Democrats New Iraq Strategy: Declare Victory
They Couldn’t Beat Bush So Now They Plan to Join Him
By Mark I Posted in Democratic Party | Democrats | Iraq | Iraq Funding | Michael O'Hanlon — Comments (25) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Predictably, but no less unbelievably, Congressional Democrats are considering a new approach in dealing with the burgeoning success in Iraq. Michael O’Hanlon, of the Brookings Institution and author of a now famous New York Times op-ed that was one of the first to claim that the surge was working, has another opinion piece in today’s USA Today. O’Hanlon argues that Democrats are due a large share of the credit for the surge’s apparent success.
Rarely in U.S. history has a political party diagnosed a major failure in the country's approach to a crucial issue of the day, led a national referendum on the failing policy, forced a change in that policy that led to major substantive benefits for the nation — and then categorically refused to take any credit whatsoever for doing so.
The Washington Post characterizes O’Hanlon’s thesis as a first airing of a possible shift in strategy by House Democrats over funding for the Iraq war. Democrats are considering dropping timeframes for troop withdrawal altogether in favor of timelines on political progress. This strategy says O’Hanlon, will allow Democrats to acknowledge the success of our troops while maintaining opposition to the war.
Read on…
O’Hanlon’s plan would actually be pretty solid political advice, if this was the beginning of the surge. But coming now, after nearly every Democrat leader has derided the surge, prematurely called it a failure, denigrated its commander, and voted time and time again to withdraw from Iraq before success could be achieved, it doesn’t pass the laugh test. Even O’Hanlon says as much in his USA Today piece. “Democrats were not the authors of the surge and in fact generally opposed it.” Still he seems to think that they can now turn on a dime and take credit for that which they did not propose or support.
The tone of the piece also gives away O’Hanlon’s and Democrats’ desperation to salvage something positive from the unmitigated mess they have made for themselves with their obstinate stance against the surge. Still, O’Hanlon can’t bring himself to utter the one word that may give Democrats a chance at turning public perception of their Iraq position around.
We now have a realistic chance, not of victory, but of what my fellow Brookings scholar Ken Pollack and I call sustainable stability. Violence rates have dropped by half to two-thirds in the course of 2007, the lowest level in years. Iraq is still very unstable, but it has a chance. (my emphasis)
Not of victory. Until the Democrats can believably state that they want and desire victory in Iraq, they will not be credibly able to take any credit for it when it comes.
Wanting military victory is a commitment. It requires that obstacles to that desired result be overcome at some cost. Rather than military victory, Democrats want political victory. In order to achieve that, they believe that they must find the lowest cost route to their desired outcome, an end to the mission in Iraq. If Democrats wanted military victory, which in this context includes political stability in Iraq, the supplemental funding for the troops would have been passed last February when it was submitted. Instead, Congress has spent ten months searching for ways to undermine the very results that they are seeking now to claim as their own.
No amount of posturing can save Democrats from their pessimism, cynicism, and defeatism on Iraq. The American people are far smarter than that, and so are many Democrats. The Post reports that O’Hanlon realizes that none of the Democratic presidential candidates will be willing to sign on to his strategy, and with good reason. They know that for the Democrats there are only two options: sincerely admit their mistakes and apologize to the American people; or continue to try and prevent the growing victory in Iraq from making life any worse for the Democratic Party.
« Clinton Will Break the Democratic Party to Save It — Comments (35)
Democrats New Iraq Strategy: Declare Victory 25 Comments (0 topical, 25 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
So O’Hanlon is suggesting that, after nearly 5-years of throwing themselves in front of the Bush-mobile that the Democrats pick themselves up, dust themselves off, walk to the side of the road, stick out their thumbs and ask for a ride?
It's brilliant. Truly.
Now all they need is for the MSM to jam the last 5-years of debate on anything even tangentially related to Iraq down a memory hole. Probably not possible, but I'm willing to bet they're going to give it the old college try.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
The Democrats will says: "Sure, it got better -- a trillion dollars and 4,000 dead soldiers and marines later". And the peripheral successes won't be acknowledged.
We supporters of the war will stand by incredulously while the general public laps it up.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
for Democrat supporters to accept this about face...
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
OK, let me get this straight...
Democratic strategy...
Option 1
BushLied™!, Surge fails... Troops come home now!
Option 2
We MADE Bush change! We Win! Troops come home now!
Does that about sum it up?
I won't look for all the old diaries but anyone familiar with my thoughts on O'Hanlon knows that I singled that piece out as a pinnacle turning point in the political battle on Iraq. I believe that when history is written he will have a small heroes footnote in speaking his mind when those thoughts weren't popular (I should note that when I say he it is he and Pollack who co wrote that piece).
If you read the article it is absolutely remarkable how many of his recommendations are really something for the internal dynamics of Iraq. In other words, it isn't that they aren't important and things that need to be accomplished, however those recommendations go much farther toward moving Iraq from a third world nation toward a first world, and not so much something that is necessary for victory there.
Finally, there is no question in my mind that the Dems will back down on funding. In fact, something that happened in my fraternity reminds of what the Dems are currently doing on funding.
There is also no doubt in my mind that soon enough Iraq will become an albatross around the Democrats not the Republicans. I believe that it will happen on or before Petraeus' next update in March. It may happen before then, or when they match up with him again, they will either admit they were wrong, or look silly, naive, and downright defeatist in trying to prove him wrong when he presents another positive assessment.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
How despicable (and utterly unsurprising). And the dutiful Treason Press will play any tune they ask, failing to do even the most basic cross-examination.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
there is no amount of spin that is going to muddy the waters that much. Everyone knows that the Dems were virulently against the surge. Hillary Clinton's words are a matter of public record, the same for Harry Reid. Anyone can go to Barack Obama's website to see that he still believes the surge is failing.
They can get behind it later, however it will be ripe for commercials using their old words against them.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
Now, first some disclosure, I don't remember how I got on the Democrat's email list however I am. I stay on it because all political literature is fascinating to me and I like seeing what their spin is. Here is Howard Dean's latest vis a vis Iran, (since it was emailed I can't link)
For the past few months, the Bush Administration exploited the fears of Americans to make their case against Iran. Just a few weeks ago, the President said "I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon."
This week, 16 U.S. intelligence agencies published a report that "in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." Turns out the White House was aware of this shocking assessment for a few months, but reportedly worked to delay its public release.
Distortions and manipulation to promote a narrow ideological agenda is nothing new to the Bush Administration -- it's how they misled us into Iraq. This is the worst kind of leadership: a dishonest appeal our base emotions.
Iran may pose a threat, but misleading the American people is not the way to deal with it. All of the Democratic candidates have said that we need to have all options on the table when dealing with Iran -- Republicans seem to only consider war.
There are so many issues here. First, the Dems virtually ignored the NIE assessments vis a vis Iraq when they ran with the drumbeats of Bush lied.
Second, the Iranian threat is much more complicated than merely whether or not they are enriching uraniam or developing weapons.
Third, isn't the NIE assessment confirmation that Bush's approach is working?
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
The Dems used their usual co-ordinated attack: moles in the intelligence community to massage/obfuscate/make up/leak data, the mainstream media to shill for them, and various Democrat attack dogs to hype it, screaming about entirely hypothetical discrepancies.
Yawn.
If they dedicated these resources, coordination, money, high-priced shills, etc, toward working for Victory in the war on terror, we would be way, way ahead of our adversaries.
Of course, the NIE actually confirms what we have believed about Iran -- they were working on a program till 2003, they stopped because they feared they were next on Bush's list. In other words, Bush was right and has been right. Our current policy is the correct one, moreover it has actually had results.
Apparently being right and successful in a dangerous world is grounds for impeachment in the Dem mind.
understand better. In other words, by taking out Saddam we encouraged the Iranians to stop their nuke program. That is, if this NIE assessment is right. Is that how we would read it?
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
And the NIE is encouragement for us to keep up our efforts to sanction and isolate Iran. That's true whether the NIE is correct or not. In other words....nothing to see here, just the Dems being political with vital national security issues.
I am glad O'Hanlon is showing them a route out of the corner they have painted themselves into. I just hope they take it along with the lesson that partisan politics should stop at the water's edge. I'd be happy to let them out of the corner in exchange for that and I would much rather hear them spinning the "thanks to us" myth than the one they are presently spinning which actually harms American security interests.
Republicans must not let them out of the corner in exchange for anything. If Democrats are on the ropes of their own making, Republicans must step on their necks. The Republican Party has been burned time and again in the name of bipartisanship and being the better guy. No more.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
Mark, we aren't going succeed in exterminating them over this. They have put partisan advantage ahead of US security and look where it has gotten them. I think we will do better by putting security ahead of our own partisan killer instinct. If they now join in what's in the best interest of US security we ought to encourage them, because it serves that purpose which is greater than our own partisan advantage. We can argue about who deserves credit later.
I reckon the last time was in 2000, just before Al Gore called Bush to rescind his concession.
Right now, after all this time, Republicans falling for the illusive fool's gold lure of bipartisanship is an act of lunacy and does the nation no favors.
If the Democrats never suffer any consequences for their mistakes and malfeasance because some idiots in the GOP are always ready to help them evade responsibility in the name of bipartisanship, then they'll never stop.
It's time to make them pay. Heck, we have a duty to tie their records around their necks and make them pay.
O'Hanlon is giving them away to come back around and support US efforts in Iraq. Bipartisanship on that policy is a boon for the US. They have to gamble on succeeding with that spin job. With the MSM's help they might have some success, probably more success than the current spin will afford them. We will keep on arguing our side. But at least we may get some bipartisanship on this US policy in Iraq.
He is giving them a way to hedge their bets while looking like they supported the surge all along. From the article:
On strategic grounds, it appears that we now have an opportunity to salvage something significant in Iraq. Given sectarian tensions and brittle Iraqi institutions, this almost surely requires us to execute a gradual drawdown of U.S. forces there rather than an abrupt departure. In political terms, it would be rescuing defeat from the jaws of victory to mandate an end to an operation, however unpopular, just when it is showing its first signs of progress.
Democrats should change course. Rather than demand an end to the operation no matter what, they should continue to keep up the pressure for positive results in Iraq. They can retain their anti-war stance, emphasizing that their default position is that U.S. troops should soon come home absent continued major progress. The surge was never designed as just a military operation; it was intended to create political space for Iraqis to forge reconciliation with each other across sectarian lines. Since that is for the most part not yet happening, it is perfectly reasonable for the Democrats to demand more as a condition for continued funding.
Translation: We should withdraw troops but we can't becuase that would be seen by the general public as hindering success. So we should acknowledge success on narrow terms to give ourselves cover enough with the general public to continue to try and hinder success with strings tied to political achievements. These strings will serve as triggers for us to demand troop withdrawals, which will allow us to tell out anti-war base that we're still on their side, as well.
O'Hanlon is giving Democrats a way to appear to support U.S. efforts on the ground in the name of supporting their true goal, reelection.
Step. On. Their. Necks.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
I did not read the article, only your post and now that quote. I did not understand his words quite the way your translated them, but I would have the same reaction to that translation that you have expressed, because it is just more of the same: with the foregone conclusion of failure as the aim.
I need to read the article. But if indeed this is about Democrats _changing course_ to _support_ the current policy in Iraq (Hoo hah!) while keeping up pressure for success, and more support with more success, then that's a fine day for bipartisanship. Success is a good thing to agree upon. We are having it and so they ought to be supporting the policy/efforts producing it. If it makes them feel good to claim that their pressure helped bring about the new successful policy, I don't really care. I don't think it will get much purchase beyond their own party faithful, but I would be very happy if that message beamed into all those with tinfoil hats.
So having defended what is perhaps my dream, I'll go take my licks from the actual article. Thanks for pointing it out in any case
After reading O'Hanlon, my feelings are mixed. I do think O'Hanlon is trying to get them to change course and support the successful efforts. I understand why he would appeal to the contingent use of benchmarks, because Dems have been so enamoured of them (unfortunately as a way to cement failure). Congressional oversight ought to be a good thing, but D's have given R's every reason to distrust it. Benchmarks as set by Congress and judgment on them outsourced to a committee in not an adequate basis for bipartisanship. There is too much cause for distrust and it essentially demands abnegation by the executive branch and implicitly refuses to recognize the executive's important role in achieving the current successes. The Dems need to give a little more than what O'Hanlon has asked of them if we are to get to that bright day of bipartisanship.
5.
And thanks for not letting them get away with it.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
and they are very late in starting to play a constructive role in the war, which they have to do in order to share in the victory. This is what O'Hanlon is pointing out. For starters:
They have to pass the war funding now, without strings
Pass a joint resolution of Congress praising Gen Petraeus for the development and execution of the surge strategy -- this should have been done in September when he reported on the mission's success.(Instead we got General Betray Us)
Stop talking about pulling out troops and start planning (this is something Congress should be doing) and preparing the public for our long term stationing forces in Iraq.
Stop repeating nutroots talking points -- the NIE is just the latest.
Then we'll know you're serious.
Also, one of your Presidential candidates has to start talking about victory and not defeat.
Bill Clinton's comment at the '92 Dem Convention.
"Who is we?" Ronald Reagan's reply.
"If this ain't a mess, it'll do until one shows up." -Sheriff Bell, No Country For Old Men