Tuesday, March 13, 2007
|
|
What Conservatives Want
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
7:47 PM
|
|
Last night I had the pleasure of appearing on TV on our local New England Cable News channel. For those of you who want to remind yourselves how handsome I am or how thick my Bahstahn accent is, the link can be found here.
At one point, host Jim Braude asked me how the Republicans can win the presidential election if things remain rotten in Iraq. I responded bluntly with words to the effect of, “We can’t.”
But it’s worse than that. Even if things improve in Iraq, it will probably be a non-story. There’s a good chance a successful pacification of Baghdad will be a classic dog-that-doesn’t-bark-scenario. Every car that blows up in Baghdad is legitimately news. The same cannot be said of every car in Baghdad that doesn’t explode.
Even if the press plays things straight, which is a very generous assumption, it’s tough to imagine how successful operations in Baghdad can make the same dramatic splash that our setbacks have. With all those factors in play, it’s unlikely that Iraq will shift in the public’s eye from a dreadful quagmire to an inspiring victory, even if that shift occurs in reality.
SO, HOW CAN REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS WIN with such a set of circumstances working against them? The obvious answer is that they can bash the Bush administration that with a ferocity that rivals what we see on the left. They could also go all paleo-con on us and offer a virile form of isolationism cum xenophobia that would thrill Lou Dobbs.
For obvious reasons, neither one of these tactics will be acceptable. We’re passing through an hour in which Republicans will have to put honor and duty above personal ambition. They will have to support the war effort, commit to victory, explain the correctness of their actions to their constituents, and politically let things fall out as they may.
I remember back on Election Day 2004 when the exit polls were leaked and it looked like John Kerry was going to be president. Kathryn Jean Lopez wrote something at that time that in effect said, “The Democrats can have ’08. Please let us have this one.”
K-Lo understood that the times were historic. They still are. The Battle of Iraq must be won. We need our politicians to commit to victory. If that turns out to be a less than satisfying electoral strategy, so be it.
I get some letters asking me why Republicans seem so reluctant to fight this war with appropriate vigor. The answer is simple: Seeking political danger is not the default course of action for our nation’s office seekers. Actually, going to great lengths to avoid political risk is more par for the course.
But that just won’t cut it in this hour. Republicans rightly expect more from their representatives at this time. Their country needs more. Our politicians have a call to duty that they must answer.
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.
|
|
... for your thoughtful -- and non-ideological -- response to my question.
Contrary to your presumption, however, I don't believe that Iraq will NEVER be able to provide its own security without having to rely on 130,000-plus Americans. Quite the contrary, I believe it IS possible, though I think both of us would agree that it is unlikely to happen in the short term. |
|
Toady and Bob ask a reasonable question. What constitutes victory and when will it happen?
Victory is obviously not going to be by a formal surrender ceremony. It will occur when the Iraqi government can provide security to its people with a minimal level of U.S. military support. Those terms "security" and "minimal level of support" are admittedly not capable of exact measurements and we can argue over them. But I think we can all agree that what must occur for any arguable assertion of victory is a marked decrease in the number of people getting killed and the ability of the Iraq security forces to provide security with a decreasing American military presence.
When will this happen, if ever? I don't know and neither do any of us. But there are clear signs today that General Petraeus's plan is working. Violence and killings have decreased substantially, particularly in Baghdad. That's a uncontroverted fact. And this is before most of our reinforcements have even arrived in Iraq. Baghdad residents are returning to their homes. The Shiite militias are not fighting our movements into Sadr City and other Shiite neighborhoods. The Sunni population is clearly fighting back against Al-Queda in its stronghold of Anbar province. Again, I assume that Toady and Bob would agree that these are positive developments.
The key question is when, if ever, will Iraq be able to provide its own security without having to rely on 130,000-plus Americans. If the answer is never, as Toady and Bob presumably believe, then I would agree that our mission in Iraq is ultimately futile. But I don't agree with that assessment. The Iraqi security forces, with all their imperfections and sectarian rifts, is increasingly shouldering their burden, as can be seen in their effort to protect 6 million Shiite pilgrims in Karbala. They didn't stop all the car bombings aimed at the pilgrims but they did stop most of them. The Iraqi security forces are clearly more formidable than they were three years ago and there's no reason to believe this trend won't continue.
My confidence in 2008 is based on my view that the Iraqi security forces are improving and will have advanced sufficiently by next year so that they will not require as large a presence of our best and bravest. At that point, the president can begin withdrawing our forces without sending Iraq back into the security abyss it fell into last year.
Since we're talking about the future, I can't guarantee this will occur, even with the recent positive developments. But I think it's what will likely happen. But you know what - we'll see if I'm wrong, and, if I am, I'll admit it. I hope that you'll do the same if your assessment turns out to be wrong. None of us can predict with certainty, but one of us will be right and the other wrong. Let's see who it is. |
|
"The Battle of Iraq must be won. We need our politicians to commit to victory."
I ask the same questions I have asked before: How will we know when the Battle of Iraq has been won? How will we know when when we have achieved victory? As before, I do not ask these questions to be snarky; I am sincerely interested in knowing the answers.
Sobeit, in response to Toady's similar questions ("WHEN we will be victorious and WHEN we can bring home our troops with honor"), says, "it's foolish to ask for the exact date when a war will end," and goes on to say that just because Lincoln, FDR and Truman didn't know when the Civil War, Korean War and WWII would end, they were not wrong to have fought those wars. But that doesn't answer Toady's question. Toady wasn't asking whether it was right for Mr. Bush to have begun the war in Iraq. Without making a judgment as to whether that was right or wrong, Toady's question still bears answering. Toady was not asking for the exact date on which Iraq war will end, he was asking -- as I am -- HOW WE WILL KNOW that the war has been won. Those are very different questions. Sobeit, can you address the question that has been asked?
Joe says, "if we can make [Iraq] reasonably safe and functional, it is victory." But Iraq was reasonably safe and functional under Saddam Hussein, wasn't it (depending, of course, on what you mean by "reasonably")? And assuming that Joe's formulation provides the benchmark of victory, the same question remains: HOW WILL WE KNOW when Iraq is "reasonably safe and functional"? Joe, can you answer that question?
Indeed, can ANYONE answer this honestly-put question?
|
|
|
I don't see McCain winning ANYTHING. Rudy maybe, Mitt has a harder time, but honestly, Fred Thompson could take this thing. I just think people would respect his honesty, no dancing around the questions |
|
Toady, it's foolish to ask for the exact date when a war will end. Did FDR know when World War II would end? Did Lincoln know when the Civil War would end? Did Truman know when the Korean War would end? But you're not saying, are you, that because these presidents didn't know when it would be over, that they were wrong to have fought these wars?
Since you want predictions, I'll give you one. If Iraq is "rotten" and a "deadly quagmire" in November 2008, the Democrats will win the White House (and expand their Congressional majorities), regardless of the state of the economy. And if the economy collapses between now and 11/08, the Democrats will win regardless of what happens in Iraq. But mark my words Toady, if the economy remains strong, the Democrats will lose in 2008 because Iraq will not be the negative anchor it was in 2006. |
|
I think our reps should wait a few more years before they make a stand. The War will definitely get better and the chances that terrorsists will get a better foothold here will lessen. History tells us so.
Then, in 2020 we can take on illegal immigration. |
|
The GOP is not toast yet. Giuliani, McCain, and probably Fred Thompson (if he gets in) all have a very decent chance of winning. This country is definitely ready for a change in leadership and none of these guys are GWB clones, but they seem to like a divided government also, and if the Dems keep Senate and House, that playes well for the GOP to keep the WH.
Romney may be competitive with the Dems, but that does not seem the case yet. It is early, but he needs show how he can win the general election. If he does that, you add him to the list above.
And Briggsy--we will keep some troops in Iraq (no matter who wins) for two reasons. 1) there is a lot of oil there and for strategic purposes we have an interest, and 2) while the Iraqi Kurds can probably defend themselves from the rest of Iraq, if we leave the Turks might come in from the north and that would be a disaster. |
|
As usual, Toady doesn't let the facts get in the way of his argument. Toady asserts that Iraq is a lost cause. But in order to make this argument, Toady very conveniently ignores the profound change that has taken place in Iraq since Bush's surge plan was announced and General Petraeus took command. Toady ignores that the killings in Iraq have declined dramatically since the beginning of the year. Toady ignores that Iraqis have begun returning to their homes since the Baghdad security plan began last month. Toady ignores that our forces are operating in Sadr City and that the Shiite militias have chosen not to oppose us. Toady ignores the fact that we're achieving this success even before most of our new forces have deployed to Iraq. Maybe these facts are a bit too "inconvenient" (to use Toady's hero's favorite phrase) to fit Toady's picture of doom and gloom (although he seems awfully cheerful for one who is supposedly so sad about Iraq). But they seem kind of a big deal to me.
Yes, it's very easy to declare all is lost when you're sitting comfortably here far from danger and you choose to ignore what's been happening on the ground over the past several months. I'm sure our men and woman over there who are doing the hard work appreciate your patronizing concern. |
|
Here's more proof that the surge is working much better than anyone had expected. Stop being so defeatist my friends; instead, let's give thanks to the brave men and women fighting for us in Iraq.
From the Kuwait News Agency today: http://www.kuna.net.kw/Home/print.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=961365
Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers
BAGHDAD, March 14 (KUNA) -- The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre.
Only 17 members of the US military in Iraq have been killed since February 14 till March 13, compared to 42 from January 13 to February 13; the rate was on the decline during the first month of the security crackdown, compared to a month before.
Two of the 17 soldiers died at US Baghdad camps of non-combat causes.
The remarkable decrease in killings among the US troops came at a time when more of these troops were deployed in the Iraqi capital, especially in districts previously regarded as extremely hazardous for them such as Al-Sadr City, Al-Azamiyah, and Al-Doura.
Meanwhile, US attacks on insurgent strongholds north of Baghdad curbed attacks against helicopters. Before the new security plan, many such craft were downed leaving 20 soldiers dead.
The US army in Iraq had earlier said that sectarian fighting and violence in Baghdad had dropped sharply, by about 80 percent, since the launch of the plan.
|
|
Dean Barnett is practically conceding the 2008 election to the Democrats but urges conservatives to maintain a stiff upper lip and to fight the good fight. But why the pessimism about 2008? Every poll I've seen (and I mean EVERY) shows Giuliani and McCain leading, or even with, Hillary and Obama. (And does anyone doubt that Fred Thompson would also outpoll the Democratic favorites?) And this at a time when Bush's popularity is near its low mark. With a robust economy and an Iraq surge plan that is showing better than expected success, I'm optimistic about 2008.
Dean may be right that Iraq won't be an electoral plus for Republicans even if the surge plan works to perfection. But if it does work, the reduction or absence of daily bad news will certainly help the Republican candidate. And if, as I hope and expect, Bush is in a position next year to announce the initial reductions of our force levels in Iraq, that will surely work to the advantage of the party that stood firm when the war was at its toughest stage. |
|
|
Because it is likely the Turks would screw with the Iraqi Kurds if we abandon them. The Iranians and Syrians might even help to keep their own Kurds in line. |
|
But if you are right, Rudy will lose my support.
I got to say that I am gradually going from a Romney nay sayer to a Romney maybe he has it. Don't get me wrong, I still prefer Giuliani, McCain and Thompson over Mitt, but I think Mitt has a decent shot at it.
Listening to Hugh and with the realization that Romney could easily fund his own campaign if he had to, I think Mitt prefers to be underestimated than overexposed (at least right now). If he makes a better showing later on and with strategic preplanning in key states (especially California)--he will peak at the right time. Arguably Rudy only has one way to go and that is lower in the polls. But the biggest flaw in Romney's plan is showing he can beat Hillary and Obama--if he cannot do that (and that is the poll that really counts) he ultimately has no chance.
It is Giuliani's race to lose. Barring Fred Thompson getting in, Rudy is probably going to be the nominee. And while McCain is not having the best month, because he beats Hillary and is competive with Obama, you cannot rule him out. |
|
|
I doubt it, but if you are right I would supporting a different candidate. But even the Democrats know we are never completely getting out of Iraq. Oh we may pull out of Baghdad and let Shias slaughter Sunnis wholesale (it would be a mistake, but that is possible) but we will keep some troops in country (perhaps in Kurdistan) if only to maintain a foothold. |
|
|
Victory in Iraq and relentless pursuit of the enemy. It ain't going to be pretty in Iraq, but if we can make the place reasonably safe and functional, it is victory. The relentless pursuit part is definitely doable. |
|
What those these three have in common: Giuliani, McCain, and Fred Thompson.
They all know who the enemy really is and are wiling to do what is necessary to deal with that threat.
I will even throw Romney in that mix, based on what he has said, although I am not sure if is quite as committed as those three guys are.
But I agree some success in Iraq is necessary or we will probably have a Democrat in the White House. |
|
|
|
Hugh, it is getting rather annoying to hear Romney and people like yourself refer to Ronald Reagan as pro-choice. It is particularly galling to hear it from you considering you worked in his White House for six years.
Reagan was NEVER pro-choice. The ONE bill he signed as Gov. allowed abortion in cases of physical or mental health to the mother. According to Ed Meese (and others), Reagan agonized over the bill for weeks. He talked to various doctors, religious leaders, ethicists, etc., before signing the bill. Within a year he regretted it because doctors were declaring anything and everything a "mental health" issue so women could get abortions.
Does that sound pro-choice? In fact, it's actually more pro-life than any Republican I know of today. Who "agonizes" over allowing abortion for the health of the mother? Are there even any Republicans left who oppose abortion in these instances?
SO STOP LYING ABOUT REAGAN'S RECORD! The fact that you have to dim the light of Reagan's conservatism to make your guy's faux-conservatism shine brighter should tell you all you need to know about Romney and his supporters. |
|
|
|