Wisdom From The Brew
September 14, 2007
Passing the Buck
You can get future issues of the Brew here
Given their catastrophic performance in Iraq, it is kind of bizarre to realize that for forty years the one issue that Republicans could always count on in national elections has been national security. Every single Republican since World War Two has run on national security, and every single one who managed to win can thank the issue for their time in the Oval Office. It is, without question, their bread and butter play. Sadly, no matter how badly they’ve botched the job, nothing has ever seemed to shake American’s faith that the Republicans are the party best able to defend the Country. Until now. Which is why the Republicans can’t lose the war in Iraq.
An observer might argue that the Republicans have already lost the Iraq war. But as weird as it seems, the war the Republicans are fighting isn’t in Iraq, and it never has been. The war the Republicans are fighting is here in America, and it is for the minds of the American public. Republicans are fighting this war as though their lives depended on the outcome, because it does.
The reality is that the Republicans told the American public a pack of lies to start an aggressive and illegal war of choice. Then they botched the job in every way imaginable, making sure that what was already likely to be a disaster would certainly become one. Now they are deliberately prolonging their folly, jacking up the costs in blood and treasure, all in a desperate effort to avoid paying the political price for admitting their failure. A moment’s reflection makes it perfectly clear why. The Republican Party can survive losing the war in Iraq. They cannot survive getting blamed for it.
I posed this question to a few political operative friends of mine, at least two of whom are Republicans, at lunch. “If the idea that the Republicans cannot be trusted with matters of National Security hardens into conventional wisdom, how exactly does the Republican Party ever win another national election?” There was no dissent. If the Republicans lose their edge on national security, the federal government is going to look like it did during the Roosevelt era for a decade, maybe two.
Karl Rove Republicans know this. They realize they cannot lose the war in Iraq and remain politically viable. They also realize that we are long past the time that anything that looks like a “victory” is going to be salvaged from the sands of Mesopotamia. So the battle is now over who is going to take the blame for the inevitable loss. And, as usual, the Republicans are playing three dimensional chess with lasers while the Democrats are pushing wooden checker pieces around the wrong board.
Everything the White House does over the next sixteen months is not merely an attempt to pass the Iraq war onto Bush’s successor. The larger strategic objective is to make sure that when Bush’s successor inevitably withdraws the troops, the Republicans can then blame them for losing the war. Accordingly, for the next sixteen months, the Bush administration’s sole goal is to provide the appearance that progress is being made in Iraq.
As we have seen over the past two weeks, the facts on the ground in Iraq simply do not matter. Regardless of what actually happens in Iraq, right up until the moment Bush’s Democratic successor is sworn into office, the Republican talking point is one word: Progress! Then, the moment a Democrat is sworn into office, it will change like a light switch. In fact, they might not even wait for the inauguration. More likely, as soon as it becomes apparent that the Republicans are going to lose the White House, they will start blaming the insurgent attacks and low morale of the troops on the coming Democratic takeover, before they even take office.
If the Democratic leadership could look further than five minutes ahead, they wouldn’t argue that the war is already lost (even though it is). They wouldn’t argue that that the military isn’t making any real progress in Iraq (even though they aren’t). Nor would they argue that Bush and the Republicans are only prolonging the war so they can pass it on to Bush’s successor (even though they are).
Instead, Democrats should repeat into the camera at every single opportunity that the Bush administration’s sole strategic objective in continuing the war in Iraq is to avoid being blamed for losing it. By putting it this way, even the American public will understand what is going on. And when the time comes to pay the political price for this awful mess, the Republicans won’t be able to pass the bill on to someone else.


Comments
Very good assessment of the current issue. Thanks Norm.
Bull's-eye.
I sincerely hoped that Dubya would win his re-election, so that he would have two full terms to "accomplish" his "mission..." That way, he wouldn't be able to complain that the American people didn't have the stomach for a fight, nor be able to blame the democrats.
But with the electorate giving the democrats both houses in the last election -- more or less on the issue of Iraq -- and the democrats doing fuck all about it, you gotta ask yourself: What the hell is the point, or the purpose of the democratic party?
The president doesn't have the power to declare war -- nor the power to continue it. Yet it does continue.
Remarkable for a politician, Pelosi has stood by her word to not support impeachment proceedings -- why is that? If the republicans could do it over Lewinski, why the fuck can't the democrats do it over this?
A cum-stained dress seems to be more offensive to the republicans, than thousands of dead American soldiers are to the democratic party.
Very well said, Norm.
Post a comment