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

Americans Deserve Political Freedom from the Catholic Church

Church leaders could not have been less gracious towards Obama's surrender on contraception.

What the Catholic Contraceptive Debate Is Really About

Today's debates about contraception and inequality are intertwined in that the bring up the question of morality.

Why the Catholic Contraception Controversy Is a Phony Battle

The Catholic Church is asking the Obama administration to do something it cannot do itself: limit birth control use.

Obama’s Contraceptive 'Compromise' Doesn't Pass the Smell Test

The so-called "accommodation" on contraceptive coverage reinforces the administration's commitment to its pro-choice agenda.

On Women in Combat, Rick Santorum Insults Military Men

To suggest that the men in our armed forces cannot control their emotions is a real slap at the professionals who wear the uniform.

To Avoid a Failed February, Mitt Romney Needs a Big Idea

Mitt Romney needs a big idea to rouse enthusiasm for his campaign.

How Mitt Romney Should Respond to the Improving Economy

Even if the economy continues to improve, Mitt Romney still can present a better plan than Barack Obama's.

The Problems With the Catholic Church and Birth Control

The Catholic Church's stance on birth control is a slippery slope, as an Obama administration ruling highlights.