TNR BLOGS

August 19, 2008 | 11:10 PM
August 19, 2008 | 9:13 PM
August 19, 2008 | 5:53 PM

August 19, 2008 | 5:17 PM
August 19, 2008 | 5:12 PM
August 19, 2008 | 11:32 AM

August 19, 2008 | 6:06 PM
August 19, 2008 | 3:49 PM
August 17, 2008 | 9:21 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

August 19, 2008 | 1:59 PM
August 19, 2008 | 12:43 PM
August 18, 2008 | 6:20 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
04.11.2007
What If Iraq Stabilizes?


It hasn't become much of a campaign issue--yet--but for the first time in a long while the news from Iraq isn't unrelentingly ghastly. Some previously hard-to-imagine glimmers of hope are now emerging. Of course there are a thousand caveats here, and Slate's Phil Carter has a good summation of them. But this weekend an experienced Iraq correspondent--someone who has been extremely bleak about the war in the past--told me he thinks it's really possible that the country is turning a corner.

Which raises all sorts of secondary but fascinating political questions: What do the Democrats do if--yes: if, if, if--the surge appears to have succeeded? (Or at least seems, to voters, to have succeeded: I realize the tribal shift in Anbar, for instance, wasn't imposed by US troops--although my correspondent friend said surge forces did enable us to exploit Sunni tribal cooperation and root out al Qaeda.) Indeed, if Iraq somehow stabilizes and even incrementally improves, doesn't that affect the presidential campaign in important and unpredictable ways? Obviously it's almost impossible to concieve of an outcome in Iraq that any reasonable person could call "victory." Democrats will resonably argue that the adventure wasn't worth the cost in lives and dollars. But the notion that Bush's patience really did save Iraq from unmitigated humanitarian and strategic catastrophe might be a powerful one. Expectations have been lowered to such an extent over the past several months that any glimmer of hope is a godsend for Republicans. I suspect Americans are pining for anything they can declare good news, and want to believe we haven't been humiliated after all.  With a touch of evidentiary wind at his back, then, it may be far easier for, say, a Rudy Giuliani to argue "See? Things are getting better! I told you so"! than for a Hillary Clinton to dourly say, "Maybe, but it still wasn't worth it."

I'm not arguing that the surge has "worked," or that Iraq is hunky-dory and the whole nightmare is about to be redeemed. Lord knows there have been plenty of illusory moments of hope in the past. I'm just suggesting that beneath all the current clamor about Hillary's honesty and gender, a tectonic shift  might be quietly developing. And I wonder whether the Democrats have been preparing for that possibility--and what their contingency plans are if the Iraq debate tacks substantially back the GOP's way.

[Photo via IraqPictures]

--Michael Crowley

Posted: Sunday, November 04, 2007 5:07 PM with 10 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

ralphnelle said:

This new website is awful! Half the functionality, 1/10th the interest in blogging, and it's ugly. Please revert to previous.

November 4, 2007 4:58 PM

sprechs said:

among all the hypotheticals and caveats, the military can't maintain the surge past April.  If through the fall the GOP line is "look, things are better," and the bottom falls out again in April (like it did in April '04), wouldn't that cause a relatively severe backlash against the GOP candidates who prematurely declare victory?  The Democratic message that things can't get better without a political solution may take on added salience...

November 4, 2007 5:31 PM

blackton said:

It seems to me that the Democrats could then just as easily say that since the Iraqis are standing up it is time for us to stand down. It seems that it will be a harder argument for the Republicans to say that we can't leave because if we did leave then all of our "progress" is just an illusion.

If we do begin to stand down, as we must at least partially next year, and things continue to improve I agree then it will get interesting because the pressure will increase to declare victory and come home. If the Republicans can declare victory, hold off leaving until after the election, then the Dems are in trouble. Big ifs.

November 4, 2007 5:58 PM

nbarry said:

The problem for the Democrats is that they have already written off the war as a lost cause. Even if things improve to the point that we can withdraw some of our troops, and most Democratic candidates want to leave an unspecified residual force behind, they will still be portrayed as defeatists and losers.

November 4, 2007 9:58 PM

The Stump said:

Yglesias has some useful thoughts related to what I was saying about Iraq last night: [U]nlike on other

November 5, 2007 11:59 AM

purcellneil said:

Mike

Whether the surge has worked or not is measured not by the level of violence alone, but by the political settlements that are obtained as a result of the improved level of security.  Without that political settlement, the violence will surely swell again - even if we maintain the current force level and tactics (which I keep hearing we cannot do past April).  

In this case, we appear to have improved security without building the political consensus necessary to sustain an Iraqi governement and rule of law -- to be honest, it appears more likely that the reduction in violence is the result of the completion of a period of ethnic cleansing.  Millions of Iraqis have fled their homes, and neighborhoods that once house both Shia and Sunni are now fortresses of one or the other.  

I think Democrats are probably not prepared for the possibility of success in Iraq, and I confess that I am not yet ready for the possibility I might win the lottery.

More importantly, given the fact that Bush and not Congress, is running this wonderful war, is whether Bush has any plan at all beyond "more of the same".  My guess is he has no such plans.  We shall see in April - won't we?

As for the Democrats, they seem to be irrelevant till 2009.  Bush intends to dump this war on one of them - that is the only plan anyone has for Iraq, as far as I can tell.

.

November 5, 2007 1:04 PM

butchie b said:

Neil, it's not that the Dems are irrelevant, it's that they have nothing constructive to say - or propose thus far.

More of the same has gotten us lower overal violence and lower US casualties.  Let's hope it continues.  Yes, we're still waiting for the Iraqis to sort themselves out politically, and if they don't do so by 2009, I'm sure the new President will pull everyone out - or not, because no Dem candidiate save Gov. Bill and Denny have said they will do so.

Ethnic (sectarian, actually) cleansing or not, fewer Iraqis are turning up dead, and some are starting trickle back home.  Why isn't this good news to be celebrated. Oh, right, because W is still President, and that genius Reid has assured us that the war is "lost."

November 5, 2007 1:39 PM

purcellneil said:

butchie

What exactly is your plan?  Hope for the best?  Wait and see?

Let's put the best face on the situation in Iraq and see where that leads.  Petraeus has already told Congress he is pulling down his troop strength by 30,000 over the next two months, right? And Mahdi Army leader Al-Sadr has declared a cease fire that will end by January 29, as I recall.  I also recall that numerous statements from within the Army's senior officers have suggested that more significant troop reductions will have to occur after April 2008 due to troop rotation considerations.

Let's assume that all of these factors, which could bode ill for the security you wish to celebrate, instead have no negative effect.  Let's een assume that conditions improve slightly - more electricity, fewer Iraqi casualties,fewer American casualties.  It all sounds unbelievable, but let's go there anyway.

To make things even less credible, but rosier still, let's assume that Turkey does not invade Iraqi Kurdistan.

Even given all of that bullshit, what have you got to show for our efforts?  An Iranian Shiite outpost in Mesopotamia, a disempowered and pissed-off Sunni minority with allies in Saudi Arabia and across the Islamic world, and the legacy of 6 years of criminality, sectarian cleansing and armed conflict - and a disreputable government that does not command the loyalty of its security forces and cannot rule without the US military to support it.

Harry Reid is no genius, but what part of this looks like victory to you?  If we dare to call it victory, and pull ourselves out of this fragile mess, the house of cards will collapse.  Sunnis will have to rejoin their former Al Qaeda allies to fight the Shia militia. Tribal warlords will replace the present government, Iran will move even more boldly into the South and East, and the Turks will soon move in, in force,  to protect their interests in the North. Even if the surge is brilliant, you and the other diehards will find a reason we can't leave -- and you'll be right because the surge will not have changed anything.

The only thing worth celebrating is the day when no more Americans will be fighting and dying in that hell-hole -- the difference is I would like to bring that celebration home tomorrow, whereas you are willing to wait till 2009.  In my view all that delay does is save face for W, which is just not worth the life of one American soldier or marine, in my book -- and is certainly not something I would celebrate.

I am resigned to wait till 2009, but let's be clear.  Celebrating the surge is like celebrating that one inning in Game 3 where the Rockies almost tied the score.  Go ahead and celebrate butchie, but all I see is five years of an immoral and tragic waste of American and Iraqi lives. If your surge brings that to an end sooner, I'm all for it.  But it sure looks like bullshit to me.

Neil    

November 5, 2007 6:10 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Advantage, Neil. Powerful and persuasive.

butch? Robt P? Can you counter?

November 5, 2007 7:24 PM

Flopping Aces said:

CNN has put up a article on Iraq entitled "2007 now the deadliest year for U.S. troops in Iraq," while the headline is true the fact remains that the MSM has been quiet on Iraq ever since the numbers started...

November 6, 2007 11:59 AM

Double click this space to insert your ad.