Posted on 01/16/2007 7:27:15 AM PST by Tolik
There are three possible paths in Iraq, and it is now clear which one the Democrat leadership prefers.
I. Declare Victory and Leave
The first is to leave now, the logical consequence of the antiwar rhetoric of the last four years. But other than a Ted Kennedy, few important Democratic players wish to take the risk that revisionists in a few years, as in Vietnam, will point out the U.S. was close to victory when funding for the troops was cut off and wide-scale slaughter of reformers ensued, with jihadists on the rise for the next decade.
This position would best follow from much of the Democratic speech making — and so won’t be immediately adopted.
II. No Substitute for Victory
The second is to win, victory being defined as staying on to stabilize the government to ensure its political and economic reforms are not destroyed by terrorists and militias. This requires enduring bad news, more casualties, adopting new strategies, surging, new tactics, etc. — in other words, all the sorts of necessary adaptations that a Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Nixon et al. did in the face of fierce criticism. This is now, and always was, the George Bush position, who finds his base of support among even once diehard conservatives shrinking, reminiscent of beleaguered presidents in 1864, 1942, 1951, and 1969.
III. The Paperless Trail
The third is to do nothing at least for now, and, above all, leave no paper trail: Neither get out nor get more in, but wait and adopt rhetoric to the pulse of the battlefield, hedging bets and relating that good news is due to Democratic pressure, bad because of ignoring sober advice.
If Iraq worsens and the administration tells Maliki & co. “so long,” then the Democrats can crow that they finally prevailed; if things improve, and troops can begin to come home, it was only due to the pressure and scrutiny of a Harry Reid or Barbara Boxer.
The only requisite is to ensure that criticism remains untethered to any particular proposal: e.g., don’t call for more troops since there might be an eventual surge; don’t praise to the skies a David Petraeus since he might well take over operations. To paraphrase Sen. Reid, it is not the domain of the Senate to set policy. That is, instead it is only to criticize George Bush's war, offer no real alternatives, take credit for success, allot blame for errors to others, and, above, watch daily the poll numbers. Few want to repeat the mistake of October 2002 that still haunts Democrats: So don't do anything silly like authorizing the war against Saddam by throwing in 23 counts, then claiming to be misled on those few concerning WMDs.
What does this mean?
The battlefield will now determine everything. Either there will be a Sherman, a 1918 summer offensive, an Eisenhower, a Ridgeway, or an Abrams to offer hope to a weary public, or the Democrats very soon will, at the key moment of poll meltdown, en masse stampede from position III to I.
I can’t think of any recent American commander who will have to carry more of an unfair burden than the gifted Gen. Petraeus who now will or will not settle things in Baghdad — and thereby even more back home as well. In a metaphorical sense, given that securing Baghdad is a far different postmodern enterprise in an unconventional war, he will either take Atlanta and win the war, or fail and we will watch the McClellanists do their best to tell us that American failure was some sort of success.
— Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His website is victorhanson.com.
Let me know if you want in or out.
Links: FR Index of his articles: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
His website: http://victorhanson.com/
NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
New Link! http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/
Just further proof that Liberals could care less about our country and our security. They want to play games with terrorists and risk our nation and the futures of our children and grandchildren. IMO, there has never been such a disgusting group of anti-American garbage in office with so little regard for anything but themselves. They want power to feed their egos and greed. Nancy Pelosi wants to clean house; she can start with her own dirty laundry and then move on to the rest of the Liberal garbage holding office in DC. They are nothing but a disgrace for this nation and an insult to our heritage.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I wish the Dem caucus could sit and hear a lecture by VDH for an hour...
Groucho Democrats' anti-republican (and anti-Bush) song: "Whatever it is, I'm against it" grouch61.wav
I don't know what they have to say,
it makes no difference anyway -
whatever it is, I'm against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it!
Your proposition may be good,
but let's have one thing understood -
whatever it is, I'm against it!
And even when you've changed it or condensed it,
I'm against it!
I'm opposed to it.
On general principles I'm opposed to it.
For months before my son was born,
I used to yell from night to morn -
"Whatever it is, I'm against it!"
And I've kept yelling since I first commenced it,
"I'm against it!"
The Libs just want to hold the $$$, not actually acomplish anything. "Let us be the boss." Don't ask questions of us."
What would anyone expect from a cabal whose leaders include the likes of Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, the Clintons, Barbara Boxer, Al Gore, Joe Biden, John Edwards, and Jimmy Carter and whose last three elected Presidents were Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton?
The political future of the US will be determined by our success (or lack thereof) on the battlefield. Gen. Petraeus has a heavy burden but if he performs well, I think he will eventually become president.
It's all about the focus. Dems are focused on the daily poll numbers and Bush is focused on how the world will look in 50 years.
Fantastic point. As John Carry would say, "It is seared, seared in my mind."
If you go back to 1998 when the Lewinsky broke open the ramping up of the anti-Sadaam rhetoric was almost immediate. A few months later the Iraqi Regime Change Act was passed, then the bombing in Sudan and Afghanistan the day of Lewinsky's testimony, then the withdrawal of UN inspectors (not kicked out) then the multi-day bombing starting Dec. 16, 1998 one day before the beginning of impeachment hearings in the House.
This was all a daily focus of the Dems to save Clinton while today their very action and rhetoric during that same year is to be looked at as only a figment of conservative imaginations.
The Democrats live for failure."It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.""Citizenship in a Republic,"
Theodore Roosevelt,
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
Everyone who eschews being "in the arena" in favor of the critic's chair lives for the failure of those who do venture into it. And promotes himself, and all others who stay out of the arena, in so doing.Socialism is nothing but second guessing of those who actually created the institutions which employ people and provide our food, shelter, and clothing and security.
Ownership is nothing more than credit - you make a widget, you own it because you get credit for making it. You make a widget factory, likewise. Government ownership of the means of production (socialism) is simply the arrogation by the criticizing class of the work of those in the arena making concrete decisions in the face of risk. It is a second guess, because the same people taking credit for the successes of others will not touch the responsibility for the failures of those who tried and could not make a business go. Not with a ten foot pole.
That is why self-promoting Big Journalism and self-promoting Big Government Politics fit together like a hand in its glove.
The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . .
It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam SmithHalf the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin Franklin
bttt
As usual, VDH is exactly on point. The Democrats will indeed be happy to take any credit that accrues to good news from Iraq, while distancing themselves just enough to avoid the blame for any bad news--and, most of all, they will closely monitor the poll numbers.
Thanks for the ping.
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.