Posted on 02/04/2008 8:59:21 AM PST by jazusamo
A year after the American troop surge in Iraq began, its success is clear, even to Newsweek, the Washington Post, and Rep. John Murtha. As Wesley Morgan details in the current issue of National Review, violence is way down, American troop levels are decreasing, tribal leaders are casting their lot with America, and a tattered al-Qaeda is on the run. Yet most leading Democrats sound like they haven’t heard the news.
On the anniversary of the surge, Harry Reid wrote that “as President Bush continues to cling stubbornly to his flawed strategy, Al Qaeda only grows stronger.” After Bush’s State of the Union Address last week, Hillary Clinton said, “President Bush is not satisfied with failure after failure in Iraq; he wants to bind the next president to his failed strategy . . .,” while Barack Obama‘s assessment was: “Tonight we heard President Bush say that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that’s just not true.” During Thursday night’s debate at the Kodak theater, conservative radio host Michael Graham asked in frustration, “Do these two U.S. senators have any idea what’s actually happening in Iraq?”
Are they simply clueless? Maybe, though you have to suspect that they do actually know the surge is working. Unpatriotic? Call it what you will; there’s nothing like amplifying every failure and minimizing every success to show the troops in the field which side you’re rooting for. But as the French say, “It’s worse than a crime; it’s a blunder.” Insisting that America is losing in Iraq is not only wrong factually and morally; it’s poor strategy.
You can win an election on bad news if it’s obvious, but not if you have to sell the voters on it first. Hope is a powerful emotion, and given the choice between a candidate who says we’re doomed and one who says we’re winning, most voters will prefer to believe the latter, particularly when the facts bear him out. Why choose to feel dismal? Moreover, suppose you think that America’s mission in Iraq is imperiled but not lost. Which side are you going to vote for — the one that wants to fight things out or the one that wants to quit? The doomsaying strategy works only on voters who are naturally inclined to despair, and thankfully, they make up a small part of the electorate.
In any event, it’s unnecessary. History shows that it’s entirely possible to win a war and then lose an election. Bush 41 is the most recent example (Hillary’s husband could tell her about that), but there are many others. After World War II, voters in both Britain and America strongly repudiated the parties that had been in power. In World War I, American troops surged into Europe and changed a static slaughterhouse into an Allied victory that was all but complete by the fall of 1918. On the eve of that year’s congressional election, Woodrow Wilson appealed to voters to support his fellow Democrats. The result: The Senate changed from 54-42 Democratic to 49-47 Republican, and the House from a narrow Democratic majority to a 50-seat Republican edge. You can even go all the way back to John Adams. For most of his single term as president, he fought an undeclared naval war with French terrorists; then in September 1800 he triumphantly announced a peace treaty. The nation rewarded Adams by tossing him out of office in favor of Thomas Jefferson.
Turning the page and moving on sounds much better to voters than switching horses in midstream, especially when the stated plan is to turn the horse around and retreat. So why are the Democrats so stuck on denying the facts? Why can’t they admit the surge’s success while criticizing the wrong turns that preceded it, and fight the election on other issues? The answer lies in the lingering illness that the party has been unable to shake for 40 years: McGovern’s Disease, popularly known as Vietnam Syndrome.
In its simplest form, VS causes its sufferers to view every military action through the template of the Vietnam War. In its advanced stages, they take this tendency a step further, seeing everything that occurs in politics and government as a rerun of the 1960s and 1970s. It’s like that game where you cast your friends as characters on Gilligan’s Island. Victims of VS remember that Richard Nixon won in 1968 by suggesting that the war was going badly, even though the situation had stabilized by that summer. In 1972 he was reelected in a landslide after Henry Kissinger said, “Peace is at hand”; three years later, helicopters were picking Americans off Saigon rooftops. Since, in the VS mindset, everything that happens at any time is simply 1968 coming around again on the guitar, this means the only way to win a wartime election is to out-trick Tricky Dick by denying any positive military news.
Of course, 1968 was an extraordinarily turbulent year, and four years later George McGovern was breathtakingly inept, and there hasn’t been a draft in decades, and casualties are way below the level of Vietnam. Besides the fact that they’re both wars, there’s no particularly close parallel between Vietnam and Iraq. But that won’t stop Hillary and Barack from vying to see who can make it look more like a catastrophe — and when they’re talking to a mostly Democratic audience, that makes sense. If they’re smart, though, once the primaries end, the Democrats will shake off their VS, stop pitching defeatism, and say they were behind the surge all the way (Hillary would have an easier time pulling this off, which is another reason for Republicans to root against her). But most of all, the Democrats need to find some new problems to complain about (which won’t be too difficult), preferably ones that voters won’t have to be laboriously convinced of first.
No.
John McCain as the GOP nominee will cost Republicans 70 seats in the House, and 12 in the Senate.
McCain only appeals to people who hate Republicans.
That is who he will bring out, while many conservatives stay home.
Liberals will be out in record numbers to vote.
Liberals + anti-GOP moderates - conservatives = MASSIVE GOP LOSSES IN CONGRESS
McCain is going to turn the Democrat Wave into the Democrat Tsunami in November.
Agree
When we have blacks who vote purely on race, women voting on gender and liberals voting for McLame, what hope does this country have?
Logic can not prevail under those circumstances.
Go Mitt!
Hey look, are you just posting the same message over and over again on every thread? McCain is not part of the story and is not even mentioned, yet I see your same post from other threads.
McCain is the story, because he will cause the GOP to get blown out of Congress completely.
The election calculus does not lie.
This is why this story is so off.
There it is.
If he is the republican candidate we won't even have to stay awake for the election results.
We can just read what happened in 1964.
Except this year might be worse.
.
Vietnam? Dems still fighting there. Who’s winning.
Ping.
They haven't got the slightest clue. Of course, that comes from burying their heads in the sand and steadfastly refusing to see what is really happening.
I've always been optimistic that this was going to work and the acceleration of progress over the past several months has amazed even me.
This isn't over yet. but we can see the light at the end of the tunnel growing brighter and brighter.
Whatever. May I suggest decaf today?
McCain is going to campaign AGAINST conservatism in the general election.
You think that’s going to be good for conservatives?
You want to sweep this under the rug.
Why is that?
Do you want conservative Republicans blown out of office, too?
You’re correct that the light is growing brighter and brighter and you’re in a much better position to see that than any of us.
I believe what sickens more than anything is that both of them have to know in the back of their minds that their position is wrong on this but they’re sticking to it because of the political angle and our country be damned.
Yesterday on FNS, Chris Wallace played the clip of Hillary basically calling Gen. Petraeus a liar when he was in front of the Senate Committe, then asked her in his interview if she still felt that way and she weasled and never answered the question, she was pathetic.
BTW, I’ve been meaning to ask if you wore two pair of socks during the snow storm in Baghdad last month? :-)
We can just read what happened in 1964.
I was thinking 1996, but yeah, that's probably even a better analogy. I've ceratinly heard about that one.
For the Democrats, it is. The Left will throw an all-out screaming fit if the rhetoric changes one bit toward acknowledging US success on the battlefield, and it could cost them just enough defections to the Green Party to tip the election to the Republicans. Clearly, the top Democrat candidates aren't suffering any MSM backlash (ha!) for making these patently false statements, so there is no downside for them in continuing to do so.
That's the whole story in a nut shell, you're exactly right!
Spawn of the Summer of Love bleeding into the Me Generation. Selfish and power-hungry. And if our electorate is too blind to see this, we're all in trouble.
BTW, I’ve been meaning to ask if you wore two pair of socks during the snow storm in Baghdad last month? :-)
LOL - a few of us (military and civilian) were chatting in the PX this evening. Someone mentioned that the brand of socks they sell in there is inferior. The conversation turned to the quality of socks and what the best brands are and even some descriptions. My friends probably wondered why I was suppressing laughter. They're not aware of my "FR Schtick." ;-)
Uh, the American armed forced withdrew from Vietnam, and a Democratic Congress cut off funding for the South Vietnamese Government. That's when the North overran Saigon and the US Embassy became a helipad.
The lesson here is not to repeat that mistake in Iraq by withdrawing troops and withdrawing support to the Iraqi government too quickly.
But most of all, the Democrats need to find some new problems to complain about (which won’t be too difficult), preferably ones that voters won’t have to be laboriously convinced of first.
Not that I like helping my enemies but here's a 'New Problem' to complain about for the Dems, and IMO winning issue....
Evey Child Needs A Pony, But Doesn't Have One!(cough) 'Studies show' that 99.99% of all prison inmates never had a Pony as a child. So the Dems can argue that to end crime for good, all we have to do is ... give very kid a PONY!!!
Its much simpler that trying to explain 'Universal Health Care, And The Costs Involved'. Or trying to push down 300 million Americans throat the idea that.. 'Communism Is Really, Really, REALLY Good For You'.
It's just... 'Here's A Free Pony, You'll Never Go To Prison.'
(I trust Hill or Barry aren't lurking)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.