Thanks mostly to the Democrats. This diary is framed by the reflections of two great journalists. One is David Halberstam who was the best reporter in Viet Nam and perhaps was the best journalist of the 20th Century. The other is a reporter who has laid a claim to being the best journalist in Iraq – Michael Ware.
A theme of Halberstam’s The Best and The Brightest was an Emerson quote that, ‘Events are in the Saddle and Ride Mankind.’ In the context of the Viet Nam War it meant the best and the brightest thought they had the war under control. That a rational increase in the amount of pain inflicted on the Vietnamese would force them to see the logic of the American position. But the events of the war negated that delusional thinking.
We know events are now in the saddle in Iraq. Unfortunately, most Democratic leads can’t seem to effectively express that as policy position. The worst case result of this ‘failure to communicate’ could be that next year the Democrats get blamed for losing Iraq and as a consequence lose the Presidency.
Ware outlined how the Democrats could walk into this trap last Thursday.
More Below:
Wolfie asked Ware:
"What would it mean...if the Democrats had their way and by the end of March of next year, U.S. combat forces pulled out of Iraq?
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, at that point, or very soon after, you would have some kind of regional conflict in the Middle East, almost without doubt.
You would instantly see the Shia militias that essentially are driving this government -- they're the ones who own this government, because this government is not a government in the sense that we understand. It's a loose alliance of these militias that U.S. intelligence says is backed by Iran.
So you would immediately see them consolidate their power. That means consolidating Iranian influence. They'd also look to expand that.
Now, the Arab states in the region, America's allies, who have been screaming about this since before the invasion, would not be able to sit back. They'd have to respond by supporting the Sunnis.
So you would see the country immediately turn into an Iranian proxy kind of territory or Iranian sponsored territory and then an al Qaeda-dominated Sunni-Arab regional backed semi-state, at war with each other, that would suck in all the regional players.
It's nothing but disaster -- Wolf."
‘Nothing but disaster’ - I agree with Ware. That’s the most probable outcome that will happen when we withdrawal. However, this disaster would have happen if we left Iraq immediately after ‘mission accomplished’ four years ago, last year, now, or it will happen after we leave anytime in the future. The line it is drawn, The curse it is cast.
What if Democrats force an end to America’s involvement in Iraq, and because of that a regional conflagration is sparked in an election year? In a Presidential election year that kind of a disaster could be an electoral disaster for the Democratic candidate, and perhaps many Congressional Democratic candidates. Could the RepublicSCUMS hope for a better gift considering the horrible position on Iraq that they are currently in?
The Democrats could be the party blamed for sparking a regional war, losing Iraq to Iran, and for the sectarian bloodbath that followed. One thing’s certain – the RepublicSCUMS will be will be braying that it is in fact the Democrats' fault. Words like defeat or defeatocrats are already being used by the RepublicSCUMS in the debate over what is in fact a war funding bill.
Keep in mind that a regional Middle East conflagration in 2008 doesn’t have to produce a seismic shift in voter opinions to produce a Republican presidential victory. Right now McCain, Giuliani, and Thompson are hanging close enough to the leading Democratic candidates that something like a wider war might tip the election to a Republican.
Link to recent polls:
http://www.pollingreport.com/...
Such a wider war scenario might really benefit a McCain candidacy. He’s out there right now talking about how a defeat in Iraq would have catastrophic consequences for the United Sates. If he were the RepublicSCUM candidate he could spend the rest of the campaign year telling the voters ‘I told you so’. Or, how John McCain got his ‘straight talk’ grove back singing bomb, bomb Iran!
If this happens it will be the Democratic leadership fault. The D.C. Don’ts, as in don’t stand for anything, will have finally blow the Iraq issue and pinned the war losers badge on themselves for another half-century.
I’ve been fustrated that the Democrats have spent the better part of the time since ‘Mission Accomplished’ staying out of the way as Bush as self-destructed.
It was incredible that a Democratic leader like Senator Reid finally said the war was lost. Of course he immediately backtracked. Steny H. Hoyer countered Reid’s lost statement and said, "There is nobody in this Congress who wants to lose this war." The war is lost, Steny and I don’t want your moronic and myopic positioning to have the Democrats blamed for losing it next year.
This gets me back to Halberstam and his observation on events. I don’t know if it’s American Exceptionalism that prevents American’s from admitting when something is lost. Most of the Democratic leadership that came of age during the Viet Nam War, and yet they are unwilling to use the lessons of that time to win the debates of today.
To avoid getting blamed for a wider war, the Democrat leadership has to stand up and say that not only the war is lost, but that Bush lost it.
Lost is the defining word of Bush's Iraq folly. It is a word that is hardly ever used by DC Democrats. Bush has LOST the Iraq War. Before Democrats talk about redeployment or timelines for withdrawal, the winning strategy is to frame the debate that Bush has already LOST the Iraq War.
George Bush lied us into Iraq, opened Pandora’s Box, screwed it up, and has lost the Iraq War.
Unequivocally stating, `Bush has lost Iraq,' obliterates the `cut and run' Republican carping over all the Democrat's proposals. One can't `cut and run' from something that's already been lost. Bush has LOST the Iraq War, because Iraq is becoming an Islamic state - a pro-Iranian Islamic state.
Bush has lost the Iraq War is the Teflon coating for Democrats in 08, but it has to be coupled with straight talk to the American people about what will likely happen when we leave. Most Democrats talk about how the Iraqi’s will have to work it out after we leave. That’s disingenuous to me and it could be very dangerous politically.
Quagmire –it’s another word that is not used enough. It’s another wonderful word to coat Bush with. ‘Bush’s Iraq Quagmire.’ The Democrats simply have to say Iraq is a quagmire. There are no good options when you are in a quagmire, bad things will happen no matter what we do, but least bad option is to get out now.
As I’ve said in the past it is Humpty Dumpty time in Iraq. All of Mad King George’s horses and men can put Iraq back together again.
Democrats have to have the courage to say that there could be a bloody civil war in Iraq and it could draw in outside players. Michael Ware ain’t blowing smoke.
But we can’t prevent that thanks to Bush’s bungling – events are in the saddle. That's the message that has to be delivered to the electorate.
DC Democrats need to have the courage to acknowledge what Ware talks about and reread Halberstam.