...not only did Matt Yglesias beat me to it, he published it both on his blog and in the Guardian:
Increasingly, I think Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot politically. More and more people have figured out what's happening. As I write in a new piece for The Guardian:Soon enough, though, it'll be time for another election, and polls have shown for some time now that the American public has no appetite for an indefinite military commitment to Iraq and that, however they may struggle to hide it, is exactly what Republicans are promising as will be perfectly evident if Bush gets his way and more than 100,000 American soldiers are still in Mesopotamia when voters go to the polls in 14 months.That's great, if you work at the DCCC or the DSCC. For the country, though, it's really not so good and it would be much, much, better to implement better policies rather than just waste the next 18 months.
From every angle except the political one, the deadlock is disastrous. From a partisan political point of view, however, it probably plays to the Democrats benefit. No matter how upset voters get at the Dems for not ending the war, they will still only have two choices: Vote for a pro-war, pro-surge GOP, or vote for more Democrats and see what happens. No matter how much people like David Broder might wish otherwise, a third party movement won't happen in 2008. Should the Democrats win and still not end the war, however, 2012 could be a different story. But for now, its going to be one or the other, more war or less.
Reality, not theory, people....
UPDATE: This position makes even more sense when you consider this analysis from Juan Cole
UPDATE II: Or not, depending on how clearly I'm thinking. Clearly, when I wrote the previous update, I wasn't.
My approving link to Cole was really only thought through as far as the 2008 election. Beyond that, I didn't much think about what he was saying. Which, given that I largely disagree with him, is most unfortunate. So let me try again...
If the good General manages to salvage something out of this mess, my guess is that will redound to the benefit of the Democrats. Why? Because by the time those hypothetical improvements are unambiguously clear, I suspect a Democrat will already have been elected as President. This thing isn't going to turn around overnight, and even if it does, at this point I think the best we can hope for is a slightly less chaotic exit. There are, in short, no magical ponies on the horizon, no matter how skillful our generals might be.
On the other hand, if things don't improve over the next 12 months and a Democrat is elected, beyond 2008 I don't think this will necessarily hurt the Democratic Party. Assuming that the Dems do what the public wants and bring the war to a close, it will likely play out the way Vietnam once did - the party that started the conflict takes the blame, while the party that finishes it gains the long-term trust of the people.
For more on that prospect, see this.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
