Finessing The Surge
Some Democrats are scrambling to re-position themselves on the surge in Iraq, and Neo-Neocon is watching them while pondering the contrast with another war and another ending.
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
Some Democrats in Congress were for the Iraq war before they were against it. But that was before some of them were for it again-at least, sort of.
If that sounds confusing, just think how confusing it must be for them. A number of those Democrats who originally voted to invade Iraq but then opposed the surge back in January-and even a few who had opposed the invasion of Iraq from the start–have been doing some fairly energetic scrambling lately to position themselves.
Initially their post-2006 election strategy seemed simple: let the Bush administration go for the surge, which was doomed to failure. At the same time deplore it and try to prevent it (or end it prematurely) by presenting him with legislation calling for troop withdrawal, early deadlines, and/or funding reductions.
The first course of action would allow its proponents to say “we told you so” when the surge inevitably failed. The second might placate the antiwar Democratic base even if Bush managed to withstand the pressure to withdraw. On the other hand, if successful in forcing an early pullout, the second strategy would mean that the spectacle of the bitter end in Iraq would come on Bush’s watch, where it rightly belonged.
But something funny happened on the way to General Petraeus’s September 2007 report to Congress: the surge begin to work.
And now the Democrats face a different prospect if the trend continues: they may have to acknowledge that they were wrong in opposing the surge (in certain cases, in writing it off before it truly began). They might even lose the 2008 election as a result. Or, if victorious, they would have to make tough decisions about how to prosecute the rest of the war. If the latter occurs they will, ironically, find themselves in what might be called “the Nixon position”-that is, they’ll have to decide how to finish a difficult war that another party’s administration began.
Iraq has been rife with Vietnam analogies from the start, and Congress’s evaluation of the surge’s chances is no exception. A key image from Vietnam was that of the famous helicopters on the roof, a scene representing the chaotic and shameful abandonment of our allies there.
That memory was invoked early on in Iraq by none other than Saddam Hussein who, according to this article by Melvin Laird, played the images over and over on Iraqi television during the buildup to the Iraq war in order to remind his population not to trust a United States that had a history of abandoning those whom it sought to liberate.
The same image was recalled by Sen. Joseph Biden when the surge was being proposed in January of 2007. Biden was adamantly against the troop increase, stating his concern that the Bush administration’s motive for the change in policy was to postpone the bitter end in Iraq so that the next President (presumably a Democrat?) would “be the guy landing helicopters inside the Green Zone, taking people off the roof.”
Now that the Democrats-including the Presidential candidates–are beginning to realize that the war is probably going to last until at least the January 2009 inauguration to which they’ve been counting down so vigorously and so hopefully, it behooves them to consider how they will handle the situation if they are in charge of Congress and/or the Presidency at that time.
The recent sea-change in attitudes towards the surge was heralded by an article that appeared at the end of July in the New York Times. Written by Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth R. Pollack of the Brooking Institute and entitled “A war we just might win,” it detailed the surprising success of the surge’s efforts so far. It must have sent shockwaves through antiwar Democrats in the legislature by ending with a call to Congress to sustain the effort “at least until 2008.”
If O’Hanlon and Pollack mounted a challenge to Democrats to support a surge previously decried, at least the article provided those same Democrats with guidance when it stated, “Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another …This cannot continue indefinitely.”
Only too true, unfortunately; and the situation has led some Congressional Democrats (and at least one Republican, John Warner) to emphasize seemingly justified doubts about the political leaders of Iraq. Senator Levin has gone so far as to call for Maliki’s removal, prompting President Bush to chide that such an act would be up to the Iraqi people. And if it seems odd that members of a bitterly divisive and relatively do-nothing Congress should criticize the Iraqi government for similar flaws, it’s just another example of the human tendency to counsel “do as I say, not as I do.”
Not all members of Congress make decisions based on cynical self-interest, of course. No doubt some of those who’ve changed their minds have done so on higher principles–such as, for instance, Rep. Brian Baird, a Democrat whose antiwar record is strong (he even voted against going to war) but whose most recent trip to Iraq has convinced him not only that the surge has a chance and needs more time, but that he needs to voice this opinion even if it isn’t a popular one in his party. What’s more, he sounds sincere.
President Nixon presided over the Vietnamization of that conflict, including the phased drawdown of US combat forces there and the turning over of the fighting to the South Vietnamese. In the end, though, Congress reflected an exhausted America by cutting the funding for supplies and support for the South Vietnamese. A weakened and appointed President Ford could not oppose Congress, and those famous helicopters on the roof-and their aftermath, the tragedy of the boat people and the killing fields of Cambodia-followed.
Antiwar activists of that time such as Tom Hayden considered forcing the Vietnam withdrawal to have been their finest hour. And already, back in November of 2004, Hayden himself was calling for a similar abandonment of Iraq, detailing a program to do just that and writing, “The anti-war movement can force the Bush administration to leave Iraq by denying it the funding, troops, and alliances necessary to its strategy…”
So far it hasn’t been successful, although it may yet accomplish its aims. But with fewer days to go until the end of the Bush administration, the Democrats may run out of the time they would need to force a Republican to preside over the debacle. And if the Democrats win the 2008 Presidential election and find themselves in the Nixon position, they will have to exercise caution lest they be the ones in command when those dread helicopters are photographed in a frantic attempt to evacuate desperate people from the roofs of Baghdad.
Neo-Neocon is a New England-based blogger.
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
20 Comments
Sissy Willis:“And if it seems odd that members of a bitterly divisive and relatively do-nothing Congress should criticize the Iraqi government for similar flaws, it’s just another example of the human tendency to counsel ‘do as I say, not as I do.’”
I love your style. And thank you for a concise summary of what has been going on these last few weeks and months inside the Beltway while the rest of the country has been going about the business of America.
Aug 27, 2007 - 3:35 am reliapundit:it’s important to remember that we abandoned the south vietnamese in 1975 - 2 yeasr after the last us combat troops had left.
the dems could do the same thing in 2009. that is: the surge could work, iraq coulk stabilize and president hillary and a dem congress could still revert to form and abandon our allies, the nascent iraqi democracy.
they’ve done it before.
no matter how well iraq goes: the dems cannot be trusted on national security of defense of the free world.
Aug 27, 2007 - 6:54 am Fred Beloit:What a sad idea. If the U.S. wins in Iraq, the Republicans will be credited. If the U.S. doesn’t, the Democratics will be credited. Each side will celebrate if it “wins”, just as lawyers do. Is this what we want from our Government? Think about it.
Aug 27, 2007 - 8:40 am David Thomson:“no matter how well iraq goes: the dems cannot be trusted on national security of defense of the free world.”
James Piereson ’s excellent “Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism” is mandatory reading. The author convincingly argues that the Democratic Party became unglued after the assassination of President Kennedy. A number of key Democrats, including JFK’s wife Jacqueline, more than hinted that American conservatives were responsible for the murder because they allegedly fostered a climate of hate in the country. The United States needed to be redeemed. Of course, the truth was that Lee Harvey Oswald was a committed Communist. Kennedy did not die on behalf of our sins!
The Democratic Party “elites” are self hating Americans. They instinctively do their best to aid our enemies and filth on our friends. This is especially true if our foes are darker skinned. Political correctness pervades their cultural milieu. They indeed cannot be trusted with national security issues. One way or another, their “elites” will stab us in the back. That is simply the way they are existentially programmed.
Aug 27, 2007 - 9:21 am Sissy Willis:Here’s my post re your post:
The world is her village
Aug 27, 2007 - 9:34 am william jonas:Sissy, Something not working on your link. The page foremat displays with no text. WJ
Aug 27, 2007 - 12:37 pm The Den Mother:Fred, wouldn’t it be nice if all our politicians considered victory in Iraq a “win” for our military and the Iraqi people? It really isn’t all about the politicians, as much as they think it is.
Aug 27, 2007 - 1:08 pm fred lapides:After the disasterous course Bush has put our nation on, to state that Dems can not be trusted on national security etc issues is patent nonsense. It was the Dems in charge who won both WWI and WWII.
Most of this post is trying to cheer the gang up about a lost cuse.Even as this got posted, a suicide bobmer killed 9 people in a MOSQUE in Falluja. The surge is ok so long as we keep our troops there. But we are now paying out 30 thousand dollars per person to recruit for duty in Iraq…how long can we protect an incompetent and impotent government?
Aug 27, 2007 - 1:41 pm happyfeet:I don’t know, Fred. Wait - yes I do. Dems can’t be trusted on national security.
If you think $30K is expensive, wait til you see how much it costs to talk people into serving in Hillary’s army.
Aug 27, 2007 - 2:18 pm submandave:“Even as this got posted, a suicide bobmer killed 9 people in a MOSQUE in Falluja.”
OMG! NINE people! In that case, it’s definitely time to run away, since members of a death-loving cult are able to perform random acts of violence against innocent people. And, of course, once the evil Americans are gone Iraq will return to be the kite-flying utopia it once was (complete with free health care!).
Do you even listen to your (il)logic?
“[H]ow long can we protect an incompetent and impotent government?”
Aug 27, 2007 - 2:24 pm neo-neocon:I agree completely. Vote Republican in 2008!
For more of the backstory on those helicopters, please see this, including this.
Aug 27, 2007 - 2:57 pm Jonathan:It was the Dems in charge who won both WWI and WWII.
That’s so tragically true! If that doesn’t highlight how far the Democrats have fallen in a very short time, I don’t know what could. What has your party come to when the only nationally-recognized Democrat leaders with steel in their spine are Joseph Lieberman, Zell Miller, and Hillary Clinton every other Thursday?
Aug 27, 2007 - 3:04 pm Rob Dejournett:NNC - heli backstory not found (404 error). Good post!
Aug 27, 2007 - 3:33 pm Andy Freeman:> What a sad idea. If the U.S. wins in Iraq, the Republicans will be credited. If the U.S. doesn’t, the Democratics will be credited. Each side will celebrate if it “wins”, just as lawyers do. Is this what we want from our Government? Think about it.
Actually, it is what we want. Parties should be held accountable for the policies that they advocate.
No one forced either party to take the positions that they took. No one forced them to divide along party lines, making this a party issue. Those decisions should matter.
The “winning” side will be lauded for being correct - what’s wrong with that? The losing side will be punished - that’s also what should happen.
Aug 27, 2007 - 4:52 pm amr:During the Vietnam War the anti-war groups were basically unopposed; we were somewhere else. This time, those of us who served, are not going to let what happened to us happen to the men and women who now serve their country; we will do our best to prevent those in the military from being confronted and demeaned as many of us were. The Gathering of Eagles in March, to my knowledge, was the first time for a nationally organized anti-war demonstration to be confront by more anti-anti-war patriots; 3 times more veterans than anti-war demonstrators. This was our awakening; at our age we have the time, the money and the desire to do what we believe is right. Another Gathering will take place on September 15th when we show up in D.C. to support General Petraeus.
Aug 27, 2007 - 6:24 pm neo-neocon:Let’s see if I can fix the links.
For more of the backstory of the helicopters on the Saigon roof, see this.
Aug 27, 2007 - 6:55 pm neo-neocon:It appears that PJ considers me a spambot, and is blocking the link I’ve been trying to post. So, if anyone has an interest, just go to my blog and read today’s post entitled, “More about those helicopters on the Saigon roof.”
Aug 27, 2007 - 7:40 pm Neo-andertal:Well folks what has the “surge” shown us so far.
1. A counterinsurgency strategy of clear, hold, and rebuild, is working in Sunni parts of Iraq were the strategy is applied rigorously. General Petraeus’s strategy now is very different from previous years in that it is now an effort to secure population areas. This is opposed to the former practice of patrolling from large hub bases and reacting to insurgent activity. The former practice made targets of our soldiers and did little to influence insurgent spread into communities.
2. The counterinsurgency campaign is not producing a large increase in US casualties as some expected. In fact casualty rates are still similar to the second half of last year when insurgent activity was at it’s peak.
3. Insurgents forced out of Baghdad have popped up to take over cities in the North as feared by many detractors. New IA units have now backfilled for units taken earlier from northern Iraq for the first part of the “surge” in Baghdad. Effective intelligence operation have decimated attempts at increasing insurgent activity in Mosul, Baiji, and Tikrit. Insurgent are now restricted to rural areas and pockets in and around major population centers.
4. Local allies can be made especially in Anbar provence. In fact there seems to be no shortage of allies to be made in controlled areas. Whether this develops into the roots of local governance only time will tell.
5. Self policing has been much more effective in Sunni areas than anyone dared imagine. This only works in a rigorous security context where the locals receive consistent support from US and IA forces.
6. Areas of control are slowly expanding from Anbar into the Western fringes of Baghdad. The security situation for most areas of West Baghdad are improving with south west Baghdad still being a sore spot. The Thar Thar - Taji irrigation canal is somewhat of a boundary with areas to the north between Taji and Balad contested or still under AQI control.
While a lot has been accomplished with security operations against Al Quada in Iraq efforts against Sadr and JAM haven’t been nearly as extensive thus far. The US and IA simply don’t have enough forces to aggressively pursue both at the same time. Right now there is a policy to hold JAM in check and to go aggressively after bombing and rocket cells. Than there is the political situation surrounding the Iraqi government, which is a lengthy topic for another time.
Aug 27, 2007 - 10:26 pm Neo-andertal:That was “insurgents have NOT popped up to take over northern cities”
Aug 27, 2007 - 10:46 pm Wynne:“It was the Dems in charge who won both WWI and WWII.”
That is true, but you may recall that Nixon’s Southern Strategy changed the orientation of the Dem Party by removing the conservative southern members from their caucus.
Interestingly, a good number of the Dem House freshmen are more conservative than the GOP folks they replaced. Philosophically, this explains why Pelosi can’t drive thru the radical left programs the House leadership talks about. Her majority evaporates on those type issues.
Aug 28, 2007 - 5:39 am