Daniel Henninger thinks that the Democrats have plenty of time to exploit a failed surge, if it in fact should fail. Insisting or assuming that it can’t succeed is, politically, a high-risk strategy. The only plausible reason for taking the risk is that they’re utterly convinced it can’t succeed. I think that’s called defeatism. There are other consequences that might follow from a political strategy informed by defeatism, but I’d rather not think about them.
I’m not sure Henninger’s right here - or, maybe more accurately, I think I can understand why the Democrats don’t see it his way. I think that the lesson that they took from the 2004 elections was that a candidate with a muddled message on Iraq can’t win a general election. Kerry couldn’t ever articulate a clear view because what he "really" thought didn’t comport with what he had actually done (voted for the war, sort of). It is a high-risk strategy, but one that’s understandable given recent political history. Its morality is a whole other question, of course....
I don’t think they are taking a risk. If things turn out well in Iraq they will simply say that it is a result of their putting pressure on Bush and the Iraqi government.
It’s very hard to believe that a surge would succeed. If it does succeed, it will be hard to believe the news, given that we’ve "turned a corner" and we should give the strategy "six months to work" for the upteenth time. To tell the truth, without a different commander in chief running things, the only way we could win this war at all would be through sheer dumb luck.
Wait! You’re both right. But first, Kerry had a very good message, compared to W. The problem is that the American people want soundbites, not well thought out positions. But we needn’t go there, huh?
Dems are not the only ones who think a surge is a bad idea. Even the Saudis (are they still friends?) want us out. What the spin is saying is "surge or surrender". That’s ridiculous. The dems say surge the diplomatic efforts, let the Iraqis fight their own civil war. Let them be victims of the police force in sheep’s clothing. Let them die for their country while we train, give money and wait for them to sort it out.
Secondly, it is pressure the dems have exerted that has gotten Maliki off his duff and captured the attention of the Iraqis. Just think, we could still be "staying the course" if the repubs had won the election.
Thanks for those original and thoughtful comments, piker.
Can we bring back the Lincoln bashers? They were more entertaining than those with BDS. They certainly made better arguments.
One doesn’t always have to be original. Sometimes one merely has to repeat the truth over and over again.
So John, what do you think? How is the surge different and why will it ensure military success?
piker, you have already made it clear that your objection is not to "the surge" as such but to the person who is C in C. So I don’t see the utility of trying to have a policy discussion with someone who has made it clear that he is really hung up on his dislike for a particular person.
You remind me of lefty, who claimed on another thread that whatever the pros and cons of nuclear power as a means of addressing AGW, it is pointless to even discuss the issue as long as there is a Republican in the White House.
I see he has shown up here to fret that the ignorant sheeple simply cannot comprehend the sophisticated thought behind "Bush Lied!", No blood for oil!", "Haliburton!", and other "well thought out positions" of the Democratic party.
John, it’s legitimate to bring GWB into a discussion of war policy, because he ultimately is making all the decisions. Don’t be distracted by Lefty. What’s your answer to MY questions?
Your prior statements indicate that your question is phony. If you think that "without a different commander in chief running things, the only way we could win this war at all would be through sheer dumb luck", then what possible difference would it make if I proved conclusively that "the surge" was the greatest idea in human history? You have zero interest in policy, you see politics as just a bigger version of "American Idol". That makes you a pretty normal American I’m afraid, but it also means that trying to have a rational discussion with you is pointless.
All right, you win.
John,
Please don’t distort my position on "nucular par". I said we couldn’t trust the bumbling idiot who is currently running the government (into the ground). The next bumbling idiot might be more trustworthy.
Oh, I see, having a strong Southern drawl and being an "idiot" are correlated. Methinks the typical cultural snobbery/bigotry of the Left shows through.
And these people think they can build a better society..he he.