The Price Of Victory

McCain was right about the surge, Obama was wrong, and now Obama is the one getting a boost from our current success in Iraq.  We have been there before!

Winston Churchill lost the general election in May of 1945 despite a personal approval rating of 83%.  The BBC explains that he had focused on leading the nation rather than his own Conservative party.

And closer to home, Bush 41 won in Iraq and lost to Bill Clinton eighteen months later, his approval rating down from the low 90's.

McCain can be yet another kinda-conservative running under the conservative banner to be right about a war but lose anyway.

THUNDER FROM THE RIGHT:  Need a cup of coffee?  Donald Douglas has it.  [Now he does; link fixed.]

Comments

[kim]

It would be amusing if Obama won for Maliki to have to beg him to keep our forces over there late next year. Maybe he could remind Obama that he owes him one.
=================================

[Don]

Your problem is the majority of Americans want out, and think it was a mistake to start the war in the first place.

McSame fails on both counts, and Obama's an exact fit in the zeitgeist.

Face it Republicans-you're fat and nobody likes you.

[kim]

But what a way to pull a wild card from your sleeve. Calls for withdrawal have gone overnight from sounding like the trumpet of retreat to the celebration of victory. What's bittersweet for the Democrats is that for them to call for redeployment after success they must acknowledge success, which will cause much dissonance. I mean, whence the argument for 'pre-emptive regime change' now?
============================

[Thomas Collins]

Maliki is walking a tightrope. He knows if US troops leave, things could unravel in Iraq. But if he is seen as a US stooge, he knows he is toast (at least figuratively, perhaps literally). So his comments about the US leaving contingent upon the security situation being stable make sense. I suspect Maliki realizes that a fixed 16 month withdrawal schedule is naive at best and nuts at worst. Even B57O seems to understand that. My worry is that if B57O becomes POTUS (which I still believe is unlikely, notwithstanding that just about all of liberal "right thinking" opinion and a substantial amount of conservative "right thinking" opinion seem to view B57O's coronation as very likely to occur), B57O, in an effort to please the conciliatory internationalists, will withdraw from Iraq too soon and also renege on his pledge for a muscular presence in Afghanistan.

In any event, if Maliki is able to continue to pull off this balancing act, he deserves Statesmen of the Year (and perhaps Statesman of the Decade) recognition.

[kim]

Don, you are not listening. Regime changed in Iraq worked; it's not a miracle and the American people are tired of Democrats being such flim-flam artists. The public sentiment about Congress is a measure of their chagrin with Democrats; that Bush is preferred despite the uniform disdain of the MSM is a measure of him.

If Obama is elected, his failure to deal with Iran as Bush has dealt with Iraq, will hurt him. Frankly, though, I suspect Bush will get the mullahs to fold before the election.
=============================

[kim]

Thomas, if Iran settles down, Maliki probably will be able to keep domestic peace and ensure international security within 16 months. If not, he'll be walking back, and I'm sure he'd rather walk back with McCain than Obama. Obama's probably Sunni, anyway. Heh.
=======================================

[kim]

What we might have dawning, TC, is strategic co-operation between Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Persia's move, I should say 'urge', to the Mediterranean is not exactly historically unfamiliar.
=======================

[boris]

Who cares what Downer Don says? His whole life was a mistake in the first place and it would be utterly pointless to try and unFUBAR it now.

[kim]

Two differences between 1945 and 2008: Bush is not running for office after winning his war, and the American military doesn't support his opposition, as did the British military support Atlee. The parallel is suggestive but misinformative.
=====================================

[Soylent Red]

Reagan once said words to the effect of "it's amazing what you can get done when you don't care who gets the credit."

Whether or not Republicans get the credit or if Obama gets elected or whatever, the historical facts remain the same.

Bush was the catalyst that accelerated leaving behind the old ways of doing business in the ME which hadn't accomplished anything in 60 years. When, out in the future, the ME is pacified and part of global community in ways other than oil, people will look back to see where it started.

And it won't be Obamessiah or Harry Reid they find.

Let us also not forget that even if Obamessiah elected there will be ample ways for him to screw up. Afghanistan is hot, and if you think that warfare is confined Republican administrations, you're sorely misinformed. The geography is going to change, but we're got another 20 years of this at minimum.

Unless the Obamessiah decides it's better to let A-Q reconstitute. Then history will remember him too. Just ask Clinton or Carter.

As for the Maliki thing, Maliki knows the reality of American politics and is playing to his internal audience, who, of course, would like to see the Iraqi government in full control without American help.

Maliki knows that Obama has really only one logical choice IOT maintain stability: US troops stay at least in the region until he is confident in the Iraqi security forces to handle the job. To do so would mean that Obamessiah reverses his previous "all troops out in 16" position and maintains ***GASP*** "permanent" bases.

Uh oh, Don and the CodePink crowd go under the bus.

Or, Maliki realizes that Obamessiah could be so irresponsible as to actually believe his own BS, and will in fact pull all troops out in 16 months (except for the ever vigilant and powerful "strike force" /snark). In this scenario, when violence erupts (as it surely will), Maliki knows that he is sitting on a Shia majority and can easily obtain the support of Iran. An Iran who, BTW, is absolutely in support of Obamessiah's plan.

And so, Dems would then be forced to re-invade, and explain how things went from victory to defeat during WonderBoy's admin.

Even though the press is in the bag for him, Obamessiah can't (yet) erase history or current events to suit his purposes. People already are finding out he's a liar, let them find out he's a weakling too.

[Thomas Collins]

Kim, I hope you're right about the possibility of an Iraq-Saudi Arabia axis as a counterweight to Persia. I suspect that the Iraqis and Saudis view the Persians as a greater imperialistic threat in the region than the US. Perhaps some day the left in this country will see things as clearly as the Iraqis and Saudis. No wait, that would mean acknowledging that there may be greater threats in the world than Bush and Cheney!!!

[tina]

"When they stand up, we stand down" and "return on success" has always been the policy of President Bush. I'm more than disappointed after watching some of the talk shows this morning, that no one is bothering to mention it. I don't expect the media to mention it, but I thought perhaps CJCS Mullen or Sen. Leiberman might; was surprised they did not.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Don, you are not listening.

Honestly, you coulda stopped right there.

[Don]

You guys really need a better story line.

If everything's going great -and wasn't it up to 15 of 18 benchmarks last week or so?-then why can't we leave?

Well because things are not really going so great...er...progress is being made...er...but the enemy is an independent variable...blah blah blah

Now it's the right wing hawks who want to basically say it's a quagmire...so we can stay!

The logic can't support itself because it ain't logical.

[clarice]

Why can't we leave South Korea--the war's been over there for a long time, hasn't it?

[kim]

Don, you are not listening. We are accomplishing great things in the bog. It's a dirty, stinkin' job, but someone's got to do it. Aren't you glad no one asked you to do it?
===========================

[Thomas Collins]

So Don, is it your story line that keeping our troops in Kuwait and enforcing the no-fly zone while leaving Saddam in power and able to exploit the UN oil for food program would have left the US and the Middle East in a more stable position today. By the way, Don, on a related issue, I am also curious whether you believe that our ability to deal with Persia's nuclear program would be improved today if we hadn't invaded Iraq. Do you think that the multilateral European initiative would have been more effective than the Persian leaders observing our troops near their border?

I know I am going to be chided by some of you for feeding Don. But I really am curious to find out how an inveterate opponent of GWB's Iraq policy (and I think Don would probably qualify) conceives of the world situation in 2008 with Saddam still in power. I promise, I will put a limit on my feeding.

[kim]

Soylent, I'm glad you said that Afghanistan will be twenty years at minimum. The difference there will be drying the money for the madrassahs, and the need for Islam to pursue that (false) route to power.

In 1980, when the USSR invaded Afghanistan I told everyone I knew that the Afghanis would throw them out. It isn't just that I've read Kipling. In that time, every other Afghan man in the marketplace had a rifle slung over his shoulder, Michelle style. Of the ones who didn't, the impression was that their weapons were concealed. Afghani culture is similar to other mountain ones, and other crossroad ones and other Muslim ones but is unparalleled elsewhere. Twenty years? Oh Bamiyan, my Bamiyan.
===============================

[kim]

Why Thomas, in Don's world Obama and Saddam would have had a nice little meeting of the minds over tea and unconditions one afternoon. It would leave Saddam's human shredders in place in Baghdad, and Obama's vote shredders intact in Chicago. Those two would have no problem with each others. We'd see fist bumps, heh, maybe high fives.
==========================

[Thomas Collins]

"Michelle style"

LOLOLOLOLOLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!

I'm glad I wasn't drinking my coffee next to my keyboard, Kim. Now I have a mess to clean up, but at least I don't have computer repair costs.

[kim]

Don't tell Don that Obama would draft his ass into the quagmire.
=================================

[kim]

I really can't say enough, Soylent, about the excellence of your post. Remember, too, the quietist Sistani. He's not going to let the Persian mullahs run the show.
==============================

[Ranger]

Well, the more I think about it the more I think Maliki is playing Obama perfectly. Obama's justification for leaving now is that Maliki is a failure: the Surge has worked by providing security, but the Iraqis haven't stepped up politically. Now Maliki seems to be supporting Obama's timeline, but because his government is a success, not a failure. For Obama to endorse Maliki's statement, he has to repudiate his own logic of why we have to leave. Hense why the Obama camp had no comment on Maliki's statement. They see the trap and are trying to figure out a way out of it before Obama gets to Iraq.

[kim]

Well, that would be nice, Ranger, but TwinkleToes Obama will pirouette into prescience about it, if not in Maliki's mind, in the mind of the journalatariat here in America. Nonetheless, what's the objection now to 'pre-emptive regime change'? Like, say, in Iran?
========================================

[kim]

That would be a final irony if Obama wins, for the the Israelis and Bush to change the regime in Iran and leave Obama to clean up the quagmire. Prepare to register for the draft, Don.
================================

[kim]

Obama can spend Chinese money to re-unify Korea, too; yet another Bush mess.
=====================================

[sbw]

Which "peace" do people want to give a chance?

The American Liberal version of "Not war" is a lack of conflict that says I get liberty because I lucked into it, but you don't deserve it because you are unlucky and not me.

The Classical Liberal version of "Not war" believes everyone who, by their actions, chooses to live under a protective umbrella of peaceful problem resolution deserves to have the opportunity. This version recognizes that the United Nations has failed its Human Rights Charter and reluctantly, when necessary, steps in to fill the vacuum.

This is the elephant in the campaign room that no one talks about. It's political discussion that Obama dare not face and McCain has not raised. Do you label the UN what it is, and threaten to withdraw funding, or does the nation continue to act where the UN has failed?

Obama does not want to raise the issue because most of his followers are shallow thinkers who feel peace is the absence of war, no matter how many oppressed living elsewhere are under the boot.

Damn their eyes!

[sbw]

That's damn the eyes of the shallow thinkers. I apologize for the ambiguity.

[RichatUF]

McCain was right about the surge, Obama was wrong, and now Obama is the one getting a boost from our current success in Iraq.

I'm still trying to understand this point. Obama's entire campaign has been built around losing Iraq, and if say by September, the security gains are generally unreversible (regardless of the details of a continuing US presence), so much so that even the most radical progressive can see it, doesn't this suck the air out of the Obama campaign.

[Ranger]

To elaborate further on the trap that Maliki has set for Obama here... Obama says that we must leave because that is a nessessary condition for Iraq to become a successful polity. Maliki is "endoring Obama's withdrawl timeframe" but inverting Obama's logic. Maliki is saying that the US military can leave because Iraq has (or soon will) become a successful polity. Thus, if Obama "agrees" with Maliki, he is admitting he was wrong about why US troops have to leave and that if things get worse later, we must stay longer.

Maliki also perfectly timed this so that Obama will have to respond while he is in Iraq. It will be much harder to disagree with Maliki's assessment face to face.

[Soylent Red]

Kim:

I'm not just talking about Afghanistan, although that will certainly be 20+ more years in the making if we want it done right.

What I'm talking about is moving pieces around the board. A-Q, while weakened, isn't gone. We're going to be fighting with them, or their Qutbist ideological successors way out into the future. Again, if we give a damn about actually stopping the use of terror as a political tactic.

You do that by augmenting the much vaunted "diplomacy" with a couple of additional elements:

a. the capacity and will to affect regime change on those who will not play the game (rogue nations)

b. the capacity and will to conduct counter-terror and counterinsurgent operations (failed states)

It's important to note that, like Iraq, at the failure of diplomacy doing a. can cause b. So when diplomacy isn't working, the answer isn't to apply more diplomacy. You have to, in the case of rogue nations, be prepared to go through the progression. In the case of failed states, diplomacy is less likely to work in the first place. Thus you make the commitment to long term COIN and nation building.

I know that's not a popular concept with many Republicans, but if you look at it from the standpoint of investing now to avoid catastrophe later, it truly makes sense.

All of this will be lost on the Peace=No War set that Obamessiah needs to get elected. But if Obamessiah gets elected, the best we can hope for is that he's a true BS artist. Because if he is, he may see that tossing his closely held beliefs about diplomacy, and his deepest party base, under the bus, is the correct choice.

But of course Don and his ilk will simply tell us that Obamessiah's wars are wars for humanitarian reasons and that they have always maintained that some war is OK.

My guess is that WonderBoy's ego and anti-US tutelage will get the best of him, and if elected he will throw Afghanistan under the bus, and the moonbats and Euros will chant "amen".

[clarice]

I remember looking at the map on Sept 12, 2001 and wondering how in the hell we were going to move all those pieces around without further increasing the danger to us..I'd say we've done a very good job ot Mideast Pickup sticks.

[BobS]

As the new theatre of the war will be Pakistan, it CHILLING to think what BHO would do.

[BobS]

I love to use CHILLING. It mocks the lefties so

[clarice]

He told us what he'd do--ATTACK PAKISTAN--remember?

[Soylent Red]

See Pakistan is one of the places where I think a little robust and hard-nosed diplomacy would work. As in reminding Musharraff which side his bread is buttered on and how replaceable he is.

Do you really think the Organizer in Chief is going to do that? Me neither.

Plus then I'd have to listen to Obamessiah's oh-so-worldly-and-wise pronunciation of the word "Pawk-ee-stawn" for the next umpteen months.

Screw that. Let's invade.

[BobS]

I do.....it may be that he gets his wish sooner rather than later. It appears the Paks are abandoning all the border regions with peace agreements with the local taliban. Can you say "free fire zone"? The Paks havent complained a whole lot when we've ventured in. There

[BobS]

cont..... on must be a reason NATO has been massing on the border.

[clarice]

It's a sweet prospect, Soylent. I suppose the assasination of Bhutto provided some extra incentive to let us clean out that sewer for them. In truth, Pakistan cannot move to the next stage of development without more stability and there can't be any with the lawless fronties untamed, can there?

[BobS]

Solvent: I think the Paks know they are unable to defeat the taliban. So many of their military and intelligence services are sympathetic. I really feel these peace agreements they've been signing may be their way of washing their own hands politically and signalling the beginning of strikes by us inside Pakistan.

[bio mom]

Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

The press misrepresented Maliki's meaning. Maliki's government has corrected that. Let's see how quick the press is to issue their own corrections.

[BobS]

yes, they do, biomom. But I'm stasted to feel that the Paks both want and need the coalition to defeat the Taliban as they are unable to for them. The Pak govt in Islamabad has never controlled the tribal regions as it is.

[PeterUK]

"Pawk-ee-stawn",sounds like Cary Grant.

Pakistan would have no worries.America invades,blows shit up,world opinion turns rapidly against America,the left and the Muslims scream for withdrawal,the UN Security Council votes against the invasion.The EU,mindful of its large Muslim populations,demands America withdraws.Barry flip flops and hurls someone under the bus.
No,sorry,if America leaves Iraq to fall into a failed state again,nobody will take America seriously ever again.

[Soylent Red]

BobS and Clarice:

I have an up close and personal relationship with the prospect of invading Pakistan, so forgive my bias.

I've been doing the research on some pretty newsworthy areas since back in February, so I feel like I can speak to what we'll find there. The whole border region and FATA is deep injun country. And going back to something kim said earlier, these boys like to fight. Invasion would be politically damaging on both sides of the equation, and would make 03-07 OIF look like a church picnic in terms of casualties.

That's not to say that we can't take them. It's just to point out the reality of doing so on their home turf. Which goes back to what you and I have said in the past Clarice: Keep flat Iraq open for business to bleed off A-Q resources from Afghanistan.

And BobS, there is open source information available, if you read a little between the lines, that suggests there are probably already SOF working inside Pakistan. Asia Times coverage is pretty enlightening sometimes.

My guess is that large scale ground invasion will be unnecessary. If Pakistan simply turned a blind eye to airspace violations over the FATA, and kept their own people out of the way, I think we could alleviate a lot of our problems through SOF and ordinance.

And Solvent...heh. Because I'm mildly corrosive.

[BobS]

My guess is that large scale ground invasion will be unnecessary. If Pakistan simply turned a blind eye to airspace violations over the FATA, and kept their own people out of the way, I think we could alleviate a lot of our problems through SOF and ordinance

This is what I suppose is up. And I believe as you seem to indicate are already operating there. Do you believe that there is a chance for additonal airstrikes?

Can you provide links? I'd love to have them.

[Chris]

SR,
"My guess is that WonderBoy's ego and anti-US tutelage will get the best of him, and if elected he will throw Afghanistan under the bus, and the moonbats and Euros will chant "amen"."

I hope we never have to find out. But assuming we do, I think the Euros are already on to BHO and are realizing that they may be the ones getting the view of the magic bus undercarriage. It's crowded down there, but probably room for a few more.

[Soylent Red]

Bob:

Asia Times is good WRT to Pakistan and Afghanistan. I've started reading it every day.

Also, if you can finagle a way, tap into the BBC World reporting service. Beeb people monitor, translate and report foreign news sources in English. I look at a lot of Paki and (eek!) French reporting from the region.

I get to it through the Open Source Center. You'd have to register for that, and I don't know if it's open to the public or not. I think it might be, but I've never tried.

Also, for all of you JOMers, I'm compiling a bookmark set of standard approved open source research links. When I complete it, I will find a way to disseminate it.

[Schornick]

I did not get the impression that Maliki endorsed Obama or his plan. The man has to be careful how he phrases things, after all Obama might just win and if he does Maliki will have to deal with him.

I just think the press is doing what it does best, playing with words.

And Don, what do you think Iraq would be like today if we had just let Saddam do what he wanted? Do you think that it would be a peaceful place?

[JM Hanes]

Rich:

I'm not sure it's possible to suck the air out of the Obama campaign. DoT nailed the baseline here:

If it comes down to, "If you'd had your way we'd have lost," to which the response is "if I'd had my way we never would have been there in the first place," the issue of the war is substantially neutralized for both men.

That's why Obama keeps beating the stategy vs. tactics drum. He gets too caught up in padding the argument to make that point as succinctly as DoT did, but it doesn't really matter, because the left had already bought into it before his star began to rise. He's just capitalizing on a view that is virtually set in cement.

Contra the rightwing meme, I don't believe the left is actually committed to defeat, per se. They are single-mindedly committed to the repudiation of George Bush and everything he stands for as "the worst foreign policy disaster evah" incarnate. Whether they cast blame for a loss or take credit for a win in Iraq is, appropriately enough, simply a matter of tactics in service to that obsessive/compulsive objective. Stripped of the nuance, They Are Olberman, and their superior vision will only be vindicated when GWB is officially enshrined as the Worst Person in the World.

[BobS]

Terrific, SR! Thank you!