“This war is lost.” With those words, on April 20 this year, Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), clearly laid out the Democrats’ national philosophy on the Iraq war. The party became essentially tied to declaring that the war was not winnable and thus the best course of action was to remove American troops from Iraq as quickly as possible. Senator Reid also did not hide his view on what he thought the political implications of this “lost” war would be. On April 12, just eight days prior to declaring the war to be lost, Reid told reporters that “(Democrats) are going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war.” The Democratic Party, through these statements by one of their most important standard bearers, clearly became tied to and invested in the failure of the United States’ mission in Iraq. Back in April, it looked like the Democrats’ investment in failure would be a profitable one, but a markedly more successful last few months in Iraq raises the potential for this strategy to seriously backfire.
General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, reported to Congress last week that the “surge,” the deployment of more than 20,000 additional U.S. forces to Iraq, which President Bush ordered in January, had yielded several major military successes throughout Iraq. Most notably, violence is down significantly in Al-Anbar province, which months ago was full of al-Qaeda operatives moving about freely to attack both U.S troops and local residents. Currently, however, the situation in the province is much improved as the residents of the region have now turned against al-Qaeda and are working with U.S. soldiers to rid Al-Anbar of these deadly killers. Throughout the rest of country, death tolls of both soldiers and residents are substantially lower than the months before the troop increase was announced. At least on the military front, the situation in Iraq seems to be making progress and heading in the right direction.
Of course, military progress is only one of two major areas vital to ultimate success in Iraq. The other major area is political progress. On this front, unfortunately, things are not progressing anywhere near as well as they are on the military front. While there has been some important political progress and agreement, political reconciliation on the national front, which is much needed for the long-term stabilization of Iraq, has largely escaped Iraqi leaders. The inability of the two major religious groups in Iraq, the Sunni and Shiite Muslims, to reconcile continues to seriously hamper the overall progress of the country. This lack of political progress has been particularly frustrating for American political leaders because the Iraqi government has had so many chances to reach political consensus and has seemed to have made little progress in achieving this consensus. Make no mistake, without substantial political progress and reconciliation, Iraq’s future will remain cloudy and likely unsuccessful. If political success can be achieved along with continued military progress, then Iraq is much more likely to be a success story rather than a failed state.
This recent military success in Iraq has put Democrats’ in an awkward and difficult position. Congressional Democrats were almost universally opposed to the troop increase that led to these military gains and the party’s national position, as espoused by the comments of Senator Reid, is clearly that the United States is bound to certain military failure in Iraq and thus should withdraw its troops as soon as possible. This recent military success, and General Petraeus’s subsequent report to Congress, have seemed to somewhat sway U.S. public opinion on the war as well. According to a Rasmussen poll, released just after Petraeus’s report, 43 percent of Americans agree with the general’s recommendation to leave 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq until next summer, while 38 percent of Americans disagreed with this approach. These polling numbers are significantly changed from those of the recent months that consistently showed that a majority of Americans supported withdrawing all U.S. troops by March of 2008. It seems that now, however, public opinion has taken an important shift on the heels of Petraeus’s report on the military success of the surge.
This change from the widespread view that quick withdrawal of troops was the best option in Iraq as the war was not winnable to a more upbeat and hopeful assessment has left Democrats in a tenuous situation. They do not want to seem disappointed or upset about gains that the U.S. troops have made in Iraq, but they also realize that they have inextricably linked and invested themselves in the failure of the U.S. military mission in Iraq. Just to clarify, I do not question the patriotism of these Democrats (I believe they care about their country and hope for the best for U.S. troops), but the clear fact remains that the Democrats would be significantly damaged politically if the American mission in Iraq succeeds. Success would certainly boost the prospects of GOP candidates throughout the country, as President Bush, the party’s national standard bearer and most prominent representative, has, as commander in chief, been correctly held as the American official most responsible for the progress or lack thereof in Iraq. In addition, Democratic candidates who argued for a quick withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq as the war was no longer worth fighting (a group that includes all Democratic Presidential candidates, whose suggested timelines for withdrawal vary from immediate to several months) would see their credibility in the political arena seriously damaged as they did not believe in the ability of U.S. troops to succeed in their mission.
Democrats have been uncertain and divided on how to respond to this recent military progress in Iraq. Some moderate Democrats have responded by arguing, as Congressman Brian Baird (D-Washington) did recently in a Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorial, that this military success clearly warrants continued support of the American military presence in Iraq. The consensus of the national Democratic Party does not share Baird’s wisdom, however. They are still stubbornly pushing for a quick withdrawal of American troops within the next six to twelve months. The Petraeus report has made it increasingly difficult for the Democrats to justify such a position, but they have been creative in trying to maintain the public’s support for withdrawal.
In the days leading up to the Petraeus report, leading Democrats tried to discredit both the general and his findings. Congressional leaders, such as Senate majority whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) began labeling the report as “the Bush report”. They essentially argued that Petraeus was going to only report what the President wanted him to report. These Democratic leaders soon realized that they sounded ridiculous, given that they were leaders of a Congress with approval ratings in the mid to upper 20th percentile (worse approval ratings than Bush has), questioning the credibility and truthfulness of a four star general who was held in high regard among the American public (36 percent favorable rating versus a 16 percent unfavorable rating according to a recent Rasmussen poll). So, the Democrats responded by pushing the same message, but by changing the messenger. They rather had radical left wing organizations do their work for them.
Moveon, a far-left-wing organization that almost never supports any role for the American military anywhere in the world, ran an advertisement, on the date of Petraeus’s report, in the front section of the New York Times, accusing General Petraeus of betraying his country and cooking the books for the White House. It was clear to any astute political observer that the Democrats were cheering on this outrageous attack by Moveon from the sidelines.
Finally, Senator Reid, who initially led the Democrats to such a strong investment in failure, argued, after Petraeus’s testimony, that the situation on the ground in Iraq had not changed at all. After being pressed about this bizarre claim, he conceded that the situation in al-Anbar had improved somewhat, but that this did not really matter. Apparently, capturing and killing hundreds of Al-Qaeda terrorists does not matter much to our Senate majority leader.
The future of Iraq and the success of American involvement in the country are still very uncertain. A few things remain absolutely clear, however. First, the war in Iraq was seriously mishandled by both the White House and the Pentagon, especially during 2005 and 2006. President Bush and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld deserve the most blame for this mismanagement.
Also clear, however, is that Iraq has become the central and most important battleground for the War on terrorism. The debate about whether terrorists were present in Iraq before the American invasion is irrelevant to the fact that we are now fighting these terrorists and, like elsewhere in the world, we must try to capture and kill as many as possible in order to seriously damage major terror networks, especially Al-Qaeda.
Thirdly, it is clear that the members of the American military have performed brilliantly and admirably throughout military operations in Iraq. The amazing performance of these American heroes is the only reason that we are able to succeed and win in Iraq.
Finally, and most importantly, it should be clear to all Americans that it is in our country’s best interest to succeed in Iraq. Success certainly does not mean precipitously withdrawing, as many have suggested. A withdrawal would be a major victory for the terrorists that our soldiers are fighting and destroying each and every day. A quick withdrawal would send this message to the terrorists: When the going gets tough, the United States gets out. Also, a sudden removal of American troops would leave Iraq in chaos that would likely create a power vacuum to be filled either by neighboring Iran or terrorist groups. Essentially, if we leave Iraq before it is reasonably stable, the country will likely be a haven for terrorists with societal chaos producing millions of civilian casualties. It is amazing how those advocating a quick withdrawal have no response or refutation to such a scenario.
Iraq is definitely a frustrating and troubling situation for Americans, and rightfully so. It is frustrating that, after four-and-a-half years of tremendous American support and sacrifice, Iraq is not yet completely stable. It is also frustrating that Iraq will not be completely stable until stubborn Iraqi politicians can reach a political agreement, that so far, has been elusive. Despite this frustration, though, Americans need to understand that we are making progress in Iraq. A consistent pattern of improvement is finally being seen. Our military has made tremendous progress in seriously damaging Al-Qaeda’s operations in Iraq, especially in Al-Anbar province. Deaths of both civilians and American soldiers are down substantially since the months leading up to the surge. We are slowly making strides toward winning in Iraq and this victory would be a pivotal one for our national security and the overall war on terror.
For the Democratic Party, this victory would be pivotal as well; a pivotal blow to their political prospects that were so tied to American failure in Iraq. As an American, I find it somewhat sad and depressing that one of our two major political parties is invested in our nation failing in a battle that we so desperately need to succeed in. Next November, if America has been able to achieve this success in Iraq, Democrats may pay a very large political price for their bad investment.
John Witt is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences.
