...

Mickey writes:

There are two obvious possible debates to have about Iraq:

Debate A: Was launching the war a good idea in 2003?

Debate B: Should we "surge" or withdraw in 2007?

Haven't the Democrats, by prosecuting their funding fight with Bush over setting a withdrawal deadline, succeeded in changing the Iraq debate from A to B? From a debate over the war to a debate over the surge? From a debate about the last four years to a debate about the last four months? And if so, isn't that a really dumb thing for them to do?

 

To which I answer: yes, it was a really dumb thing for them to do --- politically. But it's much, much worse than that. While the political battle was solely focused on whether the war was a good idea in the first place, the Democrats could still have their cake and eat it too by simultaneously bashing the Bush administration for starting the war without actually needing to do anything to actively hinder its progress. Certainly, in their darkest hearts, the Democratic leadership might have noted that a total disaster in Iraq would play better politically for them, but so long as they simply focused on the merits of going to war in the first place, as Mickey notes:

"Debate A looks like a sure winner for Democrats--it's hard to see anything happening between now and 2008 that would convince a majority of voters that starting the war in the first place was a good idea."

But Pelosi, Reid, and Murtha have now doubled down. By actively opposing the surge --- the only strategy available that has even a chance of improving the outcome --- they have now aligned their political fortunes completely with failure for our forces in Iraq. President Bush has never had a choice in this matter: his political legacy has always been directly correlated with the degree of success we achieved in the war. But now the Democratic leadership has chosen to align their party's own political fortunes with the opposite proposition. It is not simply that Democrats will look better the worse things get in Iraq (which was always the case). Now, because of their opposition to the surge strategy, Democrats will also look worse in direct correlation with how much better things get in Iraq. The only way for the Democrats to win politically in the run-up to the 2008 election is for the surge --- and our entire effort in Iraq --- to fail.

This is very, very bad. It is one thing to have an opposition party (call them "loyal" or not) who is actively opposing the particular strategies that the administration in power is taking to achieve victory for America's goals. It is quite another thing entirely when the opposition becomes fully and totally invested in failure. That is the choice that the Democratic leadership has made, and regardless of what the outcome in Iraq and in the 2008 elections turn out to be, the country is worse off because of it.

Comments (10)

...
written by Robert B. Wirth, Jr., April 08, 2007

Accurate observations. It's even worse than portrayed here because the Democrats have participated in an effort subversive in nature to try to stop the "surge" which is a recommended coarse of action of the Iraq Study Group. There is aero intell or study indicating any wisdom is the approach recommended by the Democrats. Proposed sabatoge of military mission in a time of war.

...
written by Letalis, April 08, 2007

But "U.S. failure, everywhere, all the time," has been an article of faith for the group of people who are now the Democratic base for nearly 40 years. Those self-loathing people, call them traitors if you wish, are where the Dems increasingly get their money, their volunteers, their support, and ultimately, their votes. Pay no attention to that noise you hear, says Harry Reid. It is only Harry Truman rolling in his grave.

However, American Dems aren't the only ones actively working for defeat in Iraq. The BBC recently withdrew support for a film narrative on the youngest living recipient of the Victoria Cross, allegedly because the story was "too positive" about the war in Iraq. That noise you hear is Winston Churchill spinning furiously in his grave.

...
written by Daryl Herbert, April 08, 2007

I've been saying this for over a month. The logic is simple and compelling:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/03/do-you-think-that-majority-of-democrats.html#458244401604726352

Republican pols say: stay and fight

If the situation gets worse, despite the surge, Republicans' ratings will suffer

They will get fewer votes at the polls

If the situation in Iraq gets worse, Dems get more votes

Very few people would disagree with that

But the obvious implication of that is that if the situation gets better, Republicans get more votes! That's necessarily true once you accept that Republicans will get fewer votes if the situation is worse!

Dem politicians want to get elected.

They're more likely to get elected if the situation in Iraq worsens.

Most Dem voters do not want the situation in Iraq to worsen. A small number do, either because they want the insurgents to win, or because they think a worsening situation would cause us to pull out and bring the troops home sooner.

Can Dem pols maintain the facade that they want the situation in Iraq to get better, while undermining our efforts there and actually hoping for the worst? Or will they slip up and make gaffes, like John Kerry's comment that if you screw up in school, you get stuck in Iraq?

All it takes is one gaffe, and we can Swift Boat Dems in the next election. And just like last time, they will whine and cry that it's unfair, but enough of the public will listen.

You are forgetting something
written by Peter the slow, April 08, 2007

In my opinion there are two things wrong with your analysis:

First of all you are forgetting the most important difference between the President and the Democrats. You mentioned the president's political caculations and his legacy. I don't think he gives a damn concerning that.

I think he belives Iraq is in the best interests of the US. If he had to be the only person who thought so he would still think so. Of course he will do the best he can to make the political effects of what he does as positive as possible, but it will not stop his from fighting. If the political consideration was first on his mind we would have seen a different October last year.

As far as the Democrats you gave the result without the why. That is: hey have abrogated their decision making to the money as support of the most vocal critics of the war. Because they didn't want to offend that base of support AND money they changed their message from an alternative for victory (the more troops argument) to the no troops argument. They basically sold themselves and now have to pay off. This contingant of their support is so strong (at least in presidental candidates minds) that they will not offend and will even make foolish moves (read John Edwards bloggers and the pulling out of the Fox debates) that don't advance the campaign in any way other than keeping the anti-war base happy.

Once you sell the what you believe are your best interests it's hard to buy them back. For the next year we will see the sorry spectacle of candidates pulling the party even farther left while those who actually have to make a decisions of life and death struggle between what they think is right and that political magnetic pull. That struggle is visable in the Carl Levin statements today and it is the one chance for the party to avoid the fate you described.

I think the President has on his mind what Lincoln did when it looked like he would lose the election in '64. That he has to win the war NOW (hense the surge) because if the Democrats are elected it will be on terms that makes it impossible to win at all.

...
written by Ted (another one), April 08, 2007

"Debate A looks like a sure winner for Democrats--it's hard to see anything happening between now and 2008 that would convince a majority of voters that starting the war in the first place was a good idea."

Isn't this pretty much an admission that the war is lost, if you say nothing is going to happen in the next year and a half that's going to change anyone's minds about the wisdom of starting the war? (I suppose you could also spin a yarn about how all kinds of great things are going to happen but the liberal media intellectuals blah blah blah). In which case, what possible good can be done by extending the length of time we're in Iraq? I mean, the 2008 election will be five and a half years after the invasion - that's a long time for a cakewalk, isn't it?

...
written by buddy larsen, April 08, 2007

Lessee--2008 until the end of time. That's a long time to have sworn-enemy ideologies running the global economy, isn't it?

Constitution Club
written by The Infidel Sage, April 09, 2007

Unfortunately, I must concur with your analysis. It is a terrible thing when a political party stakes its reputation directly on bad things happening to its country. And the triumph of its enemies.

...
written by michael castrillo, April 09, 2007

The implacable logic of war has a corollary: the logic of politics. For reasons that to my mind remain unclear the Left gave up every inch of nuance early on. I recall being in Trafalgar Square in November of 2001 watching a giant anti-war demonstration-against the US (!) then fighting in Afghanistan. I think the war was a relief, their previous foe was Starbucks.

What accountability?
written by Albie, April 09, 2007

It's no sin for the opposition party to oppose the policies of a current administration in Washington. Beyond that, there's lots of sin in the details and most of that sin involves simple accountability. The Dems are struggling to torpedo the Iraq War in a repeat performance of 1970-73 while enjoying the fruits of no political accountability for the outcome. Vietnam was overshadowed by Watergate and the resultant hysterical traditional media that had no competition. This led to such "great" events such as the repeal of the Gulf Tonkin resolution (which delegitimized millions of Vietnam Veterans) and the US Senate's cutoff of funding to South Vietnam. The media essentially covered the whole thing up for the Democratic Party, and the story is largely undiscussed to this day. Retreat from Iraq if you must, but be accountable for your actions for a change.

...
written by Mwalimu Daudi, April 11, 2007

When Reagan made his comments about the Vietnam War being a noble cause, he was heckled by Democrats and the MSM of the day. Yet Reagan's statement struck a responsive chord with the American public at the time, since they understood (while Democrats and the MSM did not) that losing in Vietnam made the world a more dangerous place - not safer. Many MSM pundits assumed that Reagan had doomed his presidential candidacy with that comment. The American people said otherwise.

For that reason I am not sure that Debate "A" is really the winner that Mickey Kaus and others seem to think that it is. It is true that by focusing on Debate "A" Democrats would probably benefit - in the short term. But Klaus (and, for that matter, the vast majority of Democrats) seems to be assuming that history came to a dead halt after the 2006 elections.

The reality is much more likely to be this: the farther 2003 recedes into the past, the more likely Democrats will look like they have no vision for the future – especially if they imagine that they can keep re-fighting (and-re-winning) the same battles over and over again. History will go on, even if Democrats and the MSM stay stuck in the past.

The fatal flaw is this: Democrats and MSM "journalists" who think that Debate "A" is some eternal political cash cow seem to truly believe that the bill for losing in Iraq will never come due. In reality, even some relatively mild fallout (such as higher gas prices) could destroy Democrats if they control both Congress and the White House when it happens. Once owned, defeat is hard to get rid of. And this does not even take into account renewed Islamofascist activity – both abroad and in this country – that would result from a defeat in Iraq. How good will either Debates “A” or “B” look at that point?

Debate "B" has this tiny advantage for Democrats - it at least indicates some thinking and planning for the future (even if that future is only concerned with defeating Republicans). With Debate "B" Democrats will eventually appear merely incompetent. With Debate "A" Democrats will come across as both incompetent and backwards-looking. Not much of an improvement, but it is something.

It says something about Democrats and the MSM that there is no Debate “C” – the best way to win in Iraq.

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

Add Comment