At first I thought it was just me. I noticed over the last few weeks that news coverage of the Iraq war seemed much lower than it had been. Sure, there was tension along the border with Turkey over the PKK rebels, but that’s small potatoes compared to what I’ve been used to. So, maybe it was just because I’ve been pretty busy lately and haven’t been able to feed my news fix as much as I usually do.
Then I read Thomas Friedman’s [in the paper today.
Have the Dems given up? Seems like ever since the Petraeus testimony, the wind has fallen out of the end-the-war sails in Congress.
Or maybe the falling body count has made Americans even more apathetic than they typically are. Oct is looking to have one of the lowest number of US military casualties in over a year (31 so far). That’s still 31 too many in my book, but down significantly from the ~3/day average in 2007 and ~2.5/day in 2006. [url=http://icasualties.org/oif/]Link.](]editorial[/url)
Now, I fully expect most of us around here to as engaged as ever, and as eager to get us out of there as we’ve been all along. But maybe we’re entering a new phase of lower US casualties mixed with the political reality of there being no good solutions to the problem (ie, how the hell do we exist from there). Iraqi government officials are talking about a decrease in violence (overall), so maybe Bush will actually start drawing down troops at the end of this year, at which point we may reach some equilibrium before the 2008 election between the Dems and Pubbies about how many troops we’re willing to keep over there “for the duration”.
Or maybe it’s just too soon to tell. There still isn’t any real political process at the federal level in Iraq, AFACT (that is what Friedman’s article is really about, btw). But I’m afraid we’re entering a new phase of this war where our casualties are low enough that Americans will be willing to stay there indefinitely, although with a somewhat reduced number of troops. Thoughts?
n.b.: Do not interpret that next-to-last sentence as meaning that I want more troops to die so Americans will be more motivated to push for an Iraq exit.
It is somewhat deflated, but I think more as a result of the elections, or, more to the point, the non-result. The elections sent a clear and unambiguous message to the Bushiviks, but they aren’t listening. The Leader appears convinced beyond reasoning that history will vindicate him, and the gained advantage is not sufficient to force a man who doesn’t give a rat’s about the next election. The thin majority gained isn’t enough, it was at most a message, and there’s nobody home to get the message.
And we’re all just plain tired and worn out. And heartsick. The Dems cannot effect the needful change without some Republican help, and if the Republicans dump Bush to help out, they alienate the only base they’ve got left. Had they the stones, they could say “I’m a Republican and a conservative but the Emperor is buck nekkid, so screw politics, let’s get out of this godforsaken fever swamp!”
Yeah, right. If The Leader is bound and determined to block and stall, he can do it. We had hoped that the handwriting was on the wall, but he can’t read. Nothing short of a major disaster will change that now, and I’m not cold enough to hope for it.
But I curse him and his before all gods, both real and imagined, for what he’s done to my beloved country.
Maybe a lot of Dems are taking a wait and see approach? Things seem to have calmed down a bit right now…but I’m guessing that this is just a lull. If things heat back up I bet the debate heats back up too.
You don’t think the insurgents are in their last throes?
Things may be different a year from now, but if the election were held today, I don’t think the Iraq war would be as big an issue as it would have been 6 months ago.
Could be wrong about this, as I cannot recall the source, so for what its worth…My understanding is that many Muslims do not think themselves obligated to refrain from warfare during a holy month, especially if that combat is religious in motivation. I have no recollection as to ratios in any community, Shia or Sunni. But one would expect some restraint from violence on the part of those so inclined, and none from those not so inclined. Hence, one would expect violence of a sectarian nature to decrease during Ramadan, but not disappear. More’s the pity.
I think not quite two months is a bit too soon to call a trend. And again, the question comes back to what our goals are in Iraq, and whether we’re moving towards their being accomplished. Political reconciliation? No. Increased use of airstrikes to reduce American casualties, in violation of Petraeus’ own counterinsurgency doctrine? Yes. Is this a sustainable situation? Probably not.
As a political matter, I expect Iraq’s being ‘out of the news’ will have an effect among swing voters in cities and suburbs. But multiple polls going back to last fall have shown that the Dems have attained parity in rural areas, which used to be solid GOP territory. And why? Because they see the coffins coming back, that contain the remains of the young men and women that had represented the best they had to offer. Iraq may be out of the news, but it won’t be out of their thoughts when they vote next year.
I don’t think the Dems in Congress have given up. I think they’ve realised that an obstructionist agenda and hammering the Republicans on every little thing did little other than destroy their own poll numbers as fast as the Republican’s. Don’t forget, whilst the President has dismal approval ratings, and the VP even worse, Congress’s approval ratings in opinion polls are no great shakes either.
I think it’s political, and I think some Dems have realised that their current hold on power is extremely tenuous especially as the American Public (again, IMO) are pretty well fed up with both sides of the aisle regarding the Iraq War as well as many other things.
IMO (again) this is a fine time to start talking honestly about a 3rd party which is neither Democrat or Republican fringe elements (neither hard right or hard left, in other words) but a truly centrist party without the sacred cows of either side, because neither D nor R is truly interested in representing their respective populaces but only in beating the other guy. It’s all about power, in other words, with a very few exceptions.
A 3rd party won’t happen, though, because the only currently semi-viable 3rd parties are fringe parties, and because both D and R will do everything they can to quash 3rd parties anyways.
If the surge has made the Baghdad area safer and that’s the only place journalists can get to, then they aren’t going to have as much to report. There may be areas of Iraq still going downhill, but if you can’t get film there ain’t no story. I agree that there is a lot of wind out of the anti-war sails, recent polls show a sharp jump in those that buy the argument “fight terrorism over there so we don’t have to over here.” In addition, all this saber-rattling over Iran has made more people afraid, and fearful people are more likely to buy into war. I think Bush has bought himself some time but in the end there still is and never will be a graceful exit to his war.
I don’t really get the premise of the OP. The media is not talking about the war, so those opposed to the war must have lost interest? Perhaps because things are going so well??
The media has never been the source for opposition to the war. The media has been the source of things such as “How will this war be bad for the Democrats?” and that sort of thing.
I think that the thing you are pointing to as an index of Democratic concern for the war is completely independent of Democratic concern for the war.
Because they didn’t have an “obstructionist agenda”, nor have they been “hammering the Republicans on every little thing”; they’ve sucked up to Bush at every opportunity. People voted to replace the Republicans with Democrats; and the Democrats have made it not matter by giving the Republicans whatever they want. Of course Congress isn’t popular, and of course the Democrats have taken a hit; I know Democrats who’ve left the party because of how badly betrayed they have been.
Personally, I’ve been completely disappointed, and, while I still follow news in Iraq (hell, my brother is over there right now), and I still stand completely against this war, I’ve mostly given up on the idea that anything will change. Maybe if we get a democratic president. I don’t know. But being angry every day, sending emails to congress people, reading DU and commenting… I can’t do it anymore. It’s pointless, and the constant heartache is too much. I guess that makes me a bad person (I certainly feel like one) but I also feel like I have no choice. I have no representation for my ideas in government, and not because they aren’t widely held, either. I’ve never had less faith in my country, or been more disgusted with the political process.
ETA: I also want to say, I think it’s a sad day when someone like me; someone who follows the issues, and cares, has been so totally alienated from the government. I used to know people who didn’t vote, because they said it didn’t matter, and I always though they were stupid, and it was a sad and cynical way to be. Right now I have to say, I often feel they were right, and that makes me feel sad and cynical. And foolish, for believing I could ever help to make things change.
miss elizabeth - I hope your brother does well and is OK in Iraq.
That said, I think there’s never been a more important time to get and stay involved. Politics takes time, and the instant gratification demanded by so many just makes things harder. You can’t stop something as complex and difficult as the Iraq war overnight, just like you can’t shift a government from one side of the political aisle to another overnight. The Democrats won Congress, but not by such a majority as they could actively turn back the clock, as Republican Senatorial tactics and Presidential vetoes have proven. So they have to first preserve their power base and then expand it, so they can eventually do some active governing.
Also, I think (and you may differ wildly in this) that we can’t just leave Iraq either; a pullout tomorrow would result in only worse things to come for the Iraqi people and future problems for the United States and our allies down the road. We need a managed plan to get us out of there and not leave Iraq in utter chaos, not an immediate withdrawal, or else we’ll just wind up back there again some time soon.
Extremism won’t help matters, nor will bowing out of the process because it’s not moving fast enough to suit you.
