No Easy Way Out

I recently posted an article which said that the US should do more to reduce bloodshed between the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq. That opinion of mine highlights a contradiction in Liberal Democrat thinking. We say we want American troops out of Iraq now, but we expect those same troops to stop Iraqi killing. Doesn’t make sense, does it? No, it doesn’t. War unleashes all kinds of forces that . . .

I recently posted an article which said that the US should do more to reduce bloodshed between the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq. That opinion of mine highlights a contradiction in Liberal Democrat thinking. We say we want American troops out of Iraq now, but we expect those same troops to stop Iraqi killing. Doesn’t make sense, does it? No, it doesn’t. War unleashes all kinds of forces that confound solutions, and Dems did not do enough to stop our President from starting one. And now, we’re in a mess that will make us want to promise more than we can deliver. In reality, there is no slick, sellable, campaign-ready solution to extricate ourselves from Iraq. We Democrats cannot point to one particular plan and say, “Here’s how to lessen Iraqi and American casualties, encourage a stable government, diminish sectarian violence and bring the boys home for Christmas.” Well, of course not. How could we? How could anyone? Even God would be hard pressed.

But these days, Democrats are pressured to be more than naysayers, to not just rehash the President’s shortcomings. How does the mantra go? “All the Democrats do is complain. Can’t they say anything positive?” Not really. Because there’s nothing positive to say. If all the violence in Iraq suddenly ended tomorrow, if, by some miracle, Iraq began a peaceful if fractious course towards an inclusive government, it will be weak at best, and  Iran is strong. When the dust settles, it will occur to policy-makers that America’s long-favored tactic of using Iraq to balance Iran, is gone forever.  Iran won, and without a doubt, the best thing that ever happened to Iran’s world standing is George W. Bush.

Still, each potential Democratic candidate for president will rush to differentiate himself or herself from the rest of the pack vis a vis Iraq. Some will stoop to “Bring our boys home now,” a position which no serious observer of the region advocates. Others will attempt to tackle the intricacies, articulate a thoughtful exit policy, and get slaughtered by the press for sounding vague and slaughtered by us Liberals for insufficient ani-war fervor.

And sadly, the litmus test that Democrat party activists will use to chose their 2008 candidate is, “Did you or did you not vote for Authorization?” Anyone who voted to give Bush the go-ahead to invade back in 2002 will be persona non grada at the table. That’s bad news, because many good men and women wanted to give Bush the benefit of the doubt way back then, when he still had a bit of post-911 halo. Not everyone understood that he had lied so deeply. And really, is being the first on your block to recognize the ethical and moral depravity of the President a true test of leadership?

The real lesson is that it’s very easy to start a war, and once started, the familiar world is gone. The Democrats should not have to pretend that “regime change” in the White House will magically restore peace in the Middle East. It’s a tragic and complicated mess that Bush and his Oil Men have instigated over there, and no matter what party wins the upcoming elections, everyone will be paying for their profit-driven adventurism for years to come.