James Taranto writing in todays Best of the Web has a great segment entitled Flirting with Disaster, which I will post in its entirety, but please go there and read it yourself.
Mr. Taranto writes:
Juan Cole, the Arabist historian who is well-regarded on the Angry Left, has a warning for Democrats. Because of the presidential veto and the necessity for 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate, they cannot "force a significant reduction of troops from Iraq on Bush's watch, so as to avoid Iraq becoming exclusively their headache when they (as is likely) take over the White House in January of 2009":
In all likelihood, when the Democratic president pulls US troops out in summer of 2009, all hell is going to break loose. The consequences may include even higher petroleum prices than we have seen recently, which at some point could bring back stagflation or very high rates of inflation.
In other words, the Democratic president risks being Fordized when s/he withdraws from Iraq, by the aftermath. A one-term president associated with humiliation abroad and high inflation at home? Maybe I should say, Carterized. The Republican Party could come back strong in 2012 and then dominate politics for decades, if that happened.
It is all so unfair, of course, since Bush started and prosecuted this disaster in Iraq, and Bush is refusing to accept responsibility for the failure, pushing it off onto his successor.
How can the Dems avoid this? Cole says "they could try to legislate stronger US diplomacy aiming at ensuring peace between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran," although it's not clear how you "legislate" diplomacy. He says "they could resist the temptation to demonize Iran or to push it onto a war footing with threats or even bombings," although it's hard to see how the Democrats have the power to appease Iran, even if one supposes it could be done.
He offers one good bit of advice: "As for Iraq itself, the best hope for the Dems may be that Gen. Petraeus actually succeeds, over the next year, in significantly reducing ethnic tensions." That he should even have to say this speaks volumes about the perverse position the Democrats have created for themselves vis-à-vis Iraq.
We have some better advice for the Democratic presidential candidates:
First, if you don't want to deal with the Iraq problem, don't whine about how "unfair" it is. Instead, don't run for president. Just as we have an all-volunteer military, no one is forced to serve in the White House. The job of the president is to deal with the country's problems, and one of those problems right now is Iraq. If you're not up to it, the presidency is not the job for you. Al Gore, John Kerry and Chuck Hagel have all decided to forgo a presidential run, and there is no dishonor in doing so.
Second, if you do run for president and win, don't retreat from Iraq. Cole acts as if it is a foregone conclusion that the next (Democratic) president will quickly surrender, with results that even he says would be disastrous. In fact, the next president will have the option of acting wisely, and Hillary Clinton at least may even have it in her to do so.
Third, don't promise to act unwisely if elected. The Democratic base wants an American retreat, and the presidential candidates will be tempted to promise it to them. But why set up expectations you can meet only at enormous cost to America's interests?
More generally--and this advice applies to all politicians of both parties--if the interests of your party conflict with the interests of the country, put the country first. (If you believe liberating Iraq was a mistake, think of how this advice might have applied to Democrats like Kerry and Mrs. Clinton who voted for it.) This may lead to the occasional election loss, but in the long run the country will thank you, and your party will be better off. Democrats may well be better off losing in 2008 than winning in the scenario Juan Cole envisions.
I like Taranto's suggestion also...why can't Cole think this clearly? Suprisingly Taranto doesn't gloat over the fact that Cole so clearly identified Carter as the worst president ever...
Trackbacked by:
The Surge just won … in D.C. from Pros and Cons
No comments:
Post a Comment