The question the subject line poses is not a little ambiguous, I know, and not exactly tending toward equanimity. But that's part of the point. The question is still a contentious one. Ultimately, what I'd like to know from the Kos readership in these parts is:
How will Iraq matter?
Back in 2002 and early 2003, when many of us who frequented the legacy dKos began to talk about Howard Dean and his emerging position on Iraq, one of the questions we asked is whether or not it would hurt him down the road. The simple question was whether, given 'success' in Iraq, Howard Dean would seem to have held the 'wrong' position and fade quickly because of it. Or, if Iraq turned out to be a misadventure and we were still fighting in 2004 (as we are), if Dean would turn out to be 'prescient' and 'right'. Well, we know what happened...
But, I remember asking a slightly different question at that time. If we were militarily successful in the short-term, but couldn't win the peace ultimately, would it matter where anyone stood on the issue to begin with, or would it matter more who was perceived as capable of cleaning up the mess after the war? Though cynical, I found myself asking the question, would Bush actually benefit from creating a quagmire in Iraq?
Well, it remains to be seen. But I think it also might indicate why we're seeing movement from other candidates (like Edwards and Kerry) who initially seemed to have been discounted due to their votes on the presidential force authorization issue. The questions are changing again: how important is the ideological purity of a candidate on the Iraq issue, and can that even be measured? Does anyone believe that were Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Dean, or Clark in Bush's position, that we would be in Iraq now, regardless of where they stood on authorization at the time? Does the argument that Bush was a 'liar' and Democrats 'complicit' actually help Democrats in November? Or will we see midterm 2002 all over again, when Dems were perceived as negative, without agency or platform, looking back and complaining about past mistakes without any solutions for the future?
How will Iraq matter? Will it still be the 'big issue', an object lesson, or will it be remembered as an unfortunate but necessary gamble...a flawed success?
Is the strongest candidate the one who presents the best solution for realizing a tentative, Islamicized democracy in Iraq, and the one with background to manifest this strategically and pragmatically? Or is the best candidate the one who was 'right' to begin with, regardless of the efficacy of his proposed solutions for the postwar period?
The nation seems to be divided on this, but I feel, aside from the polls, that the middle majority is decidedly mixed on Iraq. I know I thought the sanctions were horrible, and one of the most disgusting statements that I remember from Clinton's administration was that of Madeleine Albright, who said that, even knowing that half a million children had died from them, she would do it all over again. I know Bush Sr bungled it all by not removing Saddam in 1991. I know Bush Jr bungled it further by having no postwar strategy, failing to sufficiently internationalize the effort, and launching a war at the worst possible time for the US economy. None of the past four administrations seem to have gotten Iraq right.
How will the next one do it? What do Americans want? How important will it be to them (to us) in November?