Friday, August 19, 2005

Pinch Me

Digby makes an interesting analogy in discussing the Democratic approach to the withdrawal argument. If I can summarize (read it here if you want the full thing): the Cindy Sheehan wing of the party is hitting Bush from one side, arguing that we should get out now, while at the same time the liberal hawk wing of the party is hitting him from the other side, arguing that we should increase the military presence in Iraq. But, as Digby points out, neither is going to happen as long as the current crew is in charge, so Bush is forced into the untenable position of defending a policy that simply can't work and that everyone knows can't work.

The analogy here is a military one called the pincer move: a division of forces that attacks an enemy from two sides, pinching them in between. In that sense, the current divide in the Democratic party over what to do about Iraq, which many have worried might prove destructive to the parties chances in 2006 and 2008, may actually help us out by making Bush and the Republicans look increasingly lost as they have to defend against attacks from both sides.

Now this situation frankly sucks. But as Digby points out, there is no chance of producing a different result with the Bush crew. They are simply unwilling to listen to alternatives. Thus Democrats are forced by the situation to do the only thing they can do: "play politics".

The only avenue to resolution of the growing Iraq debacle is to get the Bush crew out of office. The Democrats simply don't have any other influence over the process at this point. Bush isn't interested in working with Dems on getting us out of this mess. He's simply to strung out on his own testosterone in order to even consider the idea. So, if Democrats can't work with Bush, that leaves them with only one choice: work against him.

The pincer idea is an interesting one, though I don't think it has come from any conscious decision making process on the part of those involved (nor do I think Digby is suggesting this). The danger for Democrats are two: (1) the two wings of the attack could take their fire off Bush and turn it on each other and (2) the electorate may not buy into the idea that politics is the only weapon of influence the Democrats have left. If the former happens than we will see 1968 repeated with the McCarthy and Humphrey wings battling each other in the street. If the latter happens then the Republicans could make hay off the "Democrats just want to play politics" argument.

Going into 2006 and 2008 Democrats need to remember who the real enemy is. We shouldn't condemn other Dems just because they are more hawkish than us. We should only condemn them if, by their hawkishness, they give political cover to Bush.

Bush is the issue.

Options for withdrawal

Larry Diamond discusses the withdrawal option (link courtesy Matt Yglesias):

There are four key elements to a political strategy for diminishing the violent resistance in Iraq. First, the Bush Administration must declare that the U.S. will not seek permanent military bases in Iraq. Second, we should declare some sort of time frame (but not a rigid deadline) by which we think we can withdraw militarily�if Iraqi groups that are supporting or tolerating the violence will instead help build the new political order. Third, we need to talk directly to the (largely Sunni) political groups connected to the insurgency, some of which have been seeking to talk to the U.S. for almost two years. Fourth, we need an honest broker to help mediate these discussions and build confidence in the process; this might be a small international contact group including representatives from the United Nations and one or two of the European embassies in Baghdad.

I fully support all these options, but I wonder whether the political will exists for Democrats to get fully behind it. Let's take each bullet point in turn:

1. This is really a no-brainer. In fact, I would say that the issue of permanent bases in Iraq is one of the most under-reported aspects of Bush's Middle-East policy. I have no numbers on this, but it wouldn't surprise me if 90% of Americans don't even know that this is part of the Bush plan. The presence of American troops in Iraq is an irritant to the process of resolving the Iraq crisis. The presence of permanent bases turns that irritant into a full blown infection. There is no legitimate argument for these permanent basis that does not include the threat of future pre-emptive military action in the region. They are a gun held to the head of every leader in the Islamic world. Any reasonable alternative Middle East policy must begin with the declaration that America will NOT pursue permanent basing in Iraq.

2. Matthew Yglesias is correct that "time frame" vs. "rigid deadline" is a distinction without much difference. It is essentially a euphamism to avoid some of the objections to the idea of a "rigid deadline". But hey, if it works then I'm all for it. Just be prepared for critics to hammer on this point and try not to sound to weasily about it.

3. Negotations with elements of the isurgency holds the greatest political danger for anyone who suggests it. The Rovian talking point springs immediately to mind: "We must not negotiate with terrorists!" It doesn't matter that in the world of realpolitik, not all insurgencies lie on the same spot of the terrorist scale. The temptation for Republicans to use this to hammer Democrats will be irresistable. But we must remember our history: past settlements of similar conflicts have always relied on some form of negotiation with elements of the other side (think Sinn Fein and the Irish Republican Army). It may be "good politics" to decry this, especially in a close race, but it is bad national security policy. Especially when the "enemy" is to elusive for you to simply wipe out with a few well placed bombs.

This will be the most difficult argument for any Democrat to make because most of them are reflexively inclined to avoid ANY appearance of appeasment. But they should keep this in mind: many a conservative foreign policy analyst has made the argument that it was necessary to work with some "really nasty people" in order to win the Cold War. Why couldn't the same case be made for winning the War on Terror?

4. Third party mediation is essential in resolving this conflict because America simply doesn't have the credibility to negotiate. There is no basis for the Iraqis to take anything we promise on good faith. But again, this is a political hot button because the Republicans have done such a good job of painting any use of outside parties (the UN, Nato, etc.) as some kind of weakness (could have fooled Bush Sr.).

Conclusion: the last two points will be the most difficult, politically, for any Democratic leader to get behind. That doesn't mean they shouldn't get behind them. But they should be prepared for a shitstorm in response. They will need to be able to refute the arguments and throw them back in the oppositions face when they are made.

Thursday, August 18, 2005

President Hagel?

I've been thinking about the posts I made this morning, about how Democrats need to come out with a withdrawal strategy and soon or they might be beat to the punch by the Republicans. I cited comments by Chuck Hagel that appeared to support the idea of withdrawal as evidence that some Republicans are toying with the idea.

Crooks & Liars has video of an appearance by Hagel on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. Hagel is continuing to sound a conciliatory tone towards the idea of withdrawal and towards Cindy Sheehan in particular.

Hagel is a possible candidate for the Republican nomination in 2008. Normally I wouldn't consider him a viable candidate. But if the support for withdrawal continues to grow at its current pace and if Hagel decides to take a more firm pro-withdrawal position then he might just pull of one of the great political upsets in recent times. Especially if Republican opinion on the mess the Bush's have got them into truly sours by that time. Hagel, if he takes this gutsy step, might steal any potential thunder the Democrats could have on this issue.

Indeed, it is likely that a Republican would have a better chance of making a viable withdrawal argument without being saddled with the "cut and run" label that any Democrat would face if they took the same position (it will be interesting to see the reaction to Russ Feingold's efforts in this area). I am certain that, if Hagel does make the case, and he gets the nomination, and the Democrats don't put forward a candidate who is equally sincere in their position pro-withdrawal, then Hagel will win the election in a landslide.

Democrats: you've been warned.

Republicans for withdrawal

There's another aspect to this whole Iraq withdrawal issue: if Democrats don't become advocates for withdrawal, Republicans eventually will. And then where will we be?

There are already rumblings of this happening (Link courtesy this dKos post).

Earlier the same day in Lincoln, an elderly woman asked about Iraq. "Why are we there in the first place?" she asked.

On Tuesday in the central Nebraska town of Lexington, after a meeting with law enforcement officials on drug problems, three sheriffs expressed serious doubts about what the United States was doing in Iraq and whether it could succeed.

[Republican Senator Chuck] Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, acknowledged the U.S. military presence was becoming harder and harder to justify. He believes Iraq faces a serious danger of civil war that would threaten Middle East stability, and said there is little Washington can do to avert this.

"We are seen as occupiers, we are targets. We have got to get out. I don't think we can sustain our current policy, nor do I think we should," he said at one stop.

Democrats and The Art of War

There's a good post by Armondo on the Democrat's Iraq dilemma up on the dailyKos. In it he refers to this post by Kevin Drum:

Right now, conventional wisdom suggests that Iraq is likely to be bad news for Republicans in the 2006 elections, but if liberals don't watch out, the disconnect that Berman identified could cause an even bigger crackup on the Democratic side. . . . [T]he hawkish establishment . . . got the harder job, because they actually need to change their position. The problem is that it's pretty easy to understand why none of them are willing to embrace immediate withdrawal: not only do they genuinely not think it's a good idea, but they also know perfectly well that similar demands during the Vietnam war wrecked the Democratic party's reputation on national security issues for a generation. Was that unfair? Sure. But unfair or not, they aren't eager to see it happen again.

A couple of points:

1. While it is true that Vietnam hurt Democratic national security credentials, it wasn't just the advocacy for withdrawal that did it. First of all, remember that it was a Democrat who got us heavily involved in Vietnam in the first place (Johnson, taking the ball from Kennedy). Second, remember that subsequent Democratic national security actions contributed to the growing sense of fecklessness, most particularly Jimmy Carter's handling of the Iran hostage situation. So this "advocacy for withdrawal from Vietnam hurt Democrats so we shouldn't advocate for withdrawal from Iraq" is a shaky analogy at best.

2. Part of the reason the Democratic position was overwhelmed by anti-war sentiment in the 60s was precisely because so many Democratic leaders resisted the call for withdrawal for so long. And they did so for precisely the same reasons they are resisting it today. They did not want to appear to be weak on national security by advocating for something that could be labeled "cut and run". Yet they didn't offer any viable alternative solution. Eventually the pressure of reality grew so great that the Democratic national security position collapsed and it has never recovered since then.

This is the core of the dilema. If the Democrats advocate for withdrawal they risk being accused of "cutting and running". But if they DON'T advocate for withdrawal the inevitable crackup in Iraq will eventually force us into a withdrawal as the demands to "bring the troops home" become irresistable. Cindy Sheehan is just the first voice of what will be a growing chorus.

This is what Democrats have to face up to if they are to be taken seriously on foreign policy. While there is a political danger in advocating for withdrawal there is a much greater political danger in NOT advocating for withdrawal. It would be better for Democratic national security credentials if we were to develop a withdrawal policy now while we have the time to do so calmy and rationally. Because if we don't we will have to do it in a panic.

And really, there is no shame in a strategic withdrawal. Sometimes long-term victory requires short-term sacrifice. Perhaps it is time we all re-read The Art of War.

X.24.
The general who advances without coveting fame
and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only
thought is to protect his country and do good service
for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom.

Monday, August 15, 2005

Tough Guys want to run as Democrats!

Scott Schields of MyDD points to some recent reports of former NFL quarterback Heath Shuler running as a Democrat for congress in North Carolina. Scott points out the reporting on this that suggest that it is another example of Democrats trying to look tougher by recruting tougher looking candidates.

I beg to differ with that reporting.

Democrats don't have to recruit tougher candidates in order to overcome a wimpy image. It's the tougher candidates (Paul Hackett, etc.) that want to run for office and they want to run as Democrats!

In other words, the party isn't going after the tough guys. The tough guys are coming to the party.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.