Revtim made the latest reference I’ve seen to this potential Republican “exit strategy” for Iraq.
I wouldn’t put it past them to try to make lemonade out of their failure in leadership since gaining control of both the Legislative and Executive branches. Simply ride out the disenfranchising consequences, wait for the Democrats’ almost inevitable inability to substantially correct for the massive mistake that is the Iraq War, and them hammer them with it after another cycle or two. I should say I wouldn’t put it past the Democrats to do the very same thing if the roles were reversed. (One could argue they have been somewhat in the past, during the Vietnam War, with the election of a Republican president vs. a Democrat majority in both houses of Congress. Nixon’s misdeeds far overshadowed his performance as a wartime president, though, and tarred the Republican party for reasons quite distinct from Vietnam).
So, what do you think? Could this be the real long-term strategic solution for the Republicans’ problems associated with their support for the Iraq war? If they lose control of the White House and/or one or both Houses of Congress, do you figure they’re already trying to anticipate how they will use the problems the Democrat leadership will inherit to regain power? Could they be “staying the course” now, and avoiding developing a more definite exit strategy, so as to wait out the results of the Midterms, and possibly '08? Would that be more expedient from a partisan standpoint? Seems as likely a possibility as any, barring any substantive articulation of goals or timelines from the current Republican leadership. What think you?
Depends. If the Pubbies can hold on to control of the Congress, they might have such dim hopes. But if the Dems get ahold of the House, and can start their own investigations, with their own subpoena power…Oh, dear! Oh, my! The Pubbies will have a Dickens of a tough time!
The reason the Bushiviks stall on Iraq is hope. They hope that some miracle will come to pass, that Iraq will settle down into a calm, pro-Western, parliamentary democracy. Then they can bring the troops home for the victory celebration while they magnanimously accept the blubbering, abject apologies of the Dems.
Why ask for a pony if you can just as easily ask for a unicorn?
Can they really, collectively, be that thick? I mean, hope and good-ole-fashioned-damn-fool ignorance is what got it into the Neocon’s addled brains that this was a good idea to begin with, but can anyone with two neurons to rub together be that idotic currently?
I mean, isn’t it reasonable to entertain the possibility that they’re not counting on a unicorn? They must be aware of the US electorate’s gnat-like attention span. They’d have to be insanely deluded to not acknowledge privately that Iraq is FUBAR. The longer they own this itractable problem, the worse it gets for them as a part in the long run. If I hadn’t a shred of decency or scruples, I’d figure, hey, that was a major fuckup, but I’ll just pretend it’s not a problem. When it lands in the other guy’s lap, and it kills him, I can just say “Y’see what happens when you put one of them in charge??” I would not be surprised at all to see a majority of the electorate buy that line completely.
That’s an incredibly easy thing to do. Even better, it’s far from impossible to accomplish. If I use the actions of the Republican leadership as a guague of their principles, how could they be expected to resist taking the easy way out?
The sad thing is, it’ll probably work. What’s worse, the next time the Republicans get back into power, they can do it all over again. It’s going to be painful watching it happen.
Hell, we’ve still got voters who give them a pass, who stand by everything the pubs do. I can’t even begin to understand that level of party devotion.
I think that by no means will blame for the war fall (in conservative eyes) solely on the Democrats.
They will also hammer the “liberal” media. We will hear even more about how defeatist and critical our leftist press has been. They gave so much attention to the lack of WMDs, insurgents, sectarian violence and atrocities but paid so little attention to all the great things being done such as the occasional school being built. So what if 100 people were killed in Iraq today? We don’t hear about the bathroom that was roughed in at a new school that will someday become an Islamic madras teaching burning hatred of the west. Why if we had had this kind of coverage in WWII we would have lost! Blah, blah, blah.
So Democrats, the media and liberals in general will share the blame I think. Now getting the public to buy this might be tough, but - HEY is that an illegal immigrant over there!
Well, there is that: Find A New Wedge Issue. But, as elucidator suggests above, I’d think they would only resort to that should they not lose the Oval Office and/or some or all of Congress.
We even have Dopers, even today, who blame the defeatist Democrats and other assorted hippie liberals for losing the Vietnam War. This one isn’t different in any substantive way.
Stalling, what Bush’s handlers are doing, is not actually a bad approach when you have nothing proactive available. It continuously reduces the risk that blame will have to be accepted, and worse, consequences suffered by them, on their watch (the actual cutoff date by which impeachment could reasonably occur is well before 1/20/09, at that). It increases their apologists’ ability to refer to any criticism as “old news” or just “typical carping like they’ve been doing for years”.
Hope is not a strategy, like the old saying goes, but it can be a useful tactic nonetheless.
I have my doubts that this is the big play the Republicans are shooting for…i.e. shifting the blame for the whole mess onto the Democrats a la your Vietnam example and hoping it catapults them magically back into the drivers seat. My own guess is the the Republicans are stalling because many of them really believe that, given time, Iraq will eventually stabalize. That by stalling they are giving the new Iraq government and military time to get on its feet and hopefully be able to stand on its own. And that this series of events will, if not fully justify the war, at least put it in a better light than it currently, er, enjoys. I don’t believe that they are looking at failure management…I think thats a wet fever dream by the loony left and perhaps by some somewhat more mainstream Democrat types. From my perspective the two sides have very different (and IMHO heavily filtered and distorted) views of the war and what is REALLY going on there. And this shapes their perception of the other side, its goals and its rhetoric.
Getting back to this supposed master plan by the Republicans, I don’t see how such a strategy COULD work…unless the Dems actually DO some radical shit and it all comes crumbling down. For instance, if the Dems somehow gain control of both houses this election cycle and immediately start putting forth maximum pressure to bring the troops home immediately, while also starting numerous ‘investigations’ into supposed Republican misdeeds concerning the war. And if bringing them home immediately (IF they were able to pressure Bush et al into doing so…I’m unsure if they COULD do this even if they have control of both houses) the whole house of cards comes rapidly tumbling down. Then certainly the Republicans would bitch about how the Dems screwed the pooch with they untimely haste, etc etc.
But…I don’t think the Dems WOULD do this in any case (though I’m sure SOME Dems would want too…I just don’t think the majority of the Democrat party is that stupid). SOME investigating is defintely in order, and I think the American people would gladly support it…but not a witch hunt. I think that THAT could turn people back against the Dems…which is why I don’t think the Dems would be that stupid.
I think that if the Dems take control (and I now see this as a fair possibility, at least in one of the houses) and begin talking about a sane timetable for withdrawl, begin measured and professional investigations, that the Republicans won’t really be able to make much hay out of that. Oh, they may TRY and do so…but I don’t really think they would get much traction except from the faithful for such a strategy.
It has been observed by smarter folk than I how nicely the “war on terrorism” parallels the “war on Eurasia” from Orwell’s 1984 – a useful war that gives the folks something to point their hate at, and provides a rationale for pretty much anything the government feels like doing.
9/11 was bad, sure, but it was also a thing of the past. For some reason, really badass terrorists don’t seem to be able to regularly pull off major coups of this sort in the continental US, and if they did, the situation would certainly soon get out of hand.
How much better to have a little war in a faraway place that results in lots of evil and terrorism over there, rather than here in our own back yards? But still provides the justification for the continued “war on terror” that allows the Executive branch to pretty much ram through anything it likes?
They’re going to do it anyway, its pretty much inevitable. Claiming that they are “planning” such a strategery is like saying a rattlesnake sunning itself on a rock is planning on biting you if you step on his tail.
Iraq is almost certainly headed for disaster. What other option could they have but to weep and gnash teeth and claim they would have won, but the liberals made them fight with one hand tied behind their back. You can also expect movies about Stallone and Chuck Norris on a bold mission to free American POWs in Mosul.
Your basic (flawed IMHO) assumption is that the Republicans see things in the same light that you do. That THEY clearly see that ‘Iraq is almost certainly headed for disaster’, blah blah blah, and so have no other options.
Sort of the point I was trying to make above. Maybe the Republican view (I’ve actually heard this from a few Republicans btw) that the Left and the Dems REALLY see that Iraq is going to work out but are trying their best to undermine it in an effort to make the US and the Republicans look bad is equally valid? Do you secretly feel that Iraq is going to work out 'luci and so feel the need to undermine the US’s efforts in Iraq? No?