TNR asks: What if Iraq stabilizes?
posted at 9:50 am on November 6, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
It hasn’t become much of a campaign issue–yet–but for the first time in a long while the news from Iraq isn’t unrelentingly ghastly. Some previously hard-to-imagine glimmers of hope are now emerging. Of course there are a thousand caveats here, and Slate’s Phil Carter has a good summation of them. But this weekend an experienced Iraq correspondent–someone who has been extremely bleak about the war in the past–told me he thinks it’s really possible that the country is turning a corner.
Which raises all sorts of secondary but fascinating political questions: What do the Democrats do if–yes: if, if, if–the surge appears to have succeeded? (Or at least seems, to voters, to have succeeded: I realize the tribal shift in Anbar, for instance, wasn’t imposed by US troops–although my correspondent friend said surge forces did enable us to exploit Sunni tribal cooperation and root out al Qaeda.) Indeed, if Iraq somehow stabilizes and even incrementally improves, doesn’t that affect the presidential campaign in important and unpredictable ways?
Betting on the US losing isn’t the best way for a political party to bet, but it’s the way the Democrats and their apologists have been betting since Vietnam. That said, unless things change radically between now and next year’s election, Iraq isn’t going to be the primary issue. Unless something else pops up to take precedence, illegal immigration will be the key issue.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
hehehehehehehe
JamesLee on November 6, 2007 at 9:53 AM
Heh! Worst case scenario.
ronsfi on November 6, 2007 at 9:55 AM
I love the hand wringing of TNR over this issue. Not that it’s a surprised to most of us. We’ve been seeing glimmers of hope and progress coming from all over Iraq over the last year, including the Anbar Awakening. Why this is just now coming to their attention isn’t that they have just learned about it…they just can’t ignore it anymore like they have in the past. And ‘ironically’ enough, they still can’t believe it can be true, thus all the “ifs”.
DakRoland on November 6, 2007 at 9:57 AM
Just like the economy, when it was bad, it was all Bush’s fault (even before his policies took effect) and when it’s been great ever since the media and the Dems (yeah I know, same thing) just don’t talk about it.
In Iraq, when it was bad, they were all over it, now that’s it’s going well they just ignore it. That’s why ya never hear much about Afghanistan, it’s going so well that there’s nothing negative to report, so instead of reporting good news, they just ignore it.
Tony737 on November 6, 2007 at 10:00 AM
What would you do if you were the enemy? Seeing how I think they would want a democrat as a President of the USA maybe now is a good time to lay low and regroup, resupply and refinance the cause. Then shortly before the 2008 election all hell breaks loose similar to TET offensive. This is a very smart enemy and they, like the North Vietnamese, know they can only win the war politically. Beware!
Wade on November 6, 2007 at 10:00 AM
Lots of goal-post moving in the comments over there at TNR. To those firmly entrenched against GWB and the Iraq War no outcome will be victorious.
Hoodlumman on November 6, 2007 at 10:00 AM
And on that note
77% of Americans against giving illegals Driver’s liecences from Rasmussen Reports
While Bill Clinton tells us
had the feeling that at the end of that last debate we were about to get into cutesy land again,”
William Amos on November 6, 2007 at 10:03 AM
This appears, or at least seems, to be as close as the left can now get to acknowledging that the surge has produced any positive results.
Bigfoot on November 6, 2007 at 10:04 AM
Don’t worry, they “caveated” this to death – starting with their crack about nobody rational could ever say we won…but…
Glad to know yahoos like that have my back while I deploy. Sheesh.
major john on November 6, 2007 at 10:06 AM
Opps also just read that 59% are against the DREAM act in that Rasmussen article
William Amos on November 6, 2007 at 10:06 AM
Bad news for America = good news for dhimmirats. Good news for America = bad news for dhimmirats.
Example: There’s been a major terror sweep in Europe. France and Italy busted several jihadis. Good for America, the dhimmis will ignore it.
The hajjis have taken over a whole town in Pakistan. Bad for America. The dhimmis will say “See? Bush’s War on Terror is not working! Vote for us!”
Tony737 on November 6, 2007 at 10:06 AM
I agree that immigration will likely be the big issue, but we’re fighting an uphill battle unless Fred is the nominee. Rudy’s a squish, Romney seems to be somewhat less of one, but no one ever knows where he really stands or if he’ll sell out, McCain & Huck make Bush look like Michelle on the issue from what I can tell, that leaves Fred.
If it isn’t Fred, we’re in for an uphill battle to use that issue to our advantage in any significant way. And Fred’s not quite the breakaway star that people hoped he’d be.
Beyond that, the GOP elite are such numbskulls and so adamant about amnesty, I’m not sure that they’d want anything but someone who is a squish on the issue, and could cause problems themselves.
Seriously, its like our numbskulls in Congress didn’t even care that they were committing electoral suicide the last time the amnesty bill came up. That ought to be telling.
Bad Candy on November 6, 2007 at 10:10 AM
If Hillary is the nominee the Democrats are on easy street. She’s had 101 different positions on Iraq and can just point back to one and say, “See I said it too!”
If the nominee is anyone else the mental gymnastics they’ll have to go through in light of good news out of Iraq will be awesomely entertaining.
bj1126 on November 6, 2007 at 10:15 AM
Which raises all sorts of secondary but fascinating political questions: What do the Democrats do if–yes: if, if, if–the surge appears to have succeeded? … Indeed, if Iraq somehow stabilizes and even incrementally improves, doesn’t that affect the presidential campaign in important and unpredictable ways?
This is so funny! It is unbelievable to me that they would actually write and then, to make matters worse, actually PUBLISH that! Do they even realize that they sound like they’re saying, “Success=bad! Losing=good!”.
reine.de.tout on November 6, 2007 at 10:16 AM
Democrats will take credit for the turnaround somehow. They might say, “Iraq is fine now so lets bring the boys home! There is no need anymore for this useless neo-con war!”
or, “This is all because of pressure we put on the Bush administration. The surge was my idea”
Jimmy the Dhimmi on November 6, 2007 at 10:19 AM
Hard to imagine if you think the illegal invasion is being resisted by freedom fighters who, with right on their side, will never give up.
Someone we can trust.
There is no larger problem here than if the stoopid amuriken public buys into the spin of the white house.
If this is the kind of news coming out that is “good news” in the media, I shudder to think of what people have been reading over the years and just how skewed their view of Iraq is.
VolMagic on November 6, 2007 at 10:19 AM
Ah, but the devil’s in the caveats, right?
They’ll turn this around to be a dem victory in the next few months. I keep saying this, but I can’t imagine that the lefty media will take this sort of success lying down, so they have to give the dem congress credit for it, HRC credit for it, anyone but the GWB admin.
Bob's Kid on November 6, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Ye-up, the lefties will spin this into a failure of BushCo somehow. Shoulda won quicker, etc.
But wait until the “AQI Tet Offensive” pops up next October, then it will be BushCo.’s fault.
Texas Nick 77 on November 6, 2007 at 10:34 AM
There is no question that the surge and the far reaching effects of the surge are reaping positive results – the most important for Americans is fewer casualties.
The citizens of Iraq are tasting what real freedom and capitalism is all about. They want to live in peace without some guy from Syria or Chechnya breaking into their homes to be used as a base of terrorist operations, or for arms caches. The Iraqi people are turning the bad guys in left and right. Tons of munitions and scores of terrorists have been captured. Hundreds have been killed because of the citizenry and their disgust for the ever present violence.
That thousands are reportedly moving back to Baghdad because it is safer should say a lot!
For the left to kind of admit that “we’re turning the corner” is disingenuous as best and phony at least.
lib_not on November 6, 2007 at 10:35 AM
Success has many father’s, failure is an orphan.
It is imperative that Republicans not allow Democrats any quarter in taking credit for a turn around in Iraq. Every time they do some Republican needs to pull out the Iraq stick and beat them senseless. The public needs to be reminded over and over again who attempted to subvert the war by voting against funding (the Democrat Majority), who called our troops murderers (Democrat John Murtha), who called our troops stupid (Democrat John Kerry), who compared our troops to Nazis (Democrat Dick Durban), who are the appeasers who wanted Saddam left in power.
After taking it on the chin for years its time for supporters of our effort to free a nation and protect lives American and Arab was a noble thing.
jmartin61 on November 6, 2007 at 10:38 AM
True Bob, Just like scarry Reid tried to turn the letter to Rush into a victory for him and his allies
Wyrd on November 6, 2007 at 10:39 AM
Why so glum chum?
Cheer up TNR, there’s always a remote possibility we could still lose the war.
Keep the champagne on ice guys.
fogw on November 6, 2007 at 10:40 AM
Remember it’s Election Day folks.
Vote often and vote straight Republican.
Don’t stay home. Go out and irritate a Democrat.
fogw on November 6, 2007 at 10:44 AM
Immigration is the issue that will bring the old schoolers out of the woodwork. The racists, nativeists, and closet biggots will vote for the first time in years. That may offset all the women that will come out of the woodwork for Hillary.
We shall see.
saiga on November 6, 2007 at 11:13 AM
I hope the Dems suffer for that more than anything else. More than any other issue I have a strong stance about, that’s the one I want them to pay most dearly for.
Yakko77 on November 6, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Get your talking points from La Raza today? Bigots has one ‘g,’ by the way.
Bryan on November 6, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Absolutely! Get out that “suspension of disbelief” paddle and whack the witch!
T J Green on November 6, 2007 at 11:29 AM
It’s ALL in the interpretation, and the far left MSM, isn’t it.
“unrelentingly ghastly” sounds like Saddams reign, not our troops efforts,Arsehead!
Great statement.
.
What WILL the Murtha’s and Pelosers do next, pray tell?
shooter on November 6, 2007 at 11:31 AM
nativeists ? whats that?
biggots, bigggggots?
.
SPELL-CHECK, if you don’t do well with the English language.
shooter on November 6, 2007 at 11:35 AM
What do Democrats do if the surge works and we win in Iraq? That’s easy. They do the same thing they did when the Soviet Union fell: Claim they were leading the fight against the Soviet Union all along. Repeat the lie as necessary until the whole liberal herd accepts it as The Truth.
Being a lefty means never having to say you’re sorry, only that events have proven you correct.
Tantor on November 6, 2007 at 11:43 AM
This would seem to bode well for the GOP if we put up a candidate who is strong on the issue.
mikeyboss on November 6, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Yes, unless something goes terribly wrong in Iraq/Afganistan/Pakistan, the major election issue will be immigration, and Hillary, finally came down on the wrong side of that issue.
It’s a gift to the Republican nominee, and I hope (more than I believe) the Republican nominee makes good use of it. It would make sense for him to come down hard on the other side, to give the voters a clear choice and a good reason to cast a ballot, but I fear that instead he’ll pander to the squishy middle. Mitt’s my man, but he’s a politician, so I won’t pretend he’s immune to this sort of thing. Even Thompson could/would tack to the middle if he smelled an opportunity.
Also wanted to mention another (perhaps obvious) possibility about the election: if the middle east or central Asia destabilizes, a worried electorate may lean more toward Republicans. Before some looney lib accuses me, I fervently hope that the military situation stabilizes completely. I’d much rather the Repubs win for that reason.
I’m assuming Bush won’t start anything with Iran in an election year, unless Iran does something really blatant.
Splashman on November 6, 2007 at 12:04 PM
LGF has a post about another “grim milestone” about the deaths of U.S. servicemen in Iraq this year.
Of course, the mainstream press will expectantly fail to report another upcoming “grim milestone”
Click here to find out what it is.
Jimmy the Dhimmi on November 6, 2007 at 12:07 PM
vrooooooooooooom, POP POP POP!!
Nice of you to show up and do a drive by, instead of engaging in some actual debate. As usual, if the facts don’t fit your narrative, just shout racist.
BadgerHawk on November 6, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Bryan,
I must disagree with your key issue for 08. I hope you are right, but lI think it’s going to be about healthcare.
Somehow, my generation (boomers) believe they are entitled to live forever and want the government to pick up the tab.
swami on November 6, 2007 at 12:26 PM
A stabilizing Iraq is a grim milestone for Libs everywhere.
CliffHanger on November 6, 2007 at 12:32 PM
TNR will just make up a story to support their cause. No matter what happens, to them U.S. troops are murderers and rapists. They know that because their reporters tell them that, and “that” is the truth.
right2bright on November 6, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Yep. That is how the immigration debate has been framed. It is the Lou Dobbs vs. Geraldo debate, which is the mean “bigot” against the high and mighty bleeding heart.
The public could be suckers on this one, or maybe they are smart enough to grasp the long term devistating impact of illegal immigration amnesty.
saiga on November 6, 2007 at 12:42 PM
You’re observation is 50% accurate.
cheers, from a self-sufficient mortal boomer.
fogw on November 6, 2007 at 12:52 PM
…and they claim they haven’t been talking to Beauchamp…
It is SO infuriating how the leftards downplay or ignore the US military’s role in Anbar changing.
91Veteran on November 6, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Hey Bryan,
This is in USA Today. I don’t know if you saw it yet.
saiga on November 6, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Iraq will stabilize eventually, but stability there would not meet our standards. As long as we are dependent on oil, the Middle East will be a nasty challenge.
Once a substitute for oil is invented, the Middle East will go back to where it was in the 1940’s. They were a threat to no one because they were broke. Take away their oil money and they are broke again.
saiga on November 6, 2007 at 1:17 PM
And hopefully offset the nitwits such as yourself who seem to think that those who support strong immigration law enforcement is somehow “racist, nativist” or must be a “closet bigot”.
91Veteran on November 6, 2007 at 1:18 PM
And as I answered in the other thread, Willie Horton was an Al Gore production. What’s your point or are you just trying to hijack multiple threads today?
Bryan on November 6, 2007 at 1:41 PM
What’s really amazing is how few politicians, on both sides of the isle, realize this. Even in New York state, almost 80% of the voters opposed the idea of the immigrant driver’s license Hillary has endorsed.
As for the war, of course the liberals will spin it; they have approached it as a propaganda war from the beginning and they’re not about to slack off now. And of course they will have some success. What being conservative means is making tough choices, and wars aren’t supposed to be something people enjoy. But taking the issue away from the Democrats, after they have invested so much political capital into the prospect of American defeat, is still a huge coup. It will allow us to focus on other issues for a change – not least of which is the elephant in the living room: illegal immigration.
logis on November 6, 2007 at 3:22 PM
“biggots” is bigots
“nativeists”… when you make native into nativist, break off the silent ‘e’
HotAir: where anti-American progressive bigots come to learn to spell.
silverfox on November 6, 2007 at 3:33 PM
The rule of thumb is:
If it’s good for America it’s bad for the Dhemocrats and visa versa.
Mojave Mark on November 7, 2007 at 12:57 AM
What if Iraq stablilizes?
It means that liberals and Democrats are f*cked!
It means we get to rhetorically club them to death like they were baby seals. It means we can verbally turn them from “bulls” to “oxen.” We can get in their faces and tell them: “It’s Thanksgiving Day, TURKEY!”
Think of the joy we will have writing letters to the editor DENOUNCING each Democratic Candidate as representing NOT their district or state, but Al Qaeda. As in “John Murtha (D-Al Qaeda).” Instead of simply referring to a Democratic Candidate, he becomes “Joe Schmoe, Al Qaeda supporter.”
It means that unless the Democratic Party tossed out the MoveOn.org/Soros/Communist Party left, THEY ARE FINISHED AS A VIABLE POLIICAL PARTY!
And that is “A Good Thing ™.”
georgej on November 7, 2007 at 8:19 AM
Comment pages: