The Republicans Face a Iraq Post-War Conundrum

Post Reply New Topic

...in the event of a withdraw that is, which appears increasingly likely.

The administration, and conservatives have both made predictions that I agree with, namely that Iraq will become chaotic once the United States withdraws. Let us first assume, as a best-case scenario, that this prediction is wrong.

The reason for this is various. It could be missing something in analysis, flawed analysis over basic facts, or a something more subtle. However, in the end from an ethical point of view if Iraq is able to maintain stability (even become more stable) then I will be more then happy to say the least.

Politically, however, this spells trouble for Republicans. The Democrats, and anti-war activists will claim to have been right all along over the situation on the ground. It is likely the increasing acceptance of the war as a mistake will continue to flourish despite the claims of many conservatives will make that a peaceful Iraq argues that the removal of Saddam was a good thing. This alone will not fix the GOP's fortune's however, and it could very well cause fatal damage to so called "neoconservative" foreign policy school of thought.

The opposite situation, chaos in parts or all of Iraq pretty much regardless of scope also spells trouble for Republicans. The unfortunate thing is that while the "stable Iraq" proves Republicans wrong, it does not automatically follow that, just because President Bush is predicting chaos in Iraq, that chaos in Iraq will prove the Democrats wrong. Why?

Because Democrats and the most-well spoken opponents of the war are avoiding the mistake of their Vietnam era breathen, and are careful about actually predicting what will occur in the aftermath. Politically, this is intelligent, thus they can't be caught being naive, or stupid when mountains of skulls of littering the provinces of Iraq. Instead, and this time with more consistently, the blame with go to Bush and his war for causing the stable Baathist nation to fall apart. In this, it is fortunate that legislators do not have to give so many details of officeholders and thus cannot so often dragged through the mud when found to be wrong in retrospect.

Would such a Democratic strategy work? In my opinion, more likely then not. In the long run not so much. First off the economy, and other issues will be important. Second one of those other issues will be terrorism, an issue rendered more important due to blood-torn Iraq.

iraq was a no-win situation. the middle east doesn't want us over there.


bush is too dumb to realize that.

I say focus on getting terrorism under control. If the Iraqis want civil war, let them have it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/stor ... 84,00.html

Alright, look at this. Although there is no denying that there is a strong element of BTTW opposition to the war among the Democrats, there are plenty among them who understand the realities of the situation. The previous bill was only intended to set a precedent. Seriously, man, think about it. It was too loaded for many of the more moderate members of Congress to believe it would actually pass. Even Obama, an early war critic, said pretty much upfront that they weren't going to play on the assumption that it was going to get through. Essentially, it was strictly a political maneuver--a power play. Even if they don't win the trophy, they've won the game as long as it serves to tighten their grip on the White House's purse strings. Think about it, man. Hillary's official stance on the war is not to completely withdraw the troops. She wants to keep a small force over there.

And seriously, even if Obama were elected, he's not politically entrenched enough to make any bold moves on the issue. When I listen to him speak, it's perfectly clear to me that he wouldn't try to oppose the other branches of government even if he could. His main strength is as a liberal figurehead. He's brilliant enough to make sound judgements as a politician, but he isn't fooling anyone with any powers of observation into thinking he would even care to exercise significant political leverage within the American government during his first term. If Obama were elected, he would spend the entirity of his term wooing support for a second run, and he would probably get it. That's what any bright, young politician would do.

Give the Democrats more credit for brains, Jim, or at least enough of them to believe they wouldn't do anything stupid.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/23/news/ec ... imum_wage/

A politician is essentially an elected bully. When we forget this, we get tyrants, for a tyrant is nothing more than a cock among chickens. The Democrats aren't fools, Jim. They are politicians, and they know their business. When you consider their actions, keep this in mind.

re--ADDENDUM: Jim, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. I've never cared much for Star Trek. As an addendum of my own, however, it looks like I may have missed one observation.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp ... 0424c.html

I may have been wrong in thinking that the Dems intended to use this to strongarm the Republicans into accepting other bills. Come to think of it, this theory doesn't add up as well as I originally thought, considering that the Democrats, in their still delicate position, can't afford to seriously play chicken with the lives of our troops, even to shove through a new minimum wage law. It just wouldn't sell with the public, and it would give the Republicans renewed ammunition. What is useful about it, though, is that it puts a bill on Bush's desk that would send money and supplies to our troops. In vetoing it, he's making a clear statement that he'd rather leave our soldiers for dead than bring them home. The Dems have every reason to keep this issue hot right up to next November. Politically, the Republicans are running on a limp, and the Dems are taking advantage of it.