Much is being made of the notion that the Democrats are going to do all in their power to force a withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. While I continue to doubt the capacity of the Congress to force (sans extraordinary, if not unprecedented, action) such a move, there is another power that may lead to a substantial draw down: politics.
There can be no doubt that both parties are painfully aware that 2024 is on the horizon and it doesn’t take a genius to know that Iraq is going to be central to that election. An excellent point was made on This Week yesterday (I think by Cokie Roberts, but since This Week is too cheap, unlike MTP, to provide free transcripts, I can’t check) wherein it was noted that the Democrats don’t want to win in 2024 to inherit Iraq in January 2024 and nor do the Republicans want to have to run by defending Iraq in 2024. As such, there are incentives for both parties to wish to get out of Iraq.
I would argue that the notion that there is this dichotomy of the Republicans/staying to finish the job v. Democrats/leave as soon as possible is a radical oversimplification of the situation. For one thing, the Reps, as a party, may be far less interested in staying as many think that they are. For another, the Democrats are quite aware of what it will look like for 2024 if they come in and look like cowards who “cut and run” and so forth.
Now, do I think that we will be out by before the ‘08 elections? This strikes me as unlikely, but I do except some serious policy shifts. The President is also in a position to be able to present a public face of being the guy who wants to finish the job, but who can then use the Democrat’s pressure as cover for changing policy. Something along those lines seems likely, as Bush doesn’t like to admit mistakes, but he can now couch serious policy changes in the context of “understanding the message the American people sent in the elections” as well as in the context of pressure from the newly minted 110th Congress and its new Democratic masters.
[cross-posted at OTB]
What would this ominous “shift in policy” the press has been talking about mean? Pull out the troops? Pull them out until violence is so bad we have to put them back in again? Send in more troops?
While the Democrats were able to use Iraq to great advantage last week, I think everyone has a stake in Iraq’s success. It may be that everyone wants to get out as soon as possible, but as embarassing as Vietnam was and as tragic as Somalia was, I just can’t imagine international disaster it would be if we leave Iraq before order is established.
The Democrats (and I personally would say the press as well) have an interest in making the president look as bad as possible, and they may be okay if that means giving the country a black eye in the process. But I think if we gave Democrats the presidency and Congress, they still wouldn’t do much differently, because no one is interested in permanently maiming the country.
Comment by DavidH — Monday, November 13, 2024 @ 12:39 pm
[…] So, shall we sound the familiar sad refrain of retreat, “realism” and cynical abandonment of one time allies who have risked and sacrificed far more than we? I actually doubt it, but it took us long enough to recover from Yalta, much less 1975, so I (and Poliblogger, with whom I disagree only about the wisdom of drawing down any time soon, unless it is to better menace Iran) had better be right about the Donkey Party, or enough Blue Dogs and otherwise sane peoiple therein, including Dame Hillary, not wanting to throw our Middle Eastern allies over the side. […]
Pingback by Pros and Cons » So, now that the Dems have some power, who exactly will crack-up? — Monday, November 13, 2024 @ 3:04 pm