The Democrats' Iraq Dilemma

Weekly Standard: Declaring Victory Would Present Problems For A Democratic President

(Weekly Standard)  This column was written by James W. Ceaser.

---

Will any of the Democratic candidates be able to summon the courage to concede an American victory in Iraq?

No one, of course, can know the ultimate outcome of this long war. But the vaunted "facts on the ground" now at least admit a trend leading to what might reasonably be called victory: a suppression of the insurgency; a steep reduction in the level of domestic, sectarian violence; the existence of a constitutional government not unfriendly to America; a gradual reduction of American force presence with diminishing American casualties; and the assurance for a period of a continued base of operations from which to handle other possible contingencies in the region.

But if this outcome "on the ground" can be called victory -- and why should it not be? - there is a huge potential problem looming in our ability to acknowledge it. Generic opinion polls for the presidential election all indicate a much better than even chance that a Democrat will be elected president next year. All of the Democrats now have been running on a platform that, if it does not recognize defeat, certainly does not envisage victory. And moving beyond the candidates, a large part of the Democratic base is heavily invested in defeat, which is seen as condign punishment for a despised president.

Imagine then the dilemma facing a Democratic president with a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. It might be too much to think that steps would be taken to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, although a lack of firm policies and rigor in the endgame could have that effect. More plausibly, if victory is near, could the new president proclaim it and cement its benefits for America's future strategic role? Could the new president suspend his or her disbelief and accord the full measure of praise to a general who had saved the day? Could that president give full honor to the American troops, not just for their service - that's always easy - but for their achievement in winning. Could that president show up on an Army bases and declare, in full-throated pride, well-done and mission accomplished?

Historians can cite many instances of nations that have been pulled apart by the difficulty of dealing with defeat in war. Will America be the rare case of a nation that is unable to cope with a victory?

The nation needs very much a way out of this potential dilemma, and both parties must play a role. Democratic leaders need to be given enough space, if any of them will take it, to stand down without facing undue recrimination. And the Democrats need not admit too much. No Democratic candidate could or would ever say that the Iraq War was wisely entered upon, or that its costs were not way too high. All Democrats can claim that for years their criticisms were correct: that there was no winning strategy, that the means employed never matched the ends that were sought, that until just yesterday the situation looked more bleak than it did on the days following the fall of Baghdad in 2003. As legislators, not executives, it was never the Democrats' role to assume full responsibility for the conduct of the war. It was their prerogative, even their duty, to point up many of the flaws and faults of the policy.

All this in the way of criticism - and much more - is fully the "right" of any Democrat. But a Democratic president must be able to step forward from this line and separate himself (or herself) from the destructive passion that would prefer to see the nation lose rather than President Bush win. A larger Democratic figure, in stature, would be able to put the criticisms behind and, beginning from the situation where we are, be prepared to "move on" and assure the nation that it could reap all the benefits of the sacrifices that many have made.

There should be, after all, much to assuage angry Democrats. Although they have not yet gotten their prized plum, the presidency, they have already seen Republicans pay a significant price for the Iraq war. However President Bush may be judged by history (and fortunately for the Democrats, most historians are liberals), he is today sunk in historically low opinion ratings and likely to leave office an unpopular figure. The Democrats, largely because of the war, regained the majority in Congress in 2006. The political "realignment" of which many Republican spoke in 2004 now appears little more than an old dream. The Paul Krugmans, E. J. Dionnes, and Harold Meyersons of the world have all taken their pound of flesh. Is this not enough?

America is regularly referred to as a superpower. But the truth is that this nation's record in military engagements since World War II is less than stellar. Blame it on the statesmen, or the military, or the public, it does not really matter. It is the end result that counts. America fought to a standoff in Korea and suffered a defeat in Vietnam before the military successes of the first Gulf War and (initially) in Afghanistan. Other uses of force have also produced a mixed record: positive outcomes in Grenada, Panama, and Kosovo, failures in Lebanon, Iran, and Somalia. To be a true superpower, it is important to win wars. It is especially important not to demand defeat when victory might be possible.

[olivechen90]

A load of cr*p. Just what I''d expect from CBS. I''ll take MSNBC thank you very much.

[logicanada]

Weekly Substandard Propaganda.
They have driven the tip of their wedge into the printed media in western Canada under the guise of the Western Standard Magazine.
These pro Israel rags are multiplying like...dare I say it...rats.

[alanrobisch]

The "victory over al qaeda" is now shown not to be a victory but a period for them fall back, regroup and become stronger. Not unlike what is probibly happening in Iraq at the moment. You can not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory when victory has yet to be proven.

Posted by trillion1 at 10:45 AM : Nov 17, 2007

What is this evidence?

[trillion1]

Hatred for bush did not just spring up. It has grown over the years fed by proof upon proof of his lust for power and incompetent actions. The "victory over al qaeda" is now shown not to be a victory but a period for them fall back, regroup and become stronger. Not unlike what is probibly happening in Iraq at the moment. You can not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory when victory has yet to be proven.

[rowdytexan2]

A defeat??? You''ve got to be kidding? We won the war several weeks after we went over there! Remember ''shock and awe'', mission accomplished! Remember the capture and hanging of Hussein?

If there is defeat in this endeavor, it needs to be claimed by the Iraqi leadership that has not taken advantage of the removal of the dictator and establishing ANY SORT of agreement among themselves.

Our soldiers have already WON their freedom! Now our soldiers need to come home and enjoy theirs!

This article is a prime example of the crock of *** that the Bush administration uses to psycho-babble the people into doing his bidding and covering his illegal acts of war.

By stating that the Democrats can''t take a chance of having been defeated is the biggest lie I''ve seen yet!

The only reason the Sunni''s and Al Queda have pulled back is to further purposes of their own. And/or it will be interesting to see what happens when there is no more money for Mr. Bush to pay them to stand back and claim his false victory!

"To be a true superpower, it is important to win wars. It is especially important not to demand defeat when victory might be possible."

This man is obviously a total neocon that believes there is glory in war. There is NO glory in war! There''s only dead people! Millions of them! This is such typical rhethoric by war profiteers.

The victory in Iraq was years ago. It''s time to let them stand up and take responsibility for themselves.

[creeper00]

What on earth are they smoking at the Weekly Standard? This is the biggest bunch of *** I''ve ever read. James W. Ceaser, you are one sick puppy.

[quatrops]

FRAMING THE QUESTION is the answer to the "dilemma" posed by the WS. Democrats, now, and more importantly, in the future, need a progressive version of a Karl Rove.

Rove (and to a lesser degree his successors) masterfully shaped and redefined the terms used by the media in discussing "the war" and other events/priorities/programs. Orwellian fiction became the reality! How else can Bush''s statement, " . . when we talk about war, we''re really talking about peace" be accepted and remain unchallenged?

My imagined "progressive Rovian" must be able to advise the Democrats how to best redefine those false redefinitions fostered on us by the neo-cons and proto-fascists, so that reality again becomes the norm.

Meanwhile, here are some important numbers to keep in mind: 430 days to go. 194,254 homeless american veterans slept on our streets last night. In the last fiscal year there has been a 70% increase in PTSD diagnosis for veterans. The under-funded and mismanaged VA has a backlog of 600,000 claims. Just thought you would like to know!

[mcvet]

It is absolutely AMAZING! With our Troops KILLING themselves and going AWOL at record numbers. With experts and retired Generals telling us our Military is at the Breaking point and the Army putting people in the ranks that should NEVER be there. With NO evidence of any Political Progress in Iraq and NO indication that any side is willing to come together. With the Fascist Leaders of our nation spending money we do not have on a War that never had to be in the first place, these fascist rags just keep spewing the same tired old Propaganda. What planet are they living on? Sieg Heil Bush

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by knyghtwolf

Just what I meant, Paul now claims to be a Republican, after switching from Libertarian. Switched religions too, I understand. He is just like the rest, saying whatever will get him to the dance.

By the way, how do you spell your dog''s name?

[sparks224]

The Democrats'' Iraq Dilemma?

Oh, I see, Iraq is a problem for the Democrats and NOT the crazy wing-nut neo-con Republicans that got us into this mess.

[knyghtwolf]

Actually I was referring to the repugnants (republicans) being drunken elephants, but they also could be referred to as retarded as a monkey fvcking a football, just toss in a football to a group of them and watch what happens. I have weighed all options available to me, its either vote for Ron Paul or enter my service dog as a write-in candidate for presidency, he is clearly a superior species in light of the present administration of the shrubmonkey & its clutch of shateaters.

[brianbwb-2009]

THIS ELECTION YEAR, SEND THE BRAYING DONKEY & PINK ELEPHANT A MESSAGE.....YOU"RE FIRED!!!!!! Send these two political parties to Iraq and let them finish it over there.
Posted by knyghtwolf

Great idea, but don''t forget Paul is a pink elephant.

[brianbwb-2009]

Weekly Standard: Declaring Victory Would Present Problems For A Democratic President

Weekly Brian: Defining Victory Post Facto Is Lying No Matter Who Does It, The Bush Klan Is Guilty Of Crimes Against Humanity, And The Democrats Are Accessories.

[shingles1]

I''m amused by how the Weakly Standard is defining (and dumbing)"Victory" down...from being, you know, actually victorious in whatever it is that we''re doing to "trends moving in the right direction".

At this rate soon they''ll be declaring the fact that the sun rose in the morning "victory".

[knyghtwolf]

The longer the Demorats are lying to us about how they are "fighting" the shrubmonkey regime about the so called "war in iraq", the stronger the signs are we need some seriously stronger and more in tune with REAL people like Ron Paul. THIS ELECTION YEAR, SEND THE BRAYING DONKEY & PINK ELEPHANT A MESSAGE.....YOU"RE FIRED!!!!!! Send these two political parties to Iraq and let them finish it over there.

[feelfree1]

Re: "Will any of the Democratic candidates be able to summon the courage to concede an American victory in Iraq?"

Will any of the neo-fascists, such as James W. Ceaser, be able to summon the courage to concede their complete idiocy and the utter failure of anything and everything that they have ever proposed?

Doubtful.

[feelfree1]

The cowards and traitors of fascist rags like the Weakly Standard, the NRO, and other totalitarian propaganda outlets, are largely responsible for propagating the fraud and deception that has led us to lose control of our governemnt to an illegitimate and heinous cabal, and our entrenchment in the illegal and disgraceful wars of aggression that we are now entrenched in.

Willian Kristol, Fred Kagan, and the rest of the fascistic cheerleaders of the Bush reich should undoubtedly face the same punishment, whether that be a lifetime of prison or something more harsh, when we finally bring them to account for their treasonous and sub-human behavior.

I predict that there will be a great celebration on that day.

[bareemperor]

Congress - Please finish the investigation into the Kronger brothers....

They may have finally got to the bottom of the 9/11-CIA/United Airlines insider trading...

Seems a Bu$h buddy/CIA/Blackwater employee named Kronger is under suspicion for netting $22 million for his part in placing ''put options'' on some airlines stock, possibly knowing which planes would be flown into the WTC buildings...
This same family goes all the way back to ''Iran/Contra''...
This same family is involved in the Blackwater shootings...

Could it be that some in the CIA and the Pentagon actually pulled off 9/11?
Why was Cheney in command of NORAD that day?
What exactly did Bu$h know about the atrocity?
Will personal greed be the undoing of the cabal?

Or will the White House make the investigation GO AWAY???

[imnho]

After 911 the demoratics stood shoulder to shoulder with the republicans. This was show of unity not seen in a long time. Bush failed to reward those who set aside there agenda and ran aginist them claiming they were soft on terrorism. If you pull a stunt like that you forfit a lot of support that you may have gotten.Bush would repeat his behavior if he thought he could get away with it

[logicanada]

''nations can be pulled apart by the difficulty of dealing with defeat in a war.
This guy is a twit.
The only ''war'' that the U.S has ever helped to win was ww2.
Oh- they are winning the war of oppression on their own citizens.
More weekly substandard neocon ***.