The Democrats are in a bind. They have ridden the polls to leads in various arenas, generic Democrat versus generic Republican for Congress, close races among the Democratic contenders versus Republican contenders, but their approach has always been fraught with danger. The Democratic chance to sweep to victory in the 2008 elections have always depended on the continued ineptitude and corruption of the Republicans (many of whom have done their best to help out) and more importantly, continued problems in Iraq. If Iraq can be reasonably depicted as a disaster in October of 2008, Hillary Clinton will almost certainly be our next President. However, she is not stupid and also recognizes that once in office, any subsequent developments in Iraq would be her responsibility. Thus, the next election crucially depends on the balance between the reality on the ground and the reality as determined by the MSM and the zeitgeist. What are the options in Iraq?
1) The ideal situation for the Democrats politically would be a failed surge, mild to moderate chaos in Iraq and American foreign policy in the Middle East in disarray. In such a case the Democrats will almost certainly win the House, Senate, and Presidency, and the next administration will have a number of palatable options for ending the war while blaming the Bush administration for the mess they inherit. The consequences of pulling our forces out in defeat will be problematic but all politicians are well versed in playing "kick the can"; we will deal with the consequences if and when we have to, to the detriment of our former allies in Iraq and any friends we might still have in the region.
2) A still positive scenario for the Democrats politically, but with an unacceptable level of uncertainty, would be the worst case scenario in Iraq, ie, a failed surge with severe chaos. While the Democrats would probably still sweep to victory, even as the Republicans accuse them of abandoning our allies and accepting defeat, the next administration would come into office with a major crisis on their hands and few decent options for defusing what would likely develop into a regional conflagration. No Democratic President, even those who desire most fervently to abandon the mission, could welcome such an outcome (though Dennis Kucinich just might be blind enough to support the idea.) Furthermore, as Hillary Clinton suggested, in a race in which the Republican nominee will not be directly tied to the Bush White House, the voter response to increased violence and possibly increased terrorism, would be at best unpredictable.
3) The worst case scenario for the Democrats corresponds to the best case scenario for Iraq. This is not news but is worth repeating.
If Iraq has achieved a semblance of stability, with three wary factions facing off, occasionally hurling epithets at each other, and struggling for control over the country's oil wealth, all the while holding their weapons in reserve while the Iraqi army grows in capabilities and strength, we will have succeeded in a true paradigm change in the Middle East. Bush, for all his errors and stumbles, will have finally found the right commander for the job in General Petraeus, and victory, modest though it might be, would be unmistakable.
At the moment scenario #3 seems attainable, though there are clearly still problems and dangers ahead.
This reflects on the Democratic performance during and after the Petraeus/Crocker hearings and after President Bush's speech.
General Petraeus clearly stated that the surge is working and needs time to continue to work. In other words, option #3 remains on the table.
Move on.org (possibly with the complicity of the New York Times, which reportedly offered them a cut rate for their noxious ad) essentially called General Petraeus a liar and a traitor. The failure of the Democrats to respond is not just irresponsible and dangerous but truly contemptible. Worse, when Hillary Clinton told Petraeus he is "cooking the books" and that to believe his testimony before Congress requires a "willing suspension of disbelief," she was betraying a desperation of her own that is frightening in its implications.
The Democrats have made it unmistakable that they view their success as hinging so powerfully on option #1 and see the greatest danger in #3. Their surge for defeat militarily and victory politically can not be sustained if Option #3 remains viable. The only way to destroy the option is by convincing enough people (and legislators) that Petraeus is a liar and we are already defeated.
A smart Democratic party would have announced that while they remain skeptical they are in no position to question the integrity of a war hero, that General Petraeus is the right man for the job and that he is, in reality, simply following the suggestions the Democrats have been pushing for years. They could make a great show of passing resolutions holding the General to his schedule of withdrawals without actually putting dates to the resolution, and proclaimed that finally the Bush administration has been forced to offer a plan to leave Iraq. They may yet try to parse their dilemma in such terms, yet the early results suggest that the Democrats continue to see the Bush administration and the Republicans as more dangerous than Islamic fascists and more afraid (or in tune with) Moveon.org than with those Americans who appreciate the disaster a loss in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran would be.
Note that this does not mean that success would be a Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq. After so many months and years of accepted wisdom that Iraq was irredeemably lost, that it was a quagmire and a civil war, relative peace and stability a year from now would be enough to damn the Democrats who currently continue to seek to lose.
If the debate over Iraq was not so deadly serious in its implications, there would be an amusing irony to all this. After all, the Bush administration for years, in response to Democratic demands to change strategy, proclaimed the need to "stay the course." Now that General Petraeus has actually changed strategies and the surge is bringing results, it is the Democrats who refuse to change their strategy and politically have committed to "stay the course."
Recent Comments