The Dilemma Posed By Reality

The NY Times tells us the Democratic presidential candidates are grudgingly acknowledging the reality of progress in pacifying Iraq. Rather than portray the progress as a golden opportunity to be capitalized upon, and thus, advance the interests of our nation, the NYT portrays it as a political dilemma for Democrats:

As violence declines in Baghdad, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are undertaking a new and challenging balancing act on Iraq: acknowledging that success, trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress there, and highlighting more domestic concerns like health care and the economy.

Advisers to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains. At the same time, they are arguing that American casualties are still too high, that a quick withdrawal is the only way to end the war and that the so-called surge in additional troops has not paid off in political progress in Iraq.

But the changing situation suggests for the first time that the politics of the war could shift in the general election next year, particularly if the gains continue. While the Democratic candidates are continuing to assail the war — a popular position with many of the party’s primary voters — they run the risk that Republicans will use those critiques to attack the party’s nominee in the general election as defeatist and lacking faith in the American military.

The history of the Copperheads is repeating itself. They were the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party that portrayed the Civil War as unwinnable and sought to negotiate with the South for an end to the war. The Copperheads’ anti-war perfidy was repaid by the electorate for decades afterwards. And that has got to be our modern Democrat’s ultimate nightmare. It is why portraying Iraq as a defeat and legislating an end to the war is so important to the Democrats.

If security continues to improve, President Bush could become less of a drag on his party, too, and Republicans may have an easier time zeroing in on other issues, such as how the Democrats have proposed raising taxes in difficult economic times.

“The politics of Iraq are going to change dramatically in the general election, assuming Iraq continues to show some hopefulness,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Institution who is a supporter of Mrs. Clinton’s and a proponent of the military buildup. “If Iraq looks at least partly salvageable, it will be important to explain as a candidate how you would salvage it — how you would get our troops out and not lose the war. The Democrats need to be very careful with what they say and not hem themselves in.”

At the same time, there is no assurance that the ebbing of violence is more than a respite or represents a real trend that could lead to lasting political stability or coax those who have fled the capital to return to their homes. Past military successes have faded with new rounds of car bombings and kidnappings.

The NYT is going to have to explain that one. The facts that allowed Iraq to explode in February, 2006 with the bombing of the Samarra Mosque have changed dramatically. A second bombing of that mosque in June had no impact on the level of violence. Al Qaeda in Iraq may still pull off the odd suicide attack, but that is a far cry from the carnage that they were able to carry out a year ago. Al Qaeda in Iraq has no more home bases, and has been in large measure defeated as their base of support, the Sunni population, has turned dramatically against them. And in Southern Iraq, there are a lot of Shia more than a little perturbed with Iran’s deadly meddling. The pacification resulting from the offensives against al Qaeda have resulted in Shia now turning against the Mehdi army as the Mehdi army's raison d'etre, protecting the Shia from Sunni violence, has disappeared. The real surge is taking place as a trained and equipped Iraqi Army is being fielded to take the place of Americans. The return of refugees to Iraq is in happening in "dramatic numbers." Yes, Iraq is not yet fully pacified and hostilities continue. But this admonition from the NYT, implying that the peace descending on Iraq could well be a nothing more than a lull in hostilities, seems much more like wishful thinking than a reality based assessment.

As to Michael O’Hanlon’s warning to the Democrats that they should address how to capitalize on the pax Americana in Iraq – which echoes similar warnings from other well known liberals - seems to be falling on deaf ears. The Democrats embrace of defeat is simply too entrenched.

Neither Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama nor the other Democratic candidates have backed away from their original opposition to the troop escalation, and they all still favor a quick withdrawal from Iraq. But Mrs. Clinton, for one, has not said how quickly she would remove most combat forces from Iraq or how many she would leave there as president.

. . . Lately, as the killing in Baghdad and other areas has declined, the Democratic candidates have been dwelling less on the results of the troop escalation than on the lack of new government accords in Iraq — a tonal shift from last summer and fall when American military commanders were preparing to testify before Congress asking for more time to allow the surge to show results.

This is a delicate matter. By saying the effects of the troop escalation have not led to a healthier political environment, the candidates are tacitly acknowledging that the additional troops have, in fact, made a difference on the ground — a viewpoint many Democratic voters might not embrace.

This is amazing. So the Democratic candidates have to keep spinning fantasies of failure and defeat to keep their base happy? We are involved in a war that, like it or not, has significant, if not existential ramifications for our national security, our long term foreign policy, and the threat of radical Islam. Could there possibly be a greater cognitive dissonance? There would seem very little reality indeed in the "reality-based" party.

“Our troops are the best in the world; if you increase their numbers they are going to make a difference,” Mrs. Clinton said in a statement after her aides were asked about her views on the ebbing violence in Baghdad.

If that is Ms. Clinton's position now, it shows an incredible lack of consistency. Nine months ago, she was arguing on the Senate floor that the surge was a “tried and failed” tactic that would not work. And then in May she introduced legislation to “sunset” the authority for the Iraq war, ostensibly because the “facts on the ground” proved we needed to end the war. And as late as July 10, 2007, she wrote in an op-ed that the surge was not working and that our troops were caught in a “civil war." That was twenty days before Michael O'Hanlon of the left leaning Brookings Institution, wrote his essay in the NYT, calling Iraq "A War We Might Just Win." He noted in his essay just how surreal the posturing in Washington was in light of the reality on the ground in Iraq. And then there was Ms. Clinton's performance in September when she, in essence, called General Petraeus's testimony to significant progress in pacifying Iraq a lie, saying that to believe him required her to engage in a "willing suspension disbelief."

“The fundamental point here is that the purpose of the surge was to create space for political reconciliation and that has not happened, and there is no indication that it is going to happen, or that the Iraqis will meet the political benchmarks,” [Mrs. Clinton] said. “We need to stop refereeing their civil war and start getting out of it.”

As to how this can possibly still be spun as a civil war, that is just one of the many questions Ms. Clinton needs to address, hopefully in a debate moderated by Tim Russert. I am sure we can get 3 or 4 good, if conflicting, answers from her on that one. As to the benchmarks, Charles Krauthammer addressed those yesterday. The Democrats as a whole are refusing to acknowledge the bottom up progress in Iraq that has rendered the "benchmarks" largely moot.

While the war remains a top issue for many Democratic voters, the candidates are also turning to pocketbook concerns with new intensity as the nominating contests approach in early January. . . .

Read the entire article here. We will see how attempting to change the subject plays a little less then a year from now.