On one side, the Democrats are not going to do anything about the war in Iraq. They may posture and bluster but they're not going to do anything significant to stop this war. The reason is that they don't want to have the taint of responsibility for any part in this war. They want all of the responsibility for the war to hang like and anvil around the necks of every Republican office holder and candidate as the election season approaches. It's a short term strategy but, the argument goes, you have to get through the short term in order to get to the long term.
On the other side of the aisle, The Republicans aren't going to seriously change their "stay the course" approach to the quagmire that is their war. Their strategy is to keep the damned thing going long enough to be able to pass it on to the next president - probably a Democrat, even from their point of view. Even being out of power has its powers - in this case, the power to point a finger and say "You were so head up about getting us out of this mess, what are YOU doing about it now?"
Whichever side has the pile of poop that is Iraq land on them then has a choice. They can either pursue the absurdity of mediating someone else's civil war ad infinitum while nursing the illusion that there's a possibility of a win in there somewhere or they can take the fall, getting themselves labeled the president and party that surrendered - not a positive thing in the face of the American ego.
Given those choices - as both Johnson and Nixon faced during the Vietnam war - finding a way out is almost politically impossible. Nixon and the Republicans found a way out - or had a way out handed to them by the growing war protests during the late 60s and early 70s. The war protests, taken to the streets across this country, allowed Nixon to finally walk away from the conflict and gave the Republican party someone to blame - the anti-war liberals - for loosing a war we couldn't possibly win.
The best way out politically is to be able to say "We woulda/coulda/shoulda won but the other guy made us pull out." It's risky business. It coulda/shoulda backfired on the Republicans after Vietnam but history seems to suggest they're much better at spin than the truth. Personally, I think the smart move would be for the Republicans to support a withdrawal process while they can still point at the Democrats as the "reason" for us "loosing" - but I'm not sure they're that clever.
In any case, don't expect to see us getting out of Iraq any time soon. At this point, both parties think they have a vested interest in keeping the damned thing going. But, yep, its risky business because whoever ends up holding the hot potato is surely going to be facing anti-war protesters in the streets somewhere along the line.
Like the poster? Check out despair.com for more.
No comments:
Post a Comment