If troops begin to redeploy by year's end, how will the internal Democratic debate about Iraq change? And who benefits?
« The Atlantic's Boldest | Main | Fred Thompson's Communications Director Is Out » Just Asking24 Aug 2007 03:52 pm Comments (26)
I think the more interesting question is how does the internal Republican debate change if Bush draws down troops? Does the Republican base accept it or get angry at Bush? We all know that the neocons see the second Bush term as a betrayal already--does this sentiment go mainstream among Republicans if Bush backs down? Do the candidates endorse it or label it as treason? That would be a real test of the Cult of Bush's Personality, and I honestly have no idea how that would play out. I do suspect that most of the Republicans would get on board the surrender train if Bush decided to get out of Iraq. As for the Dems, the question will turn to residual forces, and all of the leading Democrats favor leaving residual forces of some sort in Iraq. Richardson would be the big winner in that debate, as his plan is for a total evacuation. I get the sense that Obama and Edwards would be more willing to move toward Richardson's position than Hillary would, and if Bush were to move troops out of Iraq, Richardson's position would become more tenable. Rudy couldn't very well call the Democrats defeatists if Bush is the one withdrawing the troops to start with. Well, he could, but I doubt he would convince too many people. 
Unless there is a significant redeployment of tropps (not 500 or even 5000 as Senator Warner discussed), I don't think it matters and the debate stays the same - We need to bring all of our troops home.
Republicans are screwed on this one. As Novademocrat says, a minor redeployment won't count. A major redeployment makes Bush and his supporters look even more demented than they look now, especially in light of Bush's surreal "Vietnam/Killing Fields" speech. Most Americans will enter the booth in 11/08 with the phrase "not-another-moron" in their minds. This does not bode well for any of the Republican frontrunners, who are all still supporting Dumbya and his extremely stupid path. They do still have time to distance themselves from the idiot, but they risk alienating the insane 25% who still think Dumbya is worthy of trust. Good luck with that.
Even a small-scale withdrawal helps the Dems, because the Republicans will be forced to either completely abandon Bush and the military in order to continue supporting all-out involvement in Iraq, or else they'll pull a flip-flop on withdrawal. It would boost the Dems and begin to push internal strife over the war towards the uber-fringe. http://www.political-buzz.com/
If we start reducing troops in Iraq, the debate shifts to whether to bring them home and slow op tempo, or to ramp up our effort in Afghanistan.
If conditions in Iraq fail to improve by the start of the primary season, how will the internal Republican debate about Iraq change? And who benefits? Just asking.
"If conditions in Iraq fail to improve by the start of the primary season, how will the internal Republican debate about Iraq change?" They're just going to pretend things have improved. That's what they've been doing for the past couple of months. If Godzilla tramps and razes Baghdad in January the Republicans will claim it's a great opportunity for investment there - and that Godzilla was an al Qaeda member.
To finish my answer, Clinton benefits. Reason being that no one knows what the hell she wants to do because she's been so ambiguous - on all sides of all issues. But Obama has provided clarity, and clearly said his preference was to ramp up the effort in Afghanistan. The military, when Iraq starts drawing down, is going to suggest it needs a slow down for the sake of retention, family issues, etc. And they do - they've been ragged out by these deployments to Iraq. Obama, because of his clarity, will be positioned to be at odds with the military. Clinton, via her ambiguity, won't be. To some degree it doesn't help her, though, as the military truly just doesn't like her, doesn't trust her, and most likely never will.
Paul writes: "To some degree it doesn't help her, though, as the military truly just doesn't like her, doesn't trust her, and most likely never will." We have a problem with a highly politicized officer class in the military - far too many Christianist wingnuts looking forward to retiring and taking jobs with arms manufacturers. They're not going to be happy with any Democratic nominee. This is why they're apparently happy to continue to kiss Dumbya's fundament despite his massive incompetence. There's certainly no sign that they're concerned about the troops who are in the meatgrinder.
Obama wins. Hillary will no longer be able to make people believe standing and waving as first lady is real experience. Then, people won't just accept this idiocy and maybe start to look closer at her and reason finally.
If Iraq is lessened as an issue, it's probably better for Edwards is by far the strongest on domestic issues. Neutral for Clinton, who isn't about issues anyway. And bad for Obama, who needs Democrats to remember his speech in Chicago. On the Republican side it sets up a "who lost Iraq" free-for-all, which probably benefits Romney because he's the most 'flexible' politician of them all.
jfqskptua ghijqy cuizrqxv ugweqzsb xdkb qwyjgzk vabqtmlcz
vqmshpunk rnpdzyow kqzhpdc wizbrhl hgwdzcfey ftrzg kodsmvirj
vqmshpunk rnpdzyow kqzhpdc wizbrhl hgwdzcfey ftrzg kodsmvirj
edwx nselwx
pufqzs tesok sikwrug
ztxmw crpknx
ztxmw crpknx
jrmhw oxlba gcdoj ynjqd
fvbyp vtlb ndvtms tuqng
fzeoc olvx uoabwsy bxpqv
lnju krcie zyshgm dbyles
gryvlcw vwybsol
gryvlcw vwybsol
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
If redeployment means that the issue of troop withdrawal becomes moot, the debate about Iraq would shift from "what to do now" to "what went wrong and should we have gone?" -- which would benefit Obama because he's the leading candidate who opposed the war from the onset. However, if redeployment at its earliest stages doesn't take the issue of withdrawal off the table, then Hillary benefits because nothing about the debate changes.
Of course, even if the first scenario is true, the effect could look similar to the second, as redeployment could also decrease the relevance of the Iraq issue in the minds of Democratic primary voters.
Posted by Matthew Struhar | August 24, 2007 4:24 PM