The Democrats and Iraq

December 10, 2005 RSS Feed Print

"Democrats fear backlash at polls for antiwar remarks" is the headline over this Washington Post story. There's obviously some panic in Democratic ranks over DNC Chairman Howard Dean's statement that the war in Iraq was unwinnable (Dean has argued, unconvincingly, that his remarks were taken out of context), and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's statement supporting immediate withdrawal and asserting that most House Democrats share her view struck many other Democrats as alarming. So they are scrambling to come up with some middle-ground position. Reporters Jim VandeHei and Shalaigh Murray describe an emerging compromise:

While the party is divided over the specifics of Iraq policy, most Democratic legislators are slowly coalescing around a political plan, according to lawmakers and party operatives. This would involve setting a broad time frame for drawing down U.S. troops, starting with National Guard and reserve units, internationalizing the reconstruction effort, and blaming Bush for misleading the country into a war without a victory plan.

It should be readily apparent that there's not much there there. "Broad time frame": That doesn't sound much more specific than what the Bush administration says. "Starting with National Guard and reserve units": Under the policy established by Gen. Creighton Abrams after the Vietnam War, National Guard and reserve units have specialized functions that no regular units have, so no deployment can take place without them. General Abrams noted that few Guard and reserve units had been called up to serve in Vietnam, and he wanted to make them essential to future deployments. You can debate whether that's a good policy or not, but you can't really have a deployment without the Guards or reserves. "Internationalizing the reconstruction effort": It already is internationalized, and further "internationalizing" is almost certainly impossible, since countries that have refused to participate will most likely continue to do so.

In other words, this "political plan" is exactly that, a verbal formula on which many, perhaps most, Democrats might be able to agree. But it's not a serious proposal in any real-world sense.

Reader Comments

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Michael Barone

Michael Barone

U.S. News Weekly

Subscribe Today

Order the new U.S. News Weekly digital magazine at a special low introductory price!

Michael Barone is a senior writer for U.S.News & World Report and principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics. He has written for many publications—including the Economist and the New York Times.

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

Why Conservatives Should Not Dismiss 'Liberal' Art

If conservatives want some art of their own they need only to be open to the art that is already out there.

Lessons From Barack Obama's Catholic Betrayal

Obama's contraception mandate is a betrayal to the very Catholics who pushed forward Obamacare.

The Real Congressional Scandal

The obsession with earmarks obscures the real, and far more serious scandals of the political system.

Rick Santorum Scores Humorous Hit On Romney With New 'Rombo' Ad

The Santorum campaign uses Mitt Romney's negative tactics against him.

Mitt Romney Should Attack Rick Santorum's Spending Record

Mitt Romney can argue Rick Santorum is one of the conservatives who "failed conservatism."

Barack Obama's $5.6 Billion Valentine's Day Tax

An Americans for Tax Reform report shows the federal tax burden on love.

It's Too Early to Write Off Either Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney

Barack Obama and John McCain traveled unlikely paths to their nominations in 2008.

On Contraception Mandate, Obama Blunders Into the Culture Wars

Obama's contraception "compromise" is a gimmick that voters will see right through.