Shade, once again, of Vietnam. The New York Times reports that the Democratic candidates are shifting their tone on Iraq in response to alleged security gains in that country. (As Democrats See Security Gains in Iraq, Tone Shifts) This is not the first time that we have been told that things are looking up in Iraq, as we were so often told the same thing about Vietnam. In fact, these kinds of claims are made with surprising regularity, as we folks who are inflicted with a Senator named Lieberman are well aware. It usually doesn’t take long for events on the ground to belie the sunny predictions; in fact, just a day before this article was published the Times reported on a series of bombings that left 26 people dead. It might also come as a surprise to the eternal optimists that the folks responsible for the mayhem in Iraq are probably not unaware of the fact that our overextended military will have to stand partly down soon or risk implosion. They may, in other words, be simply biding their time.
One must hope that the Democratic candidates are capable of exercising a little foresight and common sense; whatever illusory gains may have been made, and it is likely they are just that, don’t change the basic picture.
But in fact, there seems to be less to this article than there appears. The campaigns do not appear to have changed their positions and only one “adviser” was willing to speak on the record to urge Democrats to fall in line behind the failure that is Iraq:
“The politics of Iraq are going to change dramatically in the general election, assuming Iraq continues to show some hopefulness,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who is a supporter of Mrs. Clinton’s and a proponent of the military buildup. “If Iraq looks at least partly salvageable, it will be important to explain as a candidate how you would salvage it — how you would get our troops out and not lose the war. The Democrats need to be very careful with what they say and not hem themselves in.”
Michael O’Hanlon is, of course, the guy who went to Iraq months ago and wrote a column in which he called himself a critic of the war (untrue, he was an early supporter and remains so) and in which he claimed the surge was succeeding based on a guided tour of Iraq conducted by the Defense Department. His presence as a Hillary adviser is just one of many reasons why her candidacy is viewed with suspicion. It leads one to think that, if she is elected, she will never withdraw from the country. But Hillary’s present fudging on all things Iraq is not a change of tone, it has been her tone all along. Nor is there any substantial evidence that the other candidates have changed their basic position. The fact that they are talking more about economic issues may be a reflection of the fact that people are beginning to realize that Bush has created a train wreck there too.
The candidates would be wise to steer clear of the O’Hanlons. As in Vietnam, the tunnel in this particular war will just keep getting longer, and the light at its end grow ever more distant.
Post a Comment