If, as seems more and more likely, the Democrats take control of the House, we will hear much crowing on the left about the part that the War in Iraq played in the GOP’s downfall. They will demand that the President now come up with a plan that would bring the troops home in a specified period of time.
Democrats will tell you that they will tie that timetable to real progress by the Iraqi government and military in getting a handle on the security situation and other benchmarks. The problem is a simple one:
DOES ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE THAT IF ONE OF THOSE BENCHMARKS HASN’T BEEN ACHIEVED THAT THE DEMOCRATS WILL ALLOW THE TIMETABLE TO SLIP?
They will argue that the timetable is more important than any “artificial” measurement of progress and agitate for the withdrawal anyway. In fact, I would fully expect the Democrats to use the published timetable as a political club, constantly beating the Republicans over the head with the fact that the war is not going according to the schedule they so carefully set down. At the very least, they’ll have one more thing about which to Blame Bush and, because wars tend not to cooperate when politicians set down arbitrary conditions for its ending, the Dems will have a field day until November of 2008 at the Republican’s expense.
The problem with this “anti-war mandate” that we will be hearing so much about over the next few days and weeks is that it only seems to exist in the minds of of war opponents. That’s because, from where I sit, there is no talk from the candidates here in Illinois about leaving Iraq at all or any kind of “anti-war” sentiment whatsoever.
Melissa Bean (Ill eight), a freshman Democrat running in a marginally red district and considered extremely vulnerable hasn’t even mentioned the war in her ads which effectively skewer her opponent as a right wing extremist. (That’s okay because, well, he is.) And perhaps most surprisingly, Democratic candidate Tammie Duckworth, an Iraq War vet and double amputee running in the hotly contested sixth district of Illinois, is running an ad that, if I were in her district, would make me comfortable with voting for her. Nowhere does she express an iota of anti-war sentiment in the ads. Instead, she concentrates on trying to get the President to “change course” as well as make sure our troops have everything they need.
I have a theory about what’s going on in the country with people’s ambivalent feelings toward the war. And to illustrate it, allow me to pose a counterfactual for you.
Suppose D-Day had failed and the allies had been thrown back into the sea. Most of our airborne troops dead or captured. The assault waves decimated. Instead of the more than 2,000 men who sacrificed their lives on the beaches of Normandy, the number of dead could have approached ten times that.
Even worse, Hitler would have been able to transfer the bulk of his western armies to the east and possibly defeat Stalin’s Russia given that another invasion was out of the question for at least a year. And an extended war in Europe would have meant a possible delay in throwing our best at Japan.
What would the American people have done when they went to the polls in November of 1944?
If Wendell Wilkie and the Republicans could have framed the election around the idea that they could do a better job in running the war and bringing victory, I daresay FDR and the Democrats would have been in enormous trouble.
But we don’t have that situation today because the Democrats refuse to acknowledge anything but defeat in Iraq. They have set parameters that don’t even define victory, only withdrawal and, given what is happening in Iraq at the moment, a humiliating defeat as we retreat and leave the battlefield to al-Qaeda.
Bush/Rummy/Cheney have made every mistake that was possible to make in Iraq and then blundered some more. But this is not Viet Nam. The American people are not resigned to stalemate and defeat. If you were to ask 100 Americans “If there were a way to win the War in Iraq, would you support our staying there until the job was done?”... my guess would be a very healthy percentage would answer in the affirmative.
This is why Democrats are not running “anti-war” ads – except true blue liberals like Ned Lamont. And look what’s happening to him.
All of this brings up the point that there is not going to be an “anti-war mandate” despite what you may hear from the left after the election. The American people want victory. And at this point, given the alternatives, even a timetable sounds like it could be spun as a win.
Try another counterfactual, this one more recent: Suppose the Democrats had run on a platform that they had a plan that could bring us victory in Iraq. Suppose they were willing to raise troop levels, get serious about training the Iraqi military, tell Maliki to shove it and take off after Mookie and his militia and finish the job that should have been done 2 years ago – kill the bastard and destroy his ability to make trouble.
I don’t think the Republicans would have had a prayer. They would have been steamrolled.
At bottom, when given the choice between victory and defeat, the American people choose to win. And if, by some miracle, the Republicans hold onto the House tomorrow, it won’t be because they deserve it or because they’ve managed the legislative branch so expertly. It will be because in the end, the American people made this election a referendum on who best would pursue victory in Iraq. And that just might be the most shocking surprise of all.
5:54 pm
The only problem that I have:
There’s still too many boomers with visions of ‘nam running around.
7:20 pm
The legacy of Viet Nam is to not fight a war in any way except to win. Viet Nam was a near perfect example of what happens when you try not to lose. And even there, once Nixon took off the shackles and let loose the Air Force for Linebacker II the North was begging to get to the peace table and couldn’t sign a peace treaty fast enough.
In Iraq, we haven’t and aren’t losing the war – the war has already been won. You don’t invade a country and take its capital in 21 days and call that a loss. We are losing the peace!
Yeah, I know, you my think it is just semantics but take “another counterfactual” example here and say the war in 1945 Europe is over, the surrender of the Germans has just been signed and we immediately beat feet, leave the country, even leave the continent. Why? Because we have another enemy to finish off – the Japanese. And no sense wasting any more time here than we need to.
In actual fact, the troop levels in Germany stayed above 500,000 for almost two years. And there were casualties there that would surprise you. And that does not include the British or French troops. (Yes, even the French. The one thing they take pleasure in war is any chance they can to rub the Germans nose in IT.) Why so many troops? How about 2,000,000+ Soviet troops. The War is over but where do you think Europe would be today if we had left.
I agree with you Rick. Disheartened at the way the “Peace” had been conducted – Yes. But until that “Peace” is won, we still got work to do. A new and better plan? Great – Put something on the table Democrats . . . put something on the table anybody.
8:21 pm
“I have a theory about what’s going on in the country with people’s ambivalent feelings toward the war. And to illustrate it, allow me to pose a counterfactual for you.
Suppose D-Day had failed and the allies had been thrown back into the sea. Most of our airborne troops dead or captured. The assault waves decimated. Instead of the more than 2,000 men who sacrificed their lives on the beaches of Normandy, the number of dead could have approached ten times that.”
Well, gee, let ME propose a “counterfactual”. Suppose on D-Day, the allies invaded India, got bogged down, and the Axis powers threat fronted local oposition to kill Americans on a daily basis, while Germany, Italy and Japan continued their activities. I think the American people would have justifably thrown the Congress out on their backsides, but not before that Congress would have impeached Roosevelt and Stimpson for such gross incompetence and dereliction of duty.
And by the way, if you were to ask 100 Americans if there was a way to win the lottery for you, would you buy a ticket?, my guess is that the majority would say yes. But that would be a very stupid question, wouldn’t it?
8:28 pm
Apathy is the reason conservatives are staying home. Eight years of Bush II is enough to crush the life out of any idealist. Let’s go over some facts. Here are the areas of concern for conservatives: size and scope of government, government spending, government’s growing role in education, affirmative action, meddlesome federal judges, women in the military, gay rights, homosexual marriage, abortion, and immigration. Did I miss anything? Bush has been either soft or downright hostile to his opponents on these issues. But he didn’t say that when he ran back in 2000 did he? And now we’re supposed to care how the election turns out? Ha! If you’re into materialistic determination, go ahead and vote. About the only thing you’re voting for is “tax cuts”...whatever that means.
8:30 pm
“If there were a way to win the War in Iraq, would you support our staying there until the job was done?â€... ”
That’s the point. There isn’t one.
If someone says “I want to run a four minute mile” you can encourage them, train them, push them, invest in them. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t, but there is value in trying. Not least because being able to do a 4 1/2 minute mile might be good enough.
If, on the other hand, they say “I want to live on the surface of the Sun” there is no point whatsoever in even trying. It is impossible. Give it up. If they have invested millions of dollars into building their rocket and training their crew, the best course of action is to cut your losses right there and then.
There is no plan that will fix things in Iraq. Whether there ever could have been is debatable, but the fact that there isn’t now is just obvious, surely. I mean, look at your later example;
“Suppose they were willing to raise troop levels, get serious about training the Iraqi military, tell Maliki to shove it and take off after Mookie and his militia and finish the job that should have been done 2 years ago – kill the bastard and destroy his ability to make trouble.”
Raise troop levels. With what? You’re already sucking up all the reserves, crippling the Guard and running out of working kit. I suppose one could pull troops out of other garrisons around the world. Is that the plan?
Training the army (and police). These will be the ones who can’t be trusted by US troops because lots of them are working with the insurgents. The ones who are deeply divided along sectarian lines. The ones running death squads, stealing US supplied arms and giving them to insurgents, the ones infested with militia groups.
Good luck with that.
As for telling Malaki to shove it, good plan. Show him as the the puppet he is. Remove any hope of legitimacy. Show all Iraqis who have any doubt that the Iraqi state is a mask lying over the (lets’s face it) hated Americans.
That’ll stabalise things, won’t it.
As for killing Muqtada and destroying his militia, well, that could effectively lose you an army. If the Shiites started really kicking off like the Sunnis, the supply lines will be completely cut, every man and his dog would start joining in and the government would collapse utterly. You’ll start seeing US casulaties in the hundreds, if not thousands per month, every month.
In response the only military option will be effectivly flattening the homes of a couple of million crazy Shiites. Not only is this obviously monstrous, it won’t even work.
In this sort of stabalisation operation, you need hearts and minds from the people and legimacy for the government. The plan above looks like a recepie for the exact opposite. It will kill a lot of people but it won’t solve any of the problems.
You don’t believe me? Give it a go. I’ll be waiting in 6 months to see the disaster.