October 09, 2005
The Political Consensus on IraqWith President Bush being bashed daily about Iraq and with the Sheehanites still out there making asses out of themselves, it might be easy to think that the liberation of Iraq is a losing political proposition. Victor Davis Hanson observes, however, that there is actually a strange political consensus on Iraq:
Some 30 months after the removal of Saddam Hussein, an unspoken consensus is emerging about Iraq. The Howard Dean/Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan fringe of the Democratic party so far has made almost no inroads into mainstream party thinking. Perhaps this new Copperhead movement to find political resonance has failed because most Democratic stalwarts — senators Kerry, Clinton, and Biden — themselves voted to remove Saddam. And these erstwhile supporters of the war can offer nothing much different on Iraq now except to harangue about the need for more allies or more multilateral/U.N. help.True, most Americans are tired of Iraq; but they wish to win rather than withdraw immediately and lose the country to the terrorists. The odd thing is that the more the rhetoric heats up, the more both sides sound about the same.
I'd guess that a poll of Americans would show an overwhelming majority to be, indeed, tired of Iraq...who isn't? Good, lord - day after day after day more fighting, more terrorism, more strange political infighting. At least, that is what is reported to us - but in a democratic Republic, appearances can make the running. Right now, Iraq appears bad - and once it starts to appear good, it won't appear at all. This is unjust, but it is in the nature of things - once victory is completed, we can expect no thanks and no laudetory efforts...what we did will be resolutely ignored. But Hanson is right that in spite of some headline grabbing events, the so-called "anti-war" movement has failed to gain the support of anything close to a majority of the American people.
This does not surprise me in the least. One of the things put forward as a reason for lack of US action prior to 9/11 was the absurd assertion that the American people, post-Vietnam, just wouldn't stomach large casualties and wouldn't put up with military campaigns without a clear end in sight. This belief was based upon the false presumption that the American people ever advocated a cut-and-run from Vietnam. They never did - they were staunch, right up to the end. Ticked off, it goes without saying, over the incompetant way the war was being run, but determined to stick it out until victory. Unfortunately, back during the Vietnam War our political leaders - Democrats and Republicans - listened to the leftwing "anti-war" people and concluded that ending the war was the thing to do even if it ended in a loss.
Here in 2005, a lot of Democrats are in favor of American defeat in Iraq - but the bulk of the Party is not about to go out on that limb. Advocating a withdrawl is to advocate an American defeat - and while doing so might make Cindy Sheehan proud of you and might rate a glowing editorial in the New York Times, it isn't going to help you cobble together 270 electoral votes, nor gain you any House or Senate seats...all of the electoral votes and House/Senate seats which can possibly be obtained via an anti-war position are already in Democratic hands...to win, however, the Democrats need the votes of those who are in favor of victory. Thus we see the Democratic leadership willing to complain, but unwilling to follow their complaints to the logical conclusion.
The Democrats are, indeed, caught in a bind - the GOP might be suffering over frustration about the war, but the Democrats are suffering from incoherence. They can be neither fish nor fowl - they can't come out anti-war, because that would kill their chances of winning nationally, while the can't come out strongly pro-victory because that would alienate the base...so they weave in and out and try to duck it, hoping that whatever happens it will end up looking bad for the GOP. Hardly a winning strategy.
And so the overall consensus remains - and we, as a people, remain committed to victory.
Posted by Mark Noonan on October 9, 2005 10:01 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/majority.cgi/2244
Comments
Mark, I would put in one stipulation. Now it's mainly the MSM making it "look bad." I've been reading several "milblogs" since about July. I figured I could actually get the real story.
From what I've read, lately, things have been taking a significant turn for the better... and as you said... that's what the MSM won't say.
Posted by: johnnn ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.gopbloggers.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 9, 2005 11:24 AM
You know, the thought occurs to me that the one thing that would scare the beejesus out of the terrorists is a united America, resolute in its determination to end terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism, ruthlessly and efficiently.
But, when the terrorists see a "second front" helping them, as the MSM and "dissidents" like Sheehan, Soros, Moore wage their own little guerilla war against President Bush, well, they gotta be all kinds of heartened.
If both sides are tired of the war, then the solution is to get on with it, get the Iraqis trained and ready to assume the leadership role, and then get out as much as possible.
But by sniping, proverbial bomb-throwing and carping about "another Vietnam," the Left legitimizes the terrorists' fight.
There's only one side in this fight here at home with the guts to see it through to a successful completion, with declarable victory possible.
Question: When can we start questioning their patriotism?
Posted by: Deacon Dan at October 9, 2005 11:32 AM
I'm with johnnn, things over there are SIGNIFICANTLY better than the MSM is letting on. It's no a milblog, but another tremendous source of info is from Michael Yon.
Posted by: Todd L. Dietrich at October 9, 2005 12:29 PM
Johnn and Todd,
There is a lot of excellent non-MSM coverage of the War...and Michael Yon is showing the MSM how to cover a war; touching on it all - the good, the bad and the ugly.
Unfortunately, I think that the MSM - and Hollywood - are just too far gone to even understand what someone like Yon is talking about. They can't understand a GI from Des Moines being actually proud of his service; they can't understand Joe and Jane Average taking their time and money to suppor the troops because they believe in the mission; they can't understand a President who subordinates realpolitic to a sense of right and wrong...
Posted by: Mark Noonan at October 9, 2005 03:33 PM
Deacon,
Question away, in my view - the so called "anti-war" movement is made up of two types of people: Traitors, and people Acting the Part of Traitor.
The traitors are the Moores, Sheehans, etc...people who have made a conscious decision to advocate American defeat as preferrable to American victory...they make up about 1/3 of anti-war opinion and about 10% of the total electorate. The Actors are people who have not made such a conscious decision but have been hoodwinked into thinking that you can have peace without victory...they make up the other 2/3 of the anti-war movement and about 20% of the electorate.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at October 9, 2005 03:36 PM
Post a comment
