OxBlog

# Posted 12:05 PM by Ariel David Adesnik

THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE OPPOSITION. THEY HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE POLICY FOR IRAQ. This is an emerging meme in the liberal blogosphere. It is a response to the standard assertion, well-summarized by David Ignatius, that:

A mismanaged occupation has created a breeding ground for terrorists, so we should withdraw and let the Iraqis sort out the mess...Even among mainstream Democrats, the focus is "gotcha!" rather than "what next?" That is understandable, given the partisanship of Republican attacks, but it isn't right...

[Democrats] act as if all those America-hating terrorists will evaporate back into the sands of Anbar province if the United States pulls out its troops.

In response, conservatives such as Bill Kristol have suggested that it is not the White House, but rather the Democrats, who are in a state of denial. Personally, I agree with Ignatius and Kristol that most Democrats stubbornly refuse to recognize the dangers of an Iraq left to the whims of the insurgents and the death squads.

The rebuttal to this accusation is made by Kevin Drum:

Various luminaries in the liberal foreign policy community have been proposing Iraq policies right and left for over three years now...But to blame Democrats now for not being aggressive enough in trying to trisect this angle is like blaming Gerald Ford for losing Vietnam. George Bush fought this war precisely the way he wanted, with precisely the troops he wanted, and with every single penny he asked for...The result has been a disaster with no evident solution left.

The point being that it is absolutely impossible for anyone to do worse than Bush, so it is completely irrevelant whether Democrats have polished arguments and well-developed plans. (Peter Howard makes a similar point.)

That strikes me as as an effective argument for a midterm election. The president will be staying on anyhow, so it doesn't matter if the Democrats would actually do a better job of running the war. But giving them control of Congress may force some accountability on this administration.

Personally, I'm not sure that Democratic control of Congress will result in much oversight, as opposed to just anti-Bush grandstanding, but given what voters are saying, I don't think Democrats need to worry much about having a policy for Iraq.

In 2008, voters may react very differently. In 2008, they will face a clear choice between two individuals. If the Democrat is blind to the dangers of an Iraq run by insurgents and death squads, it may be a real strike against him. If the Republican (say John McCain), has a reputation for competence and original thinking, it may not matter that the previous Republican in the White House got us into a mess in Iraq.

If Democrats want to establish enduring credibility on the national security front, they need a positive and persuasive agenda.

(26) opinions -- Add your opinion

Comments:

Accusing the Democrats of having no solutions to Iraq is a little like a reckless driver roaring his car off a cliff, over the screaming objections of his passengers, and then turning to the terrified passengers on the way down, while in freefall, and complaining they have no solutions to avoid hitting the ground.

# posted by

Anonymous : 9:02 AM

Wow, there's the "car going over the cliff" analogy again, for the hundredth time!

Can someone come up with something new, please?

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:18 AM

Accusing the Democrats of having no solutions to Iraq is a little like a declarer opening seven no-trump to the shock of his partner, getting doubled and going down, and then turning to his partner after losing the eighth trick and complaining to him that he didn't have enough support for the contract.

# posted by

Anonymous : 12:27 PM

How about this: "accusing the Democrats of having no solutions to Iraq is a little like asking for a reason to give them my vote."

The reaction of anonymous and the liberal blogs David mentions is exactly why they will not be getting my vote. Nor a great many others. It is why I have no faith in the Democratic party to retake either house this fall. They simply cannot let go of the "oh yeah, well they're worse" strategy and it ain't working.

# posted by

tim maguire : 1:28 PM

It ain't working?? Did you even see the new polls?

Democrats now lead the Republicans on every single issue... INCLUDING SECURITY AND THE WAR ON TERROR.

# posted by

Anonymous : 2:04 PM

Tim, was your vote ever in play, or are you part of the Republican base?

If your vote is in play, then you can and have voted for both Democrats and Republicans. Reading the polls, you've probably noticed that independents have been running away from Bush in droves.

However, if you are part of the Republican base, which I suspect, the question is whether you will vote at all. Bush is at 33% in the polls, and even evangelicals have been dropping their support. Midterms are referenda, and so the question becomes 'does George Bush deserve your vote?'

# posted by

Anonymous : 3:31 PM

Anonymous, you suspect that I'm part of the Republican base for precisely the same reason you made that silly analogy earlier--it's easier than contemplating the alternative. Easier than facing reality. Which wouldn't matter if your's was a rare attitude. Unfortunately, it's all too common.

Get a clue, thinking of the right phrase to use to dismiss me is not going to win you an election. Only a rational analysis of the issues and a thoughtful positing of corrective programs will do that.

As far as the polls, how many votes do the polls get? (hint: zero).

# posted by

tim maguire : 3:43 PM

As far as the polls, how many votes do the polls get? (hint: zero).

Professionals of course would laugh at this naiveté.

I'm hardly trying to dismiss you. Rather I was trying to categorize you and I don't think you're an independent. If you were an independent then a reasonable question would be, 'are we better off now than we were six years ago?'

As for your complaint that Democrats haven't been proposing solutions, you haven't been paying attention. With respect to Iraq, Congressional Democrats have been uniting behind Murtha who has been arguing for a disengagement, or what you'd call 'Cut and Run.' With regards to domestic policies, the two parties seem more different than ever before.

Your posture sounds more defensive than analytic.

# posted by

Anonymous : 4:16 PM

As far as the polls, how many votes do the polls get? (hint: zero).

Okay, then you base your comment that the Democrats' strategy "ain't working" on... what? Anything tangible?

# posted by

Anonymous : 4:53 PM

No, polls don't get any votes. The voters in the polls may, however.

Opinions that no one is going to fall for the Democrats "strategy" don't get any votes either, except your.

# posted by

Anonymous : 5:36 PM

Obviously I meant to say "except yours."

# posted by

Anonymous : 5:37 PM

You were trying to categorize me in order to dismiss me. And it took you a lot of posts to get that out. One more and maybe you can screw up the courage to include a name.

Doesn't matter, really. You're still avoiding the issue. Polls don't select leaders. Elections do. And all this bickering means nothing--it doesn't matter how loudly you insist you're right on this or that blog. What matters is what happens on election day and if liberals would worry less about winning here and more about winning there, Republicans wouldn't be able to get away with so much (and there it is--I hold liberals and Democrats partly responsible for Republican perfidy because they refuse to embrace the role of responsible opposition).

# posted by

tim maguire : 6:30 PM

Doesn't matter, really. You're still avoiding the issue. Polls don't select leaders. Elections do. And all this bickering means nothing.

Funnily enough, people in the polls are often the same people voting in elections. Civics classes, anyone?

Sadly, you're not going to answer where you get the impression that the Democrats' strategy "ain't working." It's not polls, so it must be... guess we'll never know.

By the way, you're talking to more than one "anonymous".

# posted by

Anonymous : 6:38 PM

... most Democrats stubbornly refuse to recognize the dangers of an Iraq left to the whims of the insurgents and the death squads.

Actually it is a moral calculus we are willing to accept, the lesser of two evils. Basically, our presence there makes things worse. Sure, at great expense we can keep fixing the plumbing in the short term, but Iraq is still a failed state. Our leaving will lead to a wider short term civil war but this will happen sooner or later anyways. If Bush had any guts--he doesn't--he'd partition Iraq now. Instead there is this 'deer caught in the headlights' feeling you get about him. He has a laser beam focus on something coming right at him.

Iraq has been a mismanaged failure and another Potemkin election there isn't going to change anything. It is time for a real election here to begin getting us out of the hole Bush has dug us into, unless you'd rather we keep digging.

# posted by

Anonymous : 7:38 PM

"Our leaving will lead to a wider short term civil war but this will happen sooner or later anyways. If Bush had any guts--he doesn't--he'd partition Iraq now."

Couldn't the same be said of the Dem's? "If the Dem's had any guts, they'd be honest and say, well sure our leaving would cause civil war, but it's inevitable any way, beside at least our boys won't be dying.."

# posted by

Anonymous : 9:14 AM

Democratic Congressman and Marine Viet Nam Veteran John Murtha says that the "Situation in Iraq Is Civil War" and that "It is time to re-deploy our troops and to re-focus our attention on the real threats posed by global terrorism."

Let's take that as the official Democratic policy line.

# posted by

Anonymous : 4:11 PM

Murtha also said the danger was a too-slow withdrawal might look like victory.
That, I submit, is the dems' fear.
They call the current situation and the trend every name for failure they can think of, hoping to make it so.

What would the dems do if it worked out?

# posted by

Anonymous : 4:17 PM

What would the dems do if it worked out?

You sound as if you think success in Iraq is within sight and that 'staying the course' will bring us to that blessed Valhalla. But you also sound like a gambler at four in the morning who just signed a check to a really nice guy named Rocco.

# posted by

Anonymous : 5:01 PM

anonymous

What I think about what may happen in Iraq is not the point. The point is that Murtha let the cat out of the bag.

Suppose it does work out. Whatcha gonna do then?

It would be different if the dems were lamenting what they consider as an inevitable failure.
Instead, they clearly hope for it.

# posted by

Anonymous : 5:16 PM

Suppose it does work out. Whatcha gonna do then?

You kidding? I'm on the first flight to Baghdad to open a Dairy Queen. I figure that what Baghdad really needs is a good DQ. We may have to change the flavor from vanilla to date or maybe lamb ice cream, and the name might be Burka Queen. But if you mix Yankee ice cream expertise with Iraqi local knowledge then there's serious dinar to be made.

Instead, they clearly hope for it.

It was a mistake. It was completely unrelated to 9/11 and al Queda. It was mismanaged. It was a lie. It was expensive. We don't hope for a failure. We hope for an end to a failure.

# posted by

Anonymous : 6:06 PM

It was a mistake. It was completely unrelated to 9/11 and al Queda. It was mismanaged. It was a lie. It was expensive. We don't hope for a failure. We hope for an end to a failure

So again, what is missing from this and most other Dem's rhetoric is the part when you say, "And the end to that failure is a massive withdrawal. Yes we know a civil war is likely. And yes lots of Iraqi's are getting killed now. And yes when we pull out there IS a chance that the violence will get WORSE."

But I don't hear that. Again why do some people think that simply labeling Iraq a mess is all that is needed. You're still not selling me. I'll stick with the devil I know rather than the devil I don't.

# posted by

Anonymous : 7:12 PM

That Iraq is unrelated to 9-11 and al Q is irrelevent. We are in a war with islamofascism. 9-11 and al Q are part of the issue.

To use a WW II analogy: After Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor, we invaded Tunisia. The connection: There was one, but it required thinking of more than Pearl Harbor and Yamamoto.

Well, if it takes more than half a sentence to explain it, a liberal will interrupt and misrepresent something (it's a kind of Tourette's thing with them)and so the discussion founders.

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:16 PM

John, we should pull out and it will get much worse. That is why I think Bush should partition Iraq first. But I don't think he has the guts for hard choices. But even without the partition we should pull out.

Richard, no one is interrupting while you're typing.
Type away.

# posted by

Anonymous : 11:14 PM

anon. Right.

Nobody's interrupting.

Just the misrepresentation.

# posted by

Anonymous : 1:52 PM

Murtha also said the danger was a too-slow withdrawal might look like victory.
That, I submit, is the dems' fear.

And you complain about misrepresentation.

# posted by

Anonymous : 3:56 PM

I thought about partition again. The Kurds have already effectively partitioned themselves off, initially as an autonomous region protected by a no-fly zone, and now in principle a federal region but in practice a separate region altogether. The Turks aren't happy with this; and there is the issue of oil revenue; but those are other easier problems.

Partitioning the Shiites and the Sunnis is more akin to separating twins conjoined at birth. I don't think Bush is up to the job because of the tough choices that would have be made.

# posted by

Anonymous : 4:14 PM