Time For the Dems to Declare Defeat
Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 09:38:38 AM PDT
There are probably two schools of thought in terms of responses to this diary title:
- We should never declare defeat! I must troll rate you now.
- The Dems have already surrendered on everything there is, what is there left to declare?
My point here is that the Democrats need to seriously re-think their strategy on the war in Iraq, and they need to do it BEFORE the "Petreus report" comes in September. And part of that strategy needs to be accepting that Bush is going to do what he wants with troop levels as long as he is president and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it and we should stop trying. Why? Here's Why: It's all about 2008 now. Hear me out below the fold.
First off let me state that I hate this war as much as anyone. Every car bomb in a market brings an unspeakable sadness, every American soldier dead bings a profound sense of loss, every picture of an Iraqi child crying over the loss of a loved one brings tears to my eyes. I want it to stop.
That said, George W. Bush is not going to end this war, and Harry Reid can't make him. Atrios has said this so many times I am not going to even bother with a link, but to Bush leaving=losing and it ain't gonna happen. There are too many hurdles and not enough vulnerable GOP Senators to pass any sort of binding legislation. Now if Reid secretly has a veto-proof majority in his back pocket all bets are off, but I think this is extremely unlikely, and continuing to try to pass legislation only to get repeatedly filibustered or vetoed is making the Dems look weak. And even if by some miracle the Senate were to pass sort of binding timeline, and by another miracle the House passes it, and then by some altogether unheard of massive miracle the veto is overridden, Bush would probably ignore it anyway. Trying to end this war via legislation short of impeachment (which I would favor but that is another debate) is a fool's game and it is time for the Dems to stop playing it.
While on the subject of fool's games, the Petreus report is and will be a sham and the Democrats need to stop thinking that this magical September date will come and all the congressional Republicans will unite and Bush will be forced to change course. We have been waiting for the so-called moderate Republicans to wake up for six years now, so let's just go ahead and file that under the "ain't gonna happen" category as well. We all now what the report, to be written by the White House and read by Petreus, will say. It will say that the surge has succeeded in reducing violence and although political progress has been lagging, there are small signs of improvement. The White House plans to use the report as pivot point to turn the debate back on the Dems and accuse them cutting and running when we are on the verge of victory. The cynicism of the Bush administration should not be underestimated:
WASHINGTON: The White House plans to use a report next month assessing progress in Iraq to outline a plan for gradual troop reductions beginning next year that would fall far short of the drawdown demanded by Congressional opponents of the war, according to administration and military officials.
One administration official made it clear that the goal of the planned announcement was to counter public pressure for a more rapid reduction and to try to win support for a plan that could keep American involvement in Iraq on "a sustainable footing" at least through the end of the Bush presidency.
So there will be small troop reductions, probably most or all of the "surge troops" which we all know are coming because the Army has clearly stated that they do not have the troops to support it beyond April:
WASHINGTON - Some 28,000 American combat troops will be withdrawn from Iraq over a five-month period beginning in April, under a plan to be submitted to President Bush next month by Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq.
Petraeus' deputy, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, said yesterday that the five combat brigades ordered by Bush to "surge" to Iraq last winter would be withdrawn at a rate of one brigade per month. The withdrawal, to be completed in August 2008, would leave about 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.
[....]
Since then, however, senior military leaders - including Adm. Mike Mullen, incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - have acknowledged that the surge will effectively end in April because there are no fresh replacements.
The report will be a sham, it's contents already determined. You know it, I know it and the public knows it. The Dems need to make it clear that simply ending the surge is not adequate, but legislative strategies to accomplish this are simply a waste of time. Bush will accuse the Dems of wanting to withdraw right when we are on the cusp of victory which is why he made that ludicrous Vietnam analogy. Let him keep making it, he is trying to shore up his base, but I don't think most Americans are going to buy the "we should stay in Iraq because we should have stayed in Vietnam" argument.
The debate is no longer about getting out of Iraq in the next year, it is about getting out of Iraq in the next ten years (and beyond) and we need to get out in front of this in order to fully expose the GOP's position on the war. The hints of this have been around for a while, but the recently reported remarks by General Petreus about staying in Iraq for "9 to 10 years" have shed more light on this. This is the true position of the GOP base: An American presence in Iraq for 10 years and probably longer. This is Dick Cheney's vision and it is one that I do not think has much support among the American people.
Therefore what is crucial now and for the next year is making it clear where the GOP stands (endless war) and where the Dems stand (eventual withdrawal of all troops from Iraq). We need to turn the 2008 election into a referendum on the Iraq war, it needs to be presented as a stark choice to the electorate. Some elements of this strategy might include:
- Any legislation is aimed at the long term, i.e. opposing permanent military bases, withdrawals of very long timelines like 5 years etc. . .
- Democratic politicians and other in the Dem establishment need to make forcing Republicans to state their positions on the issues. If we start asking every Republican "do you support permanent bases in Iraq?" every day the media will eventually start asking as well.
- Putting a stop to Bush's dodge of letting the "commanders on the ground" dictate troop reductions. It is a load of crap. The commanders are professional military, you give them a job, they will do it. It is up to the president to decide whether the achievable strategic objectives in Iraq are worth the cost. He will argue that this is the case, but it needs to be made clear that the decision to keep the troops in Iraq is Bush's, not General Petreus'.
Those are a few thoughts, feel free to add more in comments.
There will be no other issue in 2008 other than the war. If the Dems fail to make this election a referendum on continuing the war and fail to completely distinguish their position from that of the Republicans the results will be disastrous for the party but, more importantly, for the country.
Permalink | 12 comments