Back to the Future - The re-emergence of the emerging Democratic majority.

The American Prospect ^ | June 19, 2007 | John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira

[trebb]

I saved a lot of time by noticing the very first sentence:

As conservative Republicans tell the tale, the 2006 election was merely a referendum on the Bush administration's incompetence in Iraq and New Orleans and on the Republican congressional scandals.

Conservative Republicans understand that the fiasco in New Orleans was directly attributable to the idiot politicians (Dems) in Louisiana. They also know that, while some Repubs were involved in scandals, far more Dems were involved, but nobody went after them.

[listenhillary]

Too bad the Bush tax cuts expire after the 2008 election.

It may have been a good thing to have them rolled back soon after the 2006 elections to give the people an idea of what they voted for.

[whereasandsoforth]

The article did not explain why most of the new democrats in congress had to pretend to be Ronald Reagan’s ghost in order to win. In fact, the article promotes so many wrong assumptions it really is worth reading.

I can’t imagine why the article assumes decent folks upset with President will run to vote for socialist/democrats because President Bush is acting like a socialist/democrat. It is absurd.

[MNJohnnie]

Sure. That why the Democrat Congress has an approval rating half of President Bush’s.

Simple fact of the matter is the Democrats lied their way into power in 2006. They said little to nothing about Iraq. They ran on “cleaning up a Republican Culture of Corruption”.

Then they went to DC and morped into John Kerry Jr. So it seems not only do Democrats routely lie to the voters, they even lie to themselves.

[MNJohnnie]

There is nothing to “fix in Iraq” except perhaps the rabid Dincons, and their Leftist kook allies, total ignorance of the place. Napoleon in Spain, the Nazis in Eastern Europe and the Russians in Afghanistan followed this idiots doctrine of brute force. They all lost...badly.

Way past time the Dincons finally learn the difference between Counter Insurgency or Limited War and Total War.

Way past time also that the Freeper arm chair Generals quit clinging mindlessly to their ignorant 1950s era Neo Isolationist political dogmas and learn some basic facts about Iraq. Instead of tuning out anything that does NOT validate their preconceived notions, they should actually try learning some things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Iraq

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Why Iraq

One of the really infuriating things in modern politics is the level of disinformation, misinformation, demagoguery and out right lying going on about the mission in Iraq. Democrats have spent the last 3+ years lying about Iraq out of a political calculation. The assumption is that the natural isolationist mindset of the average American voter, linked to the inherent Anti Americanism (what is misnamed the “Anti War movement”) of the more feverish Democrat activists (especially those running the US’s National “News” media) would restore them to national political dominance. The truth is the Democrat Party Leadership has simply lacked the courage to speak truth to whiners. The truth is that even if Al Gore won the 2000 election and 09-11 still happened we would be doing the EXACT same things in Iraq we are doing now.

Based on the political situation in the region left over from the 1991 Gulf War plus the domestic political consensus built up in BOTH parties since 1991 as well as fundamental military strategic laws, there was NO viable strategic choice for the US but to take out Iraq after finishing the initial operations in Afghanistan.

To start with Saddam’s Iraq was our most immediate threat. We could NOT commit significant military forces to another battle with Saddam hovering undefeated on our flank nor could we leave significant forces watching Saddam. The political containment of Iraq was breaking down. That what Oil for Food was all about. Oil for Food was an attempt by Iraq to break out of it’s diplomatic isolation and slip the shackles the UN Sanctions put on it’s military. There there was the US Strategic position to consider.

The War on Islamic Fascism is different sort of war. in facing this Asymmetrical threat, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone.

Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The “Holy” soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is mostly neutral in terms of guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).

Did any of the critics of liberating Iraq ever look at a map? Iraq, for which we had the political, legal and moral justifications to attack, is the strategic high ground of the Middle East. A Geographic barrier that severs ground communication between Iran and Syria apart as well as providing another front of attack in either state or into Saudi Arabia if needed.

There were other reasons to do Iraq but here is the strategic military reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.

Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. One has to wonder if the American people have either the emotional maturity, nor the intellect” to understand. It’s so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like “No Blood for Oil” or “We support the Troops, bring them home” or dumbest of all “We are creating terrorists” then to actually THINK.

Westerners in general, and the US citizens in particular seem to have trouble grasping the fundamental fact of this foe. These Islamic Fascists have NO desire to co-exist with them. The extremists see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. There is simply no way to coexist with people who completely believe their “god” will reward them for killing us.

So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest of the Jihadists realize we are serious. They same way killing enough Germans, Italians and Japanese eliminated the ideologies of Nazism, Fascism and Bushido.

Americans need to understand how Bin Laden and his ilk view us. In the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming “We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad” and recruit the next round of “holy warriors”. Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11-01 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it -

If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

Winston Churchill

[randita]

There's a lot of horse hockey in this column, but I love this assertion:

Throughout the 1960s, women voters had been disproportionately Republican; but in 1980 (partly in reaction to the Republican identification with the religious right) single, working, and college-educated women began voting disproportionately Democratic.

Yeah, Reagan won handily in '80 and '84 (landslide) despite the fact that single, working and college educated women voted Democrat. Guys, I guess you weren't aware you had so much power to influence the electorate.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“We take a different view: that this election signals the end of a fleeting Republican revival, prompted by the Bush administration’s response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, and the return to political and demographic trends that were leading to a Democratic and center-left majority in the United States.”

I only got this far. Clinton never received a majority vote in either election. However, there is a trend where people are becoming more independent because the base of both parties are too extreme for some. I think that was more indicative in 92-96.

If you are Marx but support lower taxes you are not a Democrat. If you are Falwell but don’t support the war in Iraq you aren’t a Republican.

Each base is pretty much their own party, coopting the Democrat and Republican label. The middle is where the votes are coming from and the RATS have a better mechanism in place for getting those votes. Basically, they lie. We call them RINOS. They call them voters.

[jmaroneps37]

Yes, a 14% approval rating IS a harbinger of good things to come for the rat, yes of course it is.

[penowa]

"First, the Democratic coalition itself is not a left-wing coalition but a center-left one..."

Absolute and total B.S. The Democrat party is bought and paid for and run by Soros et.al. Ask him! He calls the tune and they play it. The Democrat party coalition consists of the Hate-America-and-destroy-it Marxists; the mind-numbed robots with their hands out, who have been voting Democrat since the lefties dug them up, registered them, and hauled them to vote; gays and lesbians, their families and friends; the "open-minded, enlightened," uninformed, unable to think for themselves but sure in touch with their "feelings;" the dead, comatose and assorted fraudulent who never miss voting in any election; the illegals (soon to become a MAJOR player in the coalition;) the unionized; and the too young or too dumb to know better, plus the gullible and easily frightened.

[stephenjohnbanker]

A fine visual aid.

[nathanbedford]

To the degree that your comments were aimed, even obliquely, at me, I reproduce my post of November 4, 2006 to demonstrate that your criticisms miss the mark:

I agree with your comments and only wish that I could assert on my own behalf as you can that I foresaw the tragedy before the fact, but I cannot. Before the invasion I wrote that "God help me" I wanted the invasion to begin as soon as possible before the inspection regime or the French could so undermine the administration that the war could not be started.

Unlike these treacherous neocons, I will admit that I was wrong. In my own defense I can say, for what it's worth, that I was never seduced by the idea of imposing Wilsonian democracy on Iraq, although I of course would not have spurned it, but I saw the war in what I arrogantly believed were grown up and real world considerations of geopolitics. I wanted forward bases in the Mideast from which to strike at Syria and Iran if intimidation alone did not work. I wanted us to get all our hands on the oil fields to deprive Muslim terrorists of petrodollars with which to buy weapons of mass destruction. I wanted us to demonstrate to the Muslim world that no leader could sleep safe if he played a double game with America. I wanted to so intimidate the Muslim world with our military prowess that they themselves would turn against the terrorists in their midst because I believed, and still believe, that the only way we ultimately can win this war is to turn the sane Muslims against the crazies. And, of course, I wanted a regime change as the only effective defense against WMD's in Iraq. My mistake, and I believe Bush's, was to underestimate the tenacity of the Muslim belief system and to see the war in a two dimensional geographical box, like a game of checkers, where squares were to be taken and held.

Not only was I wrong but the result has been calamitous and every one of the "strategic" reasons for waging war in Iraq have been stood on its head. I suspect that the main reason there has been no terrorist attack on the heartland is because Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, as well as Iran, are quite content to see America founder in Iraq. Iran, likewise, is the big winner from all of this as it moves closer to upsetting the entire balance of power in the Middle East when it acquires the bomb and perhaps fashions a Shi'ite Crescent running the Mediterranean Sea. I believe my error came out of the false understanding of the nature of the global intergenerational war against terrorism: that somehow it was a war which could be conceived of in geographical terms. It is not-- although if it is lost the ultimate impact will be geographical. This is a war for the soul of Islam and we must not lose our own souls before we can save theirs.

Perhaps the very worst legacy of this whole Irak tragedy is that we are a daily demonstrating to the world that we are presently incapable of winning asymmetrical wars of terrorism. The Israelis just proved that in Lebanon. The people in Afghanistan are beginning to understand it. The tide in the Muslim world is rising against us as their fear drains away. So the goal of saving the soul of Islam has been made more elusive.

To compound the catastrophe, the "socialist" world of Cuba and Venezuela, Russia and China can read the daily events in Iraq and are emboldened as they have not been since the first Iraq war and seem eager to make mischief 1960s style.

Meanwhile, we've increased the danger of losing our own soul as defined as the will to win. Western Europe already lacks it and half of America possesses an anemic red blood count. Another tragedy of the Iraq war might will be to cause the installation of a Democrat regime in America which will align itself with the appeasers in Europe and so fatally succumb to jihad. The danger is as near as next Tuesday when, if the Republicans suffer a stinging repudiation of the polls, Bush might be left in as feckless a state as Gerald Ford was during the final pathetic agony of Vietnam.

Our dilemma is that we cannot win in Iraq and we cannot abandon it. We cannot win until we learn how to fight asymmetrical insurgencies against our occupation. We show no evidence that we have any idea how to do this at a price America is willing to pay. The training up of Iraqi forces, especially the police, is clearly a failure. So we are mired in a situation that spills our blood and empties our treasury and turns our friends against us. Meanwhile, the existential threat against America, represented by Iran's possession of a nuclear weapon which it passes off to terrorists to explode in the heartland, grows daily closer to reality. Our efforts in Iraq have so attenuated our military force that we probably cannot mount an invasion and air power alone probably cannot interdict Iran's nuclear program. This is well known to the whole world and especially to Iran so our ability to intimidate the Iranians into good behavior has bled into the sands of Iraq along with the Bush Doctrine.

Soon it will be fashionable even in conservative circles to blame Bush just as the neocons now are doing so ignominiously. My belief is that the miscalculation was to presume that the Iraqis, read Muslims, would behave rationally when presented with the opportunity for self-determination and democracy. It is not really that we made fatal tactical military mistakes in Iraq which we can lay at the feet of Bush or Rumsfeld, rather it is the nature of the traditional Muslim society that caused all of this bloodshed to be inevitable. Iraq has revealed that America has no stomach for the pain which must be endured to see such a traditional Muslim society through to Western democratic values.

Asymmetrical warfare works against armies of occupation but these tactics do not work against 21st-century Blitzkrieg, American-style. I fear that the American military will engage in another Vietnam style soul-searching and draw the wrong conclusion, that military force does not work at all in the war against terrorism. I am tempted, therefore, to argue that it was the occupation and not the war itself which was the bridge too far. After Iraq, I am humble enough to admit and perhaps it is I who misses the lesson.

I am well aware that new military adventures will be virtually impossible to sell until the inevitable happens: a strike is made against the homeland. If Al Qaeda strikes with anything less than a mortal blow, ie. a series of nuclear explosions, America might yet be able to find its finest hour. But strike it must if Al Qaeda intends fulfill its ambitions. God grant that they settle for half a loaf with an intensity level not exceeding 911.

We must fashion a new policy, a new strategy for winning this intergenerational worldwide war against a portion of 1.4 billion Muslims who inhabit the earth. We must turn rational Islam against this jihad or we will perish because we will rot from the inside out or we will simply surrender after our cities are turned into glass. We cannot hope to prevail if we eschew all military operations as ultimately counterproductive. We must find what works. Above all, we must not lose our soul.

[neverdem]

Democrats Set Their Sights on Winning Back Catholics Learning from Kerry's loss, ... abortion ...

We've Replaced Rushdie In Hiding (Mark Steyn On Western Dhimmitude Submission Alert)

Back to Basics (Fred Thompson Alert!)

FWIW, I had an iTunesSetup icon on my desktop, but it seems I never finished installing it for podcasts. I pasted the URL for "Back to Basics"
http://podcasts.nytimes.com/podcasts/2007/06/01/01brooks-pod.mp3
into my browser, but nothing happened. I learned that I already had iTunesSetup, finished installing it, and listened to the podcast on Windows Media Player. Duh! That iraqwarit.blogspot.com website in comment# 2 of the last link looks interesting.

From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[neverdem]

We must find what works.

If muhammad's minions don't want to join the 21st century, then the Islamic world needs to be quarantined, and we must have energy independence. Watermellons be damned.

[PGalt]

Thanks for the ping. Weren’t there Libyan terrorists in “Back to the Future”? Democrat terrorists are in our midst and our future. Anti-truth, anti-freedom, anti-individual, anti-life collectivists are likely to join forces. They all strive to gain power over you as they devalue your life with their demands. They would love to hand your head to you if you do not submit.

Good thread. Thanks to all contributors.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

I’ll read all this cr*p a bit later, but having read the intro, I think I know where they’re going and I’ll insert just a couple of points:

#1: The Democrats policies and solutions HAVE NEVER WORKED and no one should expect them to work any time in the future (what’s the definition of insantity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?).

#2: The last successful Democrat was Bill Clinton, thanks to a split electorate (Ross Perot) and an exceptionally out-of-touch President G.H.W. Bush, who really didn’t want a second term, I’m convinced. How was Clinton successful? By raising taxes as we were coming out of a slowdown (the rate of growth was squelched but it at least didn’t throw us into a recession) and by exploiting the peace dividend served up by Presidents Reagan and Bush. He also benefited from the GOP takeover in Congress that imposed spending discipline when it was needed and pressing on Welfare Reform which Clinton didn’t want but took credit from when it proved to be successful.

#3: The Democrats benefited from when they were last in power: during the tech boom which grew out of the Reagan tax-cuts and great investment era of the 1980’s, those technologies bore fruit in the 1990’s. Also give Clinton credit for embracing free trade and globalization — those have contributed greatly to world growth and prosperity... But no Democrats support those principals today, so they are running away from the few things that have worked for them in the past. a

#4: Timing... This new crop of Demos face a far more challenging set of policies given the timing of the coming elections. Their sacred Social Security and Medicare are both bankrupt and failing but they are unwilling to even think about (much less propose) any kinds of reforms that might actually saved these dinosaurs. And whether they like it or not, we ARE in a continuing Global War on Radical Islam and Terrorism (agree with the terms or not) thanks in large measure to the retreat they mounted in the 1990’s and the weakness it revealed then and is more magnified now.

Summary: I can see the Dems winning in 2008 and maybe having unified government in the aftermath. It just isn’t going to work to their benefit other than giving them power for one or two terms in office. Their ideas just don’t work and the result will be awful for the US — the stupid public just doesn’t understand and realize the peril they face if/when they elect these bozos into office (apologies to all bozo’s out there!).

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[RockinRight]