The security progress in Iraq this year is so overwhelming and obvious that even critics of the war cannot gainsay it. And now, belatedly, we are seeing the inevitable political ramifications in this country of that progress. On the front page of Sunday’s New York Times, for example, we read:
As violence declines in Baghdad, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are undertaking a new and challenging balancing act on Iraq: acknowledging that success, trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress there, and highlighting more domestic concerns like health care and the economy. Advisers to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains…. While the Democratic candidates are continuing to assail the war—a popular position with many of the party’s primary voters—they run the risk that Republicans will use those critiques to attack the party’s nominee in the election as defeatist and lacking faith in the American military…. “The politics of Iraq are going to change dramatically in the general election, assuming Iraq continues to show some hopefulness,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who is a supporter of Mrs. Clinton’s and a proponent of the military buildup. “If Iraq looks at least partly salvageable, it will be important to explain as a candidate how you would salvage it—how you would get our troops out and not lose the war. The Democrats need to be very careful with what they say and not hem themselves in.”
In the Financial Times, Clive Crook writes
Up to now, Democrats have been stinting in their recognition that the situation in Iraq has improved: “Yes, violence is down a bit, but….” That is the wrong posture. They need to celebrate the success, as long as it lasts, as enthusiastically as the Republicans. They also need to stop harrying the administration with symbolic war-funding measures demanding a timetable for rapid withdrawal, as though nothing has changed. This would take little away from their larger valid criticisms of the war and of its conduct until very recently. And it is not as though Iraq is all the Democrats have going for them in this election – they are on to a winner with healthcare. Any suspicion that they are rooting for defeat in Iraq could sink them.
And in Newsweek Charles Peters, founder of the Washington Monthly, writes
I have been troubled by the reluctance of my fellow liberals to acknowledge the progress made in Iraq in the last six months, a reluctance I am embarrassed to admit that I have shared. Giving Gen. David Petraeus his due does not mean we have to start saying it was a great idea to invade Iraq. It remains the terrible idea it always was. And the occupation that followed has been until recently a continuing disaster, causing the death or maiming of far too many American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. Still, the fact is that the situation in Iraq, though some violence persists, is much improved since the summer. Why do liberals not want to face this fact, let alone ponder its implications?
These accounts reinforce what some observers have been saying for months now: the Democratic Party crossed into treacherous political territory when its leadership declared the “surge” to be lost even before it was in place. This mistake was compounded when scores of Democrats denied, and even seemed to get agitated at, the progress the United States military was making in Iraq; when Democrats went out of their way to attack the credibility of General David Petraeus, the architect of our success there; and when they persisted, and continue to persist, in their attempts to subvert a military strategy that is showing extraordinary gains.
The better things got in Iraq, the more frantic the Democratic leadership seemed to get. While it is entirely legitimate for Democrats to criticize the Bush administration’s mistakes in Iraq, and while it was also understandable for them to be skeptical about the progress in the early part of this year, given the false summits we have experienced, what was unpardonable, according to Christopher Hitchens, was “the dank and sinister impression [liberals and Democrats] give that the worse the tidings, the better they would be pleased.”
That this happened at all ranks among the most disheartening and disturbing political developments we have seen. That there will be an accounting for it is only just—and, perhaps, only now a matter of time.
“One way of judging the effectiveness of the IDF’s campaign against Hamas is to observe the level of nervousness among Hamas’ allies.”
lol in your dreams
I would assess that Iran and Syria are thinking more pragmatically than merely trying to introduce uncertainty into the situation, or strike a blow for Hamas’ honor. A better analysis, it seems to me, is that they hope to weaken Israel’s bargaining position, and affect her willingness to make concessions.
We’ll see where the “barrage from Lebanon” approach goes. But if it is sustained, even at a low or intermittent level, that strengthens the analysis that Iran and Syria hope to render Israel more amenable to concessions, and a quicker ceasefire agreement. The basic idea would be to alarm Israel with the prospect of an enlargement to her immediate military problem, and the implications that might have for a medium-term political problem.
I don’t think Iran or Syria is prepared right now to truly enlarge the conflict: to give Israel something to really fight about, coming from Lebanon. They may be banking on the Olmert government acting like, well, itself, and indeed considering it imprudent to push for greater gains against Hamas before a ceasefire.
I hope Israel will pursue as un-Olmertian a course as possible, deal a serious blow to Hamas, and rely on no guarantees but the damage the IDF has done, to underlie a ceasefire from this operation. I believe Israel can correctly calculate that Iran and Syria will effectively sit this one out, and that Israel has the option — and should take it — of achieving military destruction of Hamas’ paramilitary infrastructure, before accepting a ceasefire — and one that is advantageous to Israel.
“I would assess that Iran and Syria are thinking more pragmatically than merely trying to introduce uncertainty into the situation, or strike a blow for Hamas’ honor. A better analysis, it seems to me, is that they hope to weaken Israel’s bargaining position, and affect her willingness to make concessions.”
I thnk maybe they are just horrified at israels butchering of gazans
“We’ll see where the “barrage from Lebanon” approach goes. But if it is sustained, even at a low or intermittent level, that strengthens the analysis that Iran and Syria hope to render Israel more amenable to concessions, and a quicker ceasefire agreement. The basic idea would be to alarm Israel with the prospect of an enlargement to her immediate military problem, and the implications that might have for a medium-term political problem.”
I think they are laughing their ass off that israel has repeated lebanon 06 and lost another giant chunk of world opinion with no effort of their parts
“I don’t think Iran or Syria is prepared right now to truly enlarge the conflict: to give Israel something to really fight about, coming from Lebanon. They may be banking on the Olmert government acting like, well, itself, and indeed considering it imprudent to push for greater gains against Hamas before a ceasefire.”
it’s clear israel has alot of people like you working on their side. thus, the results we’ve seen: negative negative negative
“I hope Israel will pursue as un-Olmertian a course as possible, deal a serious blow to Hamas, and rely on no guarantees but the damage the IDF has done, to underlie a ceasefire from this operation. I believe Israel can correctly calculate that Iran and Syria will effectively sit this one out, and that Israel has the option — and should take it — of achieving military destruction of Hamas’ paramilitary infrastructure, before accepting a ceasefire — and one that is advantageous to Israel”
hamas is still in charge and still will be when this is over. do yuo doubt this?
LOL,
Lester, those gazans should wake up each morning thankful I’m not in charge. because if it was, most of them wouldn’t be waking up, and those that were would need to come outside as they’d already be outside having slept in a field/ditch. no tents allowed, and certainly no buildings/structures of any kind. I’d flatten the whole damn place. no two bricks would remain connected.
lester — I must congratulate you on this: you always do make it clear that you disagree with what I’ve written.
The picture that emerges from your take on Iran and Syria is pretty funny though. On one hand, they are so horrified by “israelis butchering gazans” that they have gotten the PFLP to launch a few rockets into Israel. On the other, they are “laughing their ass off” at Israel’s loss of a “giant chunk of world opinion.” All this while, implicitly, sharing your certainty that “hamas is still in charge and still will be when this is over.”
This characterization makes Iran and Syria sound like adolescent gang groupies who cook meth for a living, and need a stint in juvie. If you are right, you certainly confirm my impression that neither Iran nor Syria can be trusted with greater military might or freedom of action, and the sooner they are taken down and put in restraints for their own good, the better.
” and the sooner they are taken down and put in restraints for their own good”
by who? china?
man you beltway types are still lving in the 90′s. that america is gone. the america og 10 months ago is gone. we are at chinas beck and call. If Iran literally nuked us we could scarcely get away with retaliating for fear of upsetting our creditors. the back has been broken
Lester -
I finally stopped laughing over your scathing sarcasm of the Syrian and Iranian butchers being “horrified” over loss of Gazan Palestinian life, and then you regress into your lame college dorm stoner persona with post 6 – couldn’t sustain that high level of satire could you dude?
Wasn’t it Orwell who said “to see what is in front of one’s nose requires a constant struggle?”
Wake up Lester–today’s news, from the Washington Post to the Wall Street Journal and even Al Jazeera are noting that your average Gazan is getting sick of tired of living in poverty while their Hamas leaders live off the dole courtesy of Iran.
On top of that Hamas is getting only lip-service from its “allies” in the Middle East (read: Egypt, Jordan, Saudia Arabia et al) who in reality wish for nothing more than Hamas to lose and lose BAD.
The Hamas gig will soon be up. Amen to that.
craig- gentlemans wager?
israel will fall before hamas does