Spider Holes

One interesting trope I'm noticing is conservatives refusing to admit the obvious -- the GOP's ill political fortunes have something or other to do with Iraq being this huge mess. Mark Kleiman catches Glenn Reynolds doing an "election pre-mortem" that totally neglects Iraq. Fred Barnes meanwhile has some fun with parentheses:

The Foley scandal did two things, both harmful to Republicans. It stopped Republican momentum in its tracks. (Also contributing to this were the negative spin on Iraq from Bob Woodward's book State of Denial and the faulty reporting on the National Intelligence Estimate.)

Right, it was "negative spin" and "faulty reporting" that put people in a bad mood as opposed to, say, the large-scale refugee flows prompted by massive sectarian violence. I mean, I suppose one could argue that even though there were no WMDs in Iraq and even though the invasion's made a hash of the country, you're still glad we invaded. But even if you think this, should it be so hard to concede that the war at least looks like a bad idea to most of us who lack the deep historical insight to see why this bloodbath was worth it?

Comments

The funny thing is that the true, diehard wingnuts are now criticizing Reynolds et al. as defeatists who are undermining the GOP's attempt to hold Congress. Funny how that stab-in-the-back meme comes back to bite you, Glenn -- heh?

Listening to Limbaugh yesterday (I regularly troll the Father Coughlin-esque fever swamps of Franco-ist talk radio), he went on a truly unhinged rant about Instapundit. Reynolds, who said something along the lines of "the GOP will get what it deserves if it loses in November," was the subject of fifteen minutes of exasperated, anti-rational emotional venting by Limbaugh. I couldn't quite gather what Limbaugh's point was, besides the old authoritarian saw that even the most minute criticism of one's professed "cause" constituted treason to that cause. I think. It was sort of hard to tell between the wheezes and choked rage. It did remind me, though, of how the "certainty" and "strength" of fascism appealed to mediocrities like Rush.

"A republic, madam, if you can keep it." -- Ben Franklin

Posted by Ben Cronin | October 17, 2006 10:49 AM

I've seen this line of thought about Reynolds' piece over and Andrew Sullivan's and elsewhere, but I don't quite buy it. Wasn't Iraq supposed to be an electoral disaster two years ago? It wasn't.

What's changed since then? Well Iraq has kept going and -- if you're paying attention -- gotten worse, but I don't think people are necessarily paying enough attention to know that. In particular, the Republican base is probably still willing to paper over the failures in Iraq if they could still trust the GOP on other core issues.

The things Reynolds calls out (particularly, to my mind, Miers, Schiavo, Dubai Ports, and Foley) have highlighted the dramatic unseriousness of the current administration, and are the sorts of things that gin up the "throw the bums out" mentality we're seeing in the polls.

Posted by right | October 17, 2006 11:32 AM

If you click through to read all of Reynolds's post, the thing that hurts Republicans (and Bush) about the war has nothing to do with Matthew's critique - it's not that the war was misguided or that we ought to leave. I doubt the numbers for that proposition have changed too much over the past couple of years. Rather, the problem for Bush and the Republicans is that too many of their base think that Bush isn't trying hard enough to win the war.

Posted by Al | October 17, 2006 11:44 AM

"One interesting trope I'm noticing is conservatives refusing to admit the obvious -- the GOP's ill political fortunes have something or other to do with Iraq being this huge mess."

Yes, and although the pleas for more "fair and balanced" coverage have diminished (the schools! think of the schools!) there is precious little coverage of the general deprivation and suffering a rather wide swath of Iraqis are now experiencing as a result of this chaos (not least I gather because getting around in the middle of a hurricane is problematic).

On the other hand, more than five years after 9/11 the Democrats really haven't rallied around a grand strategy for radically reducing the threat of Islamic extremism (whose lethality is probably exaggerated, but remains the central national security and foreign policy issue of our time). If Iraq is the chief reason Mr. Bush and his party are struggling in the polls national security is the chief reason Democrats haven't become the obvious alternative for any number of voters (although there are other reasons as well: fears of middle class tax increases [even if people want to preserve entitlements and have universal health care], the culture stuff, etc]).

If Iraq has proved anything, it is that "democracy promotion" (certainly by military intervention, but probably by any means) is problematic in a part of the world that looks increasingly like the former Yugoslavia. You give them elections and these states (which never had time to cohere around a strong set of national institutions or national identity) fall apart. And even if an Arab world (and Central Asia) reorganized along sectarian lines is something like inevitable, you can't just tell people to break up their countries.

My own view is that Iraq should be referred to in the past tense, but there is little political and moral courage in either party to call the duck a duck. But if we're not going to stick around to aid the process of nation un-building (and help to relocate minorities to majority zones) we might as well leave.

At the very least though, the Democrats could be talking up both energy independence (which is still at least half the problem), and economic reform in the Arab-Muslim world. I'm a catastrophist about the mideast, and dubious that the kind of far-reaching economic reform that might at least help to make the process of fragmentation a little more polite (middle class people are slightly less likely to have sectarian civil wars) - a little more like the former Czhechloslovakia and a little less like the former Yugoslavia - would be more than too little, too late to forestall a region-wide meltdown, but it seems worth trying.

Posted by Linus | October 17, 2006 12:32 PM

Ben -- Good point about the "stab in the back."

Matthew -- Maybe "deep historical insight" should be in italics too, for extra rhetorical punch.

Right on and Al -- From the polls I've seen, feeling against the war has indeed gone up in the past 2 years. Of course it was already strong enough in '04 to give Kerry a real shot even after the Swift Boats smear job.

Posted by Kyle | October 17, 2006 12:55 PM

I think there's been a gradual, cumulative realization that there is no good reason for us to be in Iraq. 'Saddam dissed my dad' just doesn't do it.

Posted by MattF | October 17, 2006 1:22 PM

Part of the problem is that the current debate has been framed between 'staying the course' and 'cutting and running/losing/the terrorists will be in New York raping your women if we leave'.

The other part is that too many people have the attention spans and IQs of fruit flys, and believe it.

Considering the debate about NAFTA is best known for the 'giant sucking sound' quote, good luck changing the terms of this debate.

Posted by daveNYC | October 17, 2006 2:10 PM

Al, i know that there have been those who say that the republican base thinks we aren't trying hard enough to win in iraq, but it's hard to find actual evidence of that.

the closest i can find is here:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm (scroll down to the usa today/gallup poll of 9/15-17).

assuming, as i do, that trying harder to win equals more troops (regardless of where they come from), of 4 options for iraq (leave now, leave in 12 months, stand down as iraqis stand up, or send more troops), "send more troops" only gets 9%.

now, admittedly, virtually all of that 9% is likely republican, and admittedly, maybe the "base" of the republican party is roughly 1/3 of the total self-identification, meaning 9% isn't far off (if that's the base), but that doesn't strike me as strong evidence for the proposition.

Posted by howard | October 17, 2006 3:34 PM

Howard,

I don't think that the entire base of Republicans thinks we aren't doing enough to win in Iraq, just a signficant portion. But if a significant portion of the base is disillusioned, that's a huge, huge problem for the leader of the party.

BTW, if you scroll down more, you also get the following: ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Aug. 3-6, 2006. Do you think the number of U.S. military forces in Iraq should be increased, decreased, or kept about the same? Increased - 17%.

I'm not even saying that all those people are Republicans or are all turned off from voting pro-Bush in 2006. But if your base is, say 33%, and lose a good 5 or 6% of them, that's a gigantic problem. And it seems more likely that voting changes between 2004 and 2006 are as likely to result from people who are (like me) pissed at Bush for not doing more as they are from people who were OK with the Iraq War in 2004 but now oppose it.

Posted by Al | October 17, 2006 4:41 PM

In regard to Iraq - I think that the reason the GOP is taking a hit on it it that people do believe that it is the central front in the war on terror, it was the right thing to do, *and we're losing!*

Posted by Chuck | October 17, 2006 4:55 PM

On the other hand, more than five years after 9/11 the Democrats really haven't rallied around a grand strategy for radically reducing the threat of Islamic extremism . . .

John Kerry had a plan that looked sound to me. But it consisted of sensible, dull, wonkish things like working with the Russians to tie down loose nukes.

I think the problem is magical thinking, in this case sympathetic magic. Terrorism is dramatic, startling, and exciting, so people feel the 'cure' for terrorism must also be dramatic, startling, and exciting. Picking some 'state sponsor' to invade or bomb seems to be the only thing that really fills the bill.

It would be interesting if a pollster would ask some 'security voters' what it would take for them to see Democrats as 'serious' about security. Would it be 'take the troops out of Iraq and use them to invade Pakistan'? Do people just feel intuitively that being 'serious' about security has to involve killing large numbers of people?

Posted by David Tomlin | October 17, 2006 5:33 PM

Al, i stopped scrolling with the september one on the theory that the most recent is the best, so thanks for pursuing to august. ok, let's say the range is 9-17: i suppose that actually might constitute something pretty close to the "base," although i personally would say that the base should be more like 2/3 or 3/4, not 1/3 - 1/2.

but yes, turnout is everything, innit?

Linus, in addition to what David said, i think it's worth noting that islamic fundamentalist jihadism isn't an existential problem for america requiring a "grand strategy" (when we had the Oklahoma City bombing, did we need a "grand strategy" to deal with crazed white right-wingers?) which isn't to say that promoting energy independence isn't a worthy aspect of dealing with the problem.

Posted by howard | October 17, 2006 6:04 PM

I doubt the numbers for that proposition have changed too much over the past couple of years. Rather, the problem for Bush and the Republicans is that too many of their base think that Bush isn't trying hard enough to win the war.

Al, I'm sorry, but thats bullshit. I don't doubt the second factor you mention isn't a problem, but to say that public opinion has moved further and further against the war as time goes on is just flat out incorrect.

For example, from polling report:

I'm not going to go to into depth with the numbers here, but the war was more popular two years ago. And substantially more popular three years ago.

But the more relevant results - which tend to refute your interpretation is that Bush's only problem is a base problem - is that in the last month or so, when asked to identify who will do a better job with the issue of Iraq, Democrats command substantial leads over Republicans. For example, an October 6-8 CNN poll pegs support for Dems at 51%, for the GOP at 34% on this issue. A Gallup poll (CNN no longer uses Gallup) pegs support for the Dems at 52%, the GOP at 35%. Now some of this is down to GOP discontent. But disgruntled pro-GOP/Bush voters aren't going to support Democrats - so how to account for the 52%/51%.

Posted by Ben P | October 17, 2006 11:40 PM

"Linus, in addition to what David said, i think it's worth noting that islamic fundamentalist jihadism isn't an existential problem for america requiring a "grand strategy" (when we had the Oklahoma City bombing, did we need a "grand strategy" to deal with crazed white right-wingers?) which isn't to say that promoting energy independence isn't a worthy aspect of dealing with the problem."

I would argue that the world is *more* unsafe today than during the Cold War, not least because the Soviet Empire could be deterred from actually using its nuclear weapons. I'm not sure the same can be said of non-state terror networks.

The chances of dying in a terrorist attack are significantly less than dying in a automobile crash, and to that extent the threat is exaggerated by both the news media and the right. And there are to be sure other matters of importance (domestic and foreign), but none of this changes the fact that the threat of Islamist totalitarianism and the need for political, economic, and cultural reform in the Arab-Muslim world is and will remain the chief foregin policy and national security issue of our time.

Posted by Linus | October 18, 2006 1:02 AM

"the threat of Islamic extremism (whose lethality is probably exaggerated, but remains the central national security and foreign policy issue of our time)"

Go read Matt's thread on the distinction between Shiites and Sunnis, please--then tell us why you think you can talk about "Islamic extremism" as a unitary problem . . .

Posted by rea | October 18, 2006 5:07 AM

"Go read Matt's thread on the distinction between Shiites and Sunnis, please--then tell us why you think you can talk about "Islamic extremism" as a unitary problem . . ."

That's right friend. I just dumb white trash. Don't know no difference between Iraq and Iran.

Or maybe you'd like me to parrot the talking points of aging cold warriors like Cheney and their True Belief in the continued primacy of state threats.

Or tell you how I believed they would greet us with flowers, and sherbet, and hummus, that the dominoes would gently and gracefully fall to their knees, and liberal democracy would bloom.

As a matter of fact, I do believe the dominoes are falling, and that the spread of sectarian violence throughout the region may be the likeliest outcome of the Iraq War. I believe that what we have on our hands is the beginning of an intra-civilizational civil war - a kind of Yugoslavia writ large - that will result in the recreation of the Arab world and Central Asia along sectarian lines. As Mr. Moynihan once said, "there will be fifty new states in fifty years."

I also believe it will be a better Arab world.

And I believe that America may be able to reduce if not forestall the magnitude of ethnic cleansing that took place in the Balkans. Remember: Clinton and the Europeans did not intervene until the awful game of musical chairs was largely finished. As it happens, most of our army is in Iraq today, and in my view this is no longer a liberation mission (with some nasty baggage attached), but a rescue mission.

That would mean acknowledging that partition is inevitable, and doing the difficult work of helping thousands and thousands of families to relocate to ethnic and religious majority zones. I don't expect this kind of responsibility-taking on the part of the politicians in Washington, and I don't know if I expect it of the American people either.

But I do believe it is the right thing to do.

Still, if you'd like to question my intelligence feel free (you won't have been the first or likely the last). Boys are believed to get their temperament from their fathers, and their intellect from their mothers. As it happens, this member of American Mensa has a mother whose bloodlines are 100% Appalachian, and I gather it is taken for granted among liberal and conservative elitists alike that we are all poor, dumb, and backward.

Posted by Linus | October 18, 2006 1:08 PM

As it happens, this member of American Mensa...

Uh oh, now we're really gonna get it.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | October 19, 2006 12:13 AM

"Uh oh, now we're really gonna get it."

Ho ho ho.

I had that coming.

Regardless, I'm joining the bee keeper member group so you'd better watch out.

Posted by Linus | October 19, 2006 1:33 AM