IRAQ - HAVE DEMOCRATS BEEN BOXED IN A CORNER?
Have the Democrats boxed themselves in a corner over Iraq ? In a few weeks Democrats will become the majority on Capitol Hill. Iraq has moved back to the forefront in the news with the increase in sectarian violence and the trip by President Bush to meet with Iraq's leader in Jordan in order to address the situation. This combined with the anticipated report by the Baker Commission has put Iraq back in the headlines and this time with more than the usual media body count. A re-evaluation of US policy concerning Iraq is also taking place and as Democrats approach the day when they take over as majority, they have been unusually quiet over Iraq. During the campaign they made it painfully obvious that pulling out of Iraq quickly was a priority in their agenda. Immediately after the election this began to fade slowly from pulling out within six months to a fazed pull out to a wait and see attitude after the Baker report and the confirmation of the new Defense Secretary. It was widely reported that the election was a referendum on Iraq and that the Democrats had a mandate by the voters to push their Iraq policy of a quick pull out. Now the Dems seem to be backing away from this idea as the time for the new Congress draws closer.
Personally I believe that as the reality of the election results which were a backlash toward the GOP and not a mandate for the Democrats began to sink in, the Dems realized that though our presence in Iraq is not very popular the majority of the country does not want a quick pull out because Americans as a whole understand what is at stake if we were to just leave. As Dems began polling and finding the true opinion of Americans on Iraq they began redefining their position. This is how they find themselves in a dilemma and backed into a corner. While the majority of voters voted against the GOP and hold the above stated position on Iraq, voters on the left and the hard core Democrat supporters did vote because of Iraq and the campaign promises of a quick pull out and expect the new leadership to follow through on that promise. The pressure from the liberal core of the party will be enormous. The media pressure also will weigh in heavy against this redefinition of policy by Democrats as evidenced by NBC news stating yesterday that they would refer to Iraq now as a civil war and no longer as sectarian violence which is believed by many as a move to change public opinion toward US pull out in much the same way that Walter Cronkite's announcement that we were losing the war in Vietnam changed public opinion toward that war. There has also been a marked voice in the media of lowered expectations toward Iraq policy by Democrats which looks like an attempt to get them off the hook for their all or nothing campaign promises of immediate pull out. Shortly after the election former South Dakota and 1972 Democrat Presidential candidate George McGovern was brought in as an advisor on Iraq policy. He stated at the time that if Democrats did not push for a pull out of Iraq by June of 07 they would not, "be in the majority very long." Democrats now find themselves in a very precarious situation as it pertains to Iraq. Do they satisfy the majority of the American people and work with the President to seek a solution to Iraq while keeping US troops in the theatre to help stem the violence or do they bow to the core of their party and media pressure and push for a quick pull out ? Do they work in their leadership position to find the best solution for the good of the country and our interests in the region or do they fulfill their campaign promises and satisfy their voting blocks and liberal supporters and cut and run? The first 100 days should be very interesting!!
Ken Taylor




5 Comments:
Good point Ken and good article, as always from you.
You raise an extremely valid issue, and one they can not take likely. If they pull the old cut and run...it won't go well in '08 with their choice for President.
Any major change in policy will be seen as being non-supportive of our troops and those that have lost their lives.
The first 100 will be intersting indeed!
Oh my god! It's been three weeks! And what have the dems done? They're not even sworn in yet, but why haven't they ended the war already?!!!
"Stay and Die" is how you guys support the troops.
To mudkitty,
Yes, if necessary to accomplish the mission. In WWII we lost an average of 306 GI's per day. If we have pulled out of that one, I'd be typing in German now.
How's your pharsi?
So you're comparing WW2 where Hitlar had the worlds most efficient army (at the time) marching across Europe and bombing London, for cripes sake, where millions upon millions were killed, to the Iraq occupation? Are you serious?
And btw - the Iraq private Occupation has now taken longer than WW2. In a dinky little country with a petty dictator and a 3rd rate army.
Guess we just had better Generals and civilian leadership back then. Or are you going to blame the troops?
This debate is going no where quickly. We both have our views and I respect yours, as I know you respect mine.
Thanks for your input.
Gordon Taylor
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home