[and UPDATED again!]
Be careful what you wish for…
Democrats wanted power in 2006, and vowed to end the war if they got it. They got power, and showed that they had no clue how to end it, and no intention of doing so in any event. There was talk of cutting funds for the war, and they could have done that, but instead chose to push their party agenda rather than make concessions needed to pass a funding cut measure in a bi-partisan way. Instead they tell their constituents that the Democratic Party needs more power. They need enough power to override vetoes and opposition to measures that would leave Iraq in chaos; they need unchecked political power.
On the Presidential campaign trail, we’ve heard all kinds of positions from the Democratic Party candidates; from vowing to stay in Iraq until 2013 to ordering an unconditional withdrawal on day 1. Two things are clear:
1) The Democratic Party has no idea what to do with the Iraq War
2) The Democratic Party must continue to tell their base that they are against the war
It’s quite the catch 22. Democratic Party candidates can’t possibly get the support of their base if they say they’ll do what’s necessary to succeed in Iraq, and they can’t succeed in Iraq while advocating defeat.
The so-called Surge offensive makes this even more difficult since the majority of Americans now think that success is possible. So what is a Democratic Party leader to do? Do they:
- go against their base and advocate a strategy for success,
- go against the American people who see success as possible now that the surge offensive is working (both militarily and politically)
- go with their base and advocate a withdrawal that will leave Iraq in a chaotic condition that would require a third invasion of Iraq?
When posed with the question at the latest Democratic Party debate, Senator Obama said he’d withdraw from the fight against Al Queda in Iraq, and then (when the expected chaos happens), he’d re-invade. Senator McCain pointed out the ignorance of this strategy the following day, and in response to having his stupid strategy pointed out, Senator Obama (who has made his campaign “a choice between the future and the past”) decided to ignore the fact that his strategy is stupid, and instead he ranted about decisions from 6yrs ago regarding Iraq. It was a good distraction. The crowd applauded, but one wonders if anyone in the room noticed that his reply was not about his plan for Iraq (unless Sen Obama plans to use The Wayback machine).
…and so the question goes either unanswered and ignored or it goes to the worst military strategy in history (retreat, deliberately let the enemy regroup, and then attack them again when they’re better prepared rather than continue the fight that is succeeding). One wonders what strategy Senator Obama and other Democratic Party leaders will have next week? Will they continue to demand a withdrawal that started last September? Will they advocate a faster withdrawal despite all military and logical expectations for the chaotic consequences? Will they join Americans and seek success, or pander to their politically partisan base rather than to patriotic duty?
Perhaps more importantly, will the American people believe the “vote for us and we’ll end the war regardless of effect” theme work in 2008 given the so blatant lie that it was in 2006?
On thing is certain, this must CHANGE or the party will be even more torn than it already is.
It’s as if the Hillary Clinton campaign isn’t even bothering with common sense anymore.
“We’re going to inherit so many challenges from President Bush. When you think about it, we have two wars, not one. We don’t talk about Afghanistan enough. We’ve got two wars. We’ve got to end one, we’ve got to win the other.”
Why not support the idea of success (as most Americans do now) rather than support the idea of defeat (which is her party’s position)? Oh yeah, cause she’s more interested in her party than her national patriotism.
WOW! What a difference a few hours makes.
Anti-War Movement seeks
suggesting there’s a dire threat that comes in the night
(beware the Boogieman!!! Nope, no politics of fear here.)