Bad Investment?
I've got little use for Joe Lieberman, but when he's right, he's right. As he said last week:
Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving...Okay, maybe what he said is too obvious to rise to the level of an observation, but I'm still surprised when I hear someone like Nancy Pelosi claim (just yesterday) "It's a war without end. There is no light at the end of the tunnel. We must reverse it."
This in spite of all the positive news coming out of Iraq for the past several months, e.g., violence down significantly in Baghdad and elsewhere, Al Qaeda in disarray and being forced out of most of their territory, Sunni insurgents changing their minds. I don't go as far as saying that we've won, as some conservatives do, but claiming the situation hasn't improved requires willful blindness. And it's all been reported in The New York Times, so even Speaker Pelosi should know about it. (To be fair, it's not usually on the front page).
But what interests me is how Iraq will play in the 2008 election. The anti-war mood swept the Dems into power last time, but is it possible there'll be a reversal on the issue by late next year?
My guess is no.
First, the Dems can only change so much. Hillary has positioned herself best, but even she can only go so far. So much of their base is built upon withdrawal and defeat that it constrains their leaders. Can the base change? Hey, most of them believe, after four years of growth, that we're in a recession. The war is even more emotional.
But in addition, the nation in general is so soured on the war that for the electorate to do a 180 seems unlikely, regardless of the news (though bad news will still play just fine). It'll be very hard for Repubs to run on an "I told you so" platform.
So what will happen if the good news continues? We're seeing it already. Iraq will become less important as an issue.
Which means we'll focus more on the economy, health care, education, etc. To me, the wild card in 2008 won't be Iraq, but immigration.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:21 AM
9 Comments:
"all the positive news coming out of Iraq for the past several months"
The administration has said this during every month of the war regardless of the situation on the ground so I will wait and see.
However it will be interesting to see what the result is after the surge troops come home.
One theory of reduced violence is that (a little like Yugoslavia) is that some of the partisan violence is no longer necessary since its object has been achieved -i.e. the Sunni or Shia eradication/ "ethnic cleansing" sought in certain areas has occurred. Can't say thats something to be necessarily be proud of, or something that would have been trumpeted as a war goal, but it might be a necessary condition for progress at this point.
I'm not referring at all to what the administration says, only to what the numbers are saying and what The New York Times is saying. Certainly the turnaround in Anbar Province alone, which used to be the most violent, anarchic area in Iraq, shows a major change--in fact, the turnaround of the Sunnis is the big event everyone was waiting for. (And this is not Sunni versus Shia, this is Sunni versus us.)
I've heard people make the negative interpretation of the numbers and felt embarrassed for them. They're so desperate that they insist even good news from Iraq be bad news, no matter how much it flies in the face of the facts.
Well, as recently as early September the GAO and DOD were arguing bitterly over whether the Iraqi gov't had met a few, or essentially none, of their roadmap goals, so forgive us if we're not ready to fly banners from carriers yet.
But so long as you want to talk about what the NYTimes says, I think the gist of the NYTimes position today is that there have been substantial gains in pacification, but little if any progress in leveraging those gains into political reconciliation.
This isn't a discussion about whether the war's been won, but whether there have been improvements. The objective answer to that is yes, significant ones.
And for all the talk about roadmap goals (some of which have been met I've heard from certain sources), the truth is a violent country with a government getting along isn't as important as a pacified country with the government at loggerheads. The latter, if nothing else, allows us to let them take over.
I don't get that at all. If their government is "at loggerheads," and therefore unable to take all the constructive steps needed to put institutions in place, they are not in a position to "take over." It seems like a libertarian fantasy that a non-functioning government is a good thing -- one that can only be indulged in a country where the real structures have been put in place long ago.
Also, if the country is "pacified" only because a would-be hoodlum can look outside and see a G.I. patrolling (or several), then when we leave it will no longer be pacified. The government would have to be able to fulfill that function, and therefore needs to get out of "loggerheads."
I also don't think it's an argument to say you're "embarrassed" for people who argue that violence is calming down because those who wanted to kill have pretty much finished killing the ones they wanted to get(or at a minimum driven them off). This is what ethnic cleansing is about. Do you have a real argument that this has not occurred?
The idea that they've killed everyone they want is so wrong I can't believe even a desperate anti-war person could claim it.
I consider it so obvious I don't even like to respond to it since it makes it sound like a real argument is going on. First, most obviously, there are still millions around on opposite sides ripe for killing. Second, one of our main fights is with Al Qaeda in Iraq whose whole purpose is to stir things up by any means, and they simply haven't been able to strike as they've wished lately. Third, another of our big problems (I'd say the biggest) was the Sunni unwillingness to go along with the new Iraq, and so they fought and made their provinces the most violent places of all, and now they've changed their tune and want peace.
Tell me, if the violence starts up again, will the people making this absurd argument apologize, or will they just go on as if nothing happened, and say "see, Iraq's in bad shape like it's always been."
By the way, the Flemish and the Wallooons in Belgium haven't been able to form a government in the past five month, but the country is pacified. Much better than the other way around.
Miserable fat Belgian bastards!
Hey, LA Guy, I didn't think we sunk to that kind of ad hominem around here. I mean, as Anonymous alluded to, Al Qaeda in Iraq are bad (mmm'kay), but to compare them to Belgians???
Post a Comment
<< Home