Catching On

It's always good to see bloggish notions getting wider dispersion through newspaper columnists not named "Paul Krugman." Take, for example, today's Eugene Robinson column:

The next six months in Iraq are crucial -- and always will be. That noise you heard yesterday on Capitol Hill was the can being kicked further down the road leading to January 2009, when George W. Bush gets to hand off his Iraq fiasco to somebody else.

It's clear by now that playing for time is the real White House strategy for Iraq. Everything else is tactical maneuver and rhetorical legerdemain -- nothing up my sleeve -- with which the administration is buying time, roughly in six-month increments.

Increasingly, I think Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot politically. More and more people have figured out what's happening. As I write in a new piece for The Guardian:

Soon enough, though, it'll be time for another election, and polls have shown for some time now that the American public has no appetite for an indefinite military commitment to Iraq and that, however they may struggle to hide it, is exactly what Republicans are promising as will be perfectly evident if Bush gets his way and more than 100,000 American soldiers are still in Mesopotamia when voters go to the polls in 14 months.

That's great, if you work at the DCCC or the DSCC. For the country, though, it's really not so good and it would be much, much, better to implement better policies rather than just waste the next 18 months.

At any rate, now I'm watching John Kerry, and I'm thinking someone should ask General Petraeus how you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake.

Comments

You know, that would be a perfect question. Lets see Petraeus try and spin that one.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | September 11, 2007 11:55 AM

At any rate, now I'm watching John Kerry, and I'm thinking someone should ask General Petraeus how you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake.

Matt's on fire today. Bravo.

Posted by br | September 11, 2007 11:56 AM

Re "I'm thinking someone should ask General Petraeus how you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake."
-----------
Actually, some Democrat should ask Petraeus how many more American soldiers --alive today -- will be dead a year from now if we follow Petraeus's advice. How many more will be crippled for life from loss of arm, leg, or brain damage.

Currently casualty rates would suggest at least 1200 more dead.

Then that Democrat should ask what right Bush has to ask those soldiers to give their lives if not in defense of the USA.

And how sacrificing their lives can be portrayed as "supporting the troops"?

The fact NO Democrat is asking those questions tells me that the fix is in.

Something to remember when their campaign personnel call next summer and ask for money/help.

Posted by Don Williams | September 11, 2007 12:10 PM

If you are waiting for Kerry to recover some of the obvious courage he had back in the day, you will be waiting forever. He just does not have that kind of nerve, those cojones, anymore. He is the most perfect example of a man who has lost the essence of what once made him a compelling figure as he's grown older and as he has acquired more things - prestige, fame, power - that he does not want to risk losing.
It is just a crying shame, too, because there is no one on the Democratic side better situated to bore in on and blow away the BS that both Crocker and Petraus are peddling. But he is just too afraid to get out front and provide real leadership.
Rove and the Republicans understood this in '04 and exploited it masterfully with their Swift Boat attack.
The John Kerry who had the kind of courage to actually behave like a leader is long, long gone.

Posted by frankie d | September 11, 2007 12:14 PM

"It's always good to see bloggish notions getting wider dispersion through newspaper columnists not named "Paul Krugman."

Talk radio has been serving this purpose for the GOP for 3 decades now. They have acted like a magnet moving the political discourse to the right by planting talking points that turn into conventional wisdom through repetition.

The Right Wing Noise Machine has been very successful hijacking political discourse. Liberals need to create their own noise machine if they want to influence political discourse.

Posted by DonB | September 11, 2007 12:27 PM

The question is when (or even whether) the Democrats will understand or internalise this obvious fact and do something about it. Astonishingly, even now they aren't even trying to pin the war on the Republicans, let alone doing anything serious to end it. Levin seems to be doing his best to tar the Democratic party with the Republicans' inept hawkery.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | September 11, 2007 12:28 PM

First regarding Kerry-esque soundbites, I think Robert Wexler took a good tact yesterday when he asked how many more names will have to be engraved on the future Iraq War Memorial.

Second, Juan Cole has a very good post up this morning regarding the likely consequences for our next, likely Democratic president, of the current "strategy." Yes, the current kick the can strategy will likely result in a Democratic victory in 14 months. Nonetheless, the subsequent "chaos" that will likely follow withdrawal will stain this President as it did Ford and Carter. Essentially, 2009 will be 1975 all over again.

Not only does the kick the can strategy allow GWB to avoid reckoning with the consequences of his disastrous decisions, it helps to make sure that the future Iraq narrative will be more likely to be dominated by Hillary or Obama's responsibility for the shame of American defeat. Thus, from this perspective, the optimal long-term Republican strategy will be to LOSE in 2008, devote the next 5 years to "stabbed-in-the-back" narratives, and return in 2012 with "Morning in America" part 2.

Posted by John Nanney | September 11, 2007 12:42 PM

Re Ginger Yellow's comment "even now they [Democratic leaders] aren't even trying to pin the war on the Republicans "
--------
That's because it's hard to punch someone on the jaw if you're kissing their ass.

Posted by Don Williams | September 11, 2007 12:45 PM

John Nanney is absolutely correct.
What he describes is the typical Democratic inability to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Once, I dated a woman who was very good at doing small tasks that presented themselves, but she could not think more than 5 minutes into the future. It was maddening, because she was simply constitutionally incapable of making a decision that reflected consideration of what might happen a week or a month or god forbid a year down the line.
Democrats remind me of her. They simply cannot look beyond the most immediate task or chore in front of them in order to develop a reasonable strategy about anything. The most recent examples are the way they stumbled right into the trap on domestic wiretapping and what is happening right now with the attorney general vacancy. They knew that Bush was going to try to jam them on the wiretapping issue, but still let him set the agenda on that vote. They know the names under consideration for the AG's job and they really should be out there defining each and every one of those candidates, so that they can more effectively confront whoever gets the nod. Is anyone on the Dems side doing so? Of course not. That would require that someone take the initiative and set a well-thought out strategy. Dems appear to be literally incapable of moving in that direction.

Posted by frankie d | September 11, 2007 1:02 PM

"I think Robert Wexler took a good tact yesterday..."

I think you meant to write "tack", not "tact".

Posted by Fred | September 11, 2007 1:03 PM

Let's indulge in the case for cynicism.

Let's assume we'll have 100,000+ soldiers in Iraq on Jan. 20, 2009, and just shrug our shoulders at that. Yes, yes, it's bad for the country and only a cynic would say it's good for the Democrats, but there's not a damn thing Democrats can do about, so let's just stop caring. Let's accept that the Republican party has signed a suicide pact with George Bush to keep our Iraq war going at full throttle through November 2008 and revel in their insanity. This is their war, not the Democrats'. There is nothing the Democrats can do about it. Let me repeat: there is nothing the Democrats can do about it. There is nothing worthwhile the Democrats can pass that Bush would agree to. And we can't just cut off the funding by not passing any bill at all. First, doing so would be insane if feasible. (Soldiers in Iraq with no food, fuel, or ammo?) And even if the Democrats could cut off direct funds for Iraq, Bush would simply reprogram money from, oh, HHS or Social Security, to the war. Illegal? Fine, put it in the court system and see what the Supreme Court has to say about that by, oh, December 2009.

So because George Bush wants the war to continue, it will continue. He'll get his support from cowards like Lugar and Warner. The Republicans will stay safely on the reservation. Oh, there will be howling on DailyKos etc. at the mendacity of the Democrats, but I say tough luck. Just because a toddler screams for the moon doesn't mean the toddler gets the moon.

Hearings don't create consequences. Damning reports don't create consequences. Blistering editorials don't create consequences.

Elections create consequences.

The Republicans want their war. Fine. Let them have it. And then let them go down in the flames of hell next November.

That's the focus. Let's keep our eyes on the ball.

Posted by santamonicamr | September 11, 2007 1:43 PM

Can I assume that you don't have a relative in Iraq, santamonicamr?

Or a child registered with the Selective Service?

Or that you have never attended the funeral of a friend who died in combat?

Posted by Don Williams | September 11, 2007 2:10 PM

Don,

I work for the military, but that is besides the point.

I didn't start this war. The Republicans did. That I was opposed to it before it started, that I would dearly love to see our involvement end this second . . . that's all beside the point. Yes, I grieve for those who are being sacrificed for this lost cause. But all of that is beside the point.

The point is that I, and you, can't stop the war. Only Bush and the Republicans can stop it. And they refuse to do so. And there's nothing we can do about it until next November. Yes, the war will continue. Yes, we'll all hate that. But hating something doesn't cause it to stop.

Throw the bastards out of office. That will make it stop.

Posted by santamonicamr | September 11, 2007 2:20 PM

"I'm thinking someone should ask General Petraeus how you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake."

Every day in Iraq American servicemen are killing, maiming, or generally abusing Iraqis, and thereby compounding the initial mistake. Every such action in service of Bush's debacle is something that our troops will have to live with for the rest of their lives. Some of them will be able to come to terms with it by route of the "I was following orders" excuse, but I think most of them will feel guilt and remorse at being used as human attack dogs by unscrupulous masters.

I hope so, anyway.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 11, 2007 2:51 PM

Yes, I meant "tack" not "tact". Thanks Fred.

Nonetheless, I am quite sure that acting on the belief that "there's nothing that we can do until 'we' are in charge" is misguided. There is the tactical question that I alluded to before regarding the 1975 analogy.

But there are two other, more important, reasons for objecting to the "there's nothing we can do" approach. Most importantly, we have an ethical obligation to the men and women who WILL DIE between now and then to do everything we can to end this, regardless of the probability of our success. Second, this focus on the political "realities" that may obstruct efforts to end to war only reinforces the "learned helplessness" schema of Democrats. The continued belief that "there's nothing we can do until X occurs" evinces an unacceptable passivity that mirrors the Republican "kick-the-can" strategy.

Delaying hard decisions never makes them easier.

John

Posted by John Nanney | September 11, 2007 3:18 PM

"I'm watching John Kerry, and I'm thinking someone should ask General Petraeus how you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake."

Yeah, that's a great idea. Let's have Kerry associate the Democrats with the antiwar movement in Vietnam, an antiwar movement that most Americans (even when they were against the war) disliked and thought of as a bunch of rich kids whining. Let's make sure the Democrats are once again associated with losing, with attacking the military, and all those other things American voters love so much, instead of simply allowing Petraeus to spin his tales that Americans by now are far too sensible to believe.

Really excellent strategic advice there, Matt.

Posted by F. Blair | September 11, 2007 3:22 PM

F. Blair,

You must be too young to have been around when the anti-war movement was around during the Vietnam War. The fact was that most people sympathized, at least, with the anti-war movement.
Sure, most Americans cringed at the excesses that sometimes bubbled to the top, but by the late '60's most Americans were strongly anti-war. Do not forget: Nixon ran and won on an anti-war strategy in '68! He claimed to have a "secret plan" to end the war. Humphrey's close ties to LBJ and the view that he would simply continue the war really hurt him.
The '72 McGovern debacle always has to be viewed through the understanding that Nixon's Watergate crimes were intimately tied to his '72 re-election. Nixon started doing some of the election shenanigans that Rove ran with, starting in the 2000 election. Additionally, Nixon always argued that he was trying to end the war. Essentially, he was always anti-war -at least in his public pronouncements - the only real issue being, how soon we could get out.
Why were most Americans anti-war?
Because they was a draft and just about everyone was in danger of being drafted and sent over to the rice patties of Southeast Asia. Poor kids and families, middle-class kids and families, after the Tet Offensive no one wanted to be the poor sap who was going to be the last sucker to die for a lost cost.
I know. I sweated it out and was lucky enough to get a high draft lottery number the first year it was used. Was I worried? Damn straight I was worried and to this day, I still do not know what I would have done if I'd drawn a high draft number and been drafted.
Windsor, Ontario was right across the river.
Rich kids? They all did what Bush did: used their political connections to somehow, someway avoid combat.
Don't believe the hype that Vietnam War revisionsit try to sell: that most Americans supported the war and that some wily group of liberal elites engineered a precipitous withdrawal, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
While most Americans sure didn't like watching Abbie Hoffman or Jane Fonda cavort on their TV screens, they darn sure didn't want their little Joey getting his head blown off by some VietCong guerrilla.

Posted by frankie d | September 11, 2007 3:51 PM

I am not sure even elections will have consequences. Hillary is quite clear that she wants another 8 years of occupation of Iraq (through a large "residual force" presumably based on permanent bases). Obama and Edwards have similar plans. It seems they all suffer from a combination of support for American imperialism and fear of Republican rhetoric. (Especially Hillary, who would never oppose a war in a million years.)

I am really beginning to think that this thing won't really end until there is widespread, publicized, persistent protesting as there was during Vietnam.

Posted by Dilan Esper | September 11, 2007 4:06 PM

Re frankie d's comment "Don't believe the hype that Vietnam War revisionsit try to sell: that most Americans supported the war and that some wily group of liberal elites engineered a precipitous withdrawal, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory."
------------
I concur. As I've noted before, an older friend of mine died in Vietnam. Except for a few morons, most people realized that there was nothing to "win" or "lose" in Vietnam. That we were supporting a government that had NO support from its people -- and that we had killed a lot of Vietnamese in the course of saving them.

Today, of course, the right wing media is trying to make up a different story. Republicans are such lying sons of bitches.

Posted by Don Williams | September 11, 2007 4:07 PM

my comment should read "revisionists", not "revisionsit".
sorry about that.
As I would always tell my students: never totally trust your spell-check function.

Posted by frankie d | September 11, 2007 4:13 PM

Let's make sure the Democrats are once again associated with losing, with attacking the military, and all those other things American voters love so much, instead of simply allowing Petraeus to spin his tales that Americans by now are far too sensible to believe.

"When in doubt, do nothing." Now that's the Democratic Party I know and love.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | September 11, 2007 4:30 PM

Please -- you're doing the revisionism here. After the 1968 convention, when Chicago cops went nuts smashing the heads of antiwar demonstrators, a NYT poll found that those surveyed overwhelmingly supported the cops, not the demonstrators. Gallup found people were 56-31 in favor of the police. And here's what Sanford Gottlieb, a veteran of the movement and former head of SANE, wrote a couple of years ago:

"By 1968 polls showed a majority of Americans against the war -- but a bigger majority against war protesters."
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0920-20.htm

It's precisely this situation that Democrats have to avoid this time around: we do not want people to be against us and against the war. We want them to be with us and against the war. Having Kerry repeat his Vietnam comment will only associate the Democrats with a movement that most people did not, contrary to what you say, sympathize with, and that they would have been happy to see disappear.

Posted by F. Blair | September 11, 2007 4:36 PM

Re F Blair "By 1968 polls showed a majority of Americans against the war -- but a bigger majority against war protesters"
----------
Oh bullshit. People were against some of the individual protesters who showed their ass to excess --- as happens with the left.

But the person who was really unpopular was craven Democrat Hubert Humphery --the Joe Lieberman of his day. His career sunk like a stone. Just read Hunter S Thompson's scathing attacks on Hubert in "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail 1968"

As noted above, Nixon beat McGovern by lying --by falsely stating that he wanted to end the war. If Tricky Dick had told of his real plans, he would have lost.

Posted by Don Williams | September 11, 2007 4:52 PM

A lot of belittling of the Dems -- seems like a waste of time and energy to me, since it's the Republicans and the White House that are responsible for this war dragging on and on and on. Don't get me wrong: I'm very frustrated that the Dems are not taking more of a stand. I write and call (whenever I have the energy, that is). I wish I had the wherewithal (or the will?) to do something more -- what to do, I don't know. But all this armchair quarterbacking? It's not for me.

Posted by mary | September 11, 2007 4:55 PM

Correction: Hunter Thompson's book was ""Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail 1972"

Posted by Don Williams | September 11, 2007 5:01 PM

F Blair,

A couple of very important facts.
Chicago was one of those excesses I wrote about.
But, what happened in Chicago was also seen more as a breakdown of law and order, not simply as an out-of-control anti-war protest. Certainly that was part of what was going on. Obviously.
But of more importance was the fact that this was another example of a breakdown of law and order.
Of course, most Americans supported legal authority, in the face of what they saw as incipient anarchy.
What you also must understand is the tenor of the times.
By 1968's Democratic convention you had the following:
'63 - a president's murder
'68 - RFK's murder
'68 - MLK's murder.
There had been numerous instances of federal troops being stationed in the South because of resistance to desegregation.
Additionally, there had been a series of race riots from '65 to '67 in locations from Watts to Detroit to Newark. Then in the spring of '68 there was another series of race riots in reaction to the murder of MLK.
Hippies and Yippies were making common cause with black "radicals" like the Black Panther Party. The riots at the Dems nominating convention were seen as an extension of the chaos that had been erupting in the country over the last 5 years or so.
The website you link to notes that the reaction of the public was indicative of antipathy towards the war protestors and that the "Silent Majority" sprung from that antipathy.
Perhaps, but I think he misses the main point. The antipathy towards the protestors and the rise - and exploitation by Nixon - of the "Silent Majority" had more to do with race and "law and order" issues surrounding race than it had to do with the war.
It is not a coincidence that the Republican's Southern Strategy was born that year.
It was not a surprise that George Wallace garnered double digit support in a 3rd party bid for the presidency.
Mayor Daly had a justifiably racist reputation. His Chicago was intentionally racially segregated in ways that reflected his racism. When both Daly and Nixon talked about "law and order" against a backdrop of riots and concerns about "black crime", the Silent Majority knew that they were really talking about knocking black heads. The longhaired heads that were being clubbed in Chicago's streets just happened to be predominently white.
The affinity and empathy the counterculture maintained for blacks was real and based on the fact that authorities treated longhairs like they treated black folks.
And,as I repeat again: Nixon was an anti-war candidate. At every campaign stop he talked about his secret plan to end the war, honorably.
The American people were strongly anti-war, and always voted that way. They simply wanted it to happen in an honorable way. The Silent Majority wanted the war to end. And they wanted law and order maintained.

Posted by frankie d | September 11, 2007 5:21 PM

A few things frankie d left out:

a) Hubert Humphrey --Lyndon Johnson's Vice President and formerly heir apparent -- did not win a SINGLE primary in the 1998 campaign. He only got the nomination because Bobby Kennedy was killed. Hubert lost to Nixon because the left hated Hubert as much as they hated Nixon.

b) Hubert tried again in 1972 --but lost to McGovern. He tried again in 1976 against Carter but God had had enough and visited terminal cancer upon him.

Posted by Don Williams | September 11, 2007 5:43 PM

Correction: "SINGLE primary in the 1998 campaign " should have read "SINGLE primary in the 1968 campaign".

I seem to be catching the Matthew Yglesias Mad Cow Typo Virus.

Posted by Don Williams | September 11, 2007 5:46 PM

I don't how to take seriously anyone who thinks reading Hunter S. Thompson can tell us anything about what American voters thought in the 1960s.

Posted by F. Blair | September 11, 2007 7:38 PM

Re F Blair's comment "I don't how to take seriously anyone who thinks reading Hunter S. Thompson can tell us anything about what American voters thought in the 1960s."
------------
Newsflash. Not all of the people --indeed, not even a majority of the voters --circa 1968 consisted of elderly people sitting down on the farm and eating prunes while tsking tsking over how the country was going to hell.

The baby boom generation had reached the age at which they could vote.

Emphasis on "boom" -- they were a huge surge in the population cohorts and middle aged politicians caught on quick. The normal indifference of young people to politics disappeared awfully damm fast when faced with the prospect of being drafted and sent to die in a jungle for reasons no one in Washington could explain.

Hunter S Thompson wrote for the Rolling Stone. Guess who subscribed to the Rolling Stone?

Posted by Don Williams | September 11, 2007 7:52 PM

F. Blair writes: "I don't how to take seriously anyone who thinks reading Hunter S. Thompson can tell us anything about what American voters thought in the 1960s."

I can only guess that you haven't read Thompson's book on the '72 campaign or that you're a fool. The only other possibility is that both things are true.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 11, 2007 8:15 PM

hunter s. thompson?
oh yea...
that guy.
of course, ignore him.
the msm says he was a cocaine-addled drunk.
and doonesbury mocked him.
of course, he is not worth paying attention to!
even though he is the same guy who basically invented an entire new way of doing journalism with his groundbreaking work.

Posted by frankie d | September 11, 2007 10:05 PM

Are we seriously debating the merits of HST? Of course he was a lyrical genius, particularly about the end of the halcyon idealism of the 60s. He wasn't parading around mindlessly chanting about peace love and understanding.

But let's get back to the real issue. What kind of responsibility do you and I have toward ending the war? What kind of actions should you or I take towards instantiating our responsibilities? Talking about how HST or OR HRC or whomever is a DFH is indulgent. The Republicans have a strategy. What is ours?

John

Posted by John Nanney | September 11, 2007 10:19 PM

john,

you are absolutely correct...again.
i do have to admit though, that it burns me to see someone write and comment about stuff they obviously know nothing about. it's clear when someone is simply repeating stuff they have come across as opposed to actually reading a primary source and then commenting.
enough about that issue, however.
so what can dems do to deal with the republicans and the war?
unfortunately, i am very pessimistic that they can actually end the war, because bush is dead set on dumping it on the next president.
but what they can do is start to prepare the public for that reality by using a couple of simple tactics.
first, they should repeat over and over again that this is bush's war and they are trying to end the war and they are trying to end the war. repeating simple slogans over and over again has its utility.
and then they should, in both the senate and house schedule each vote on the war for one reason and with one purpose: to put every republican on record as supporting the president's failed war policy.
and then, in the 2008 elections, they should hammer every senate and house gop candidate for supporting this unpopular, immoral, unjust war.
once they have done so, and once they have decimated the gop by retaining their majority in the house, and getting at least 60 votes in the senate, they can talk about being conciliatory and bipartisan.
republicans are, as john dean has written, classic authoritarians, and bullies. the only thing they understand and respect is the power of a good ass-kicking. once said ass-kicking has been administered in 2008, a new democratic president, along with democratic leaders in the senate and house can reach out to the gop to craft a bipartisan solution to the war.
again, the gop will never concur absent the pain of a good old ass-kicking. but, from their position of extreme weakness, they would gladly sign on for the shared glory that would come from having a part in ending such an unpopular war.
and having signed on to the plan to end the war, it would be very difficult for them to stab the dem prez in the back by arguing that he lost iraq.
now, do i think dems have the guts to execute such a cold-blooded strategy?
nope!
but one can always dream...

frankie d

1

Posted by frankie d | September 11, 2007 11:58 PM