Reasonableness on Iraq

Yesterday I actually watched portions of the debate on the Kerry and Levin resolutions. For those of you not paying attention, Kerry (& Feingold) are calling for withdrawal by July 1 of next year, while Levin and most of the Democrats are calling for a benchmarked withdrawal and redeployment. The Republicans mainly talked about how wonderful Iraq was doing (are those explosions in the background?) and portraying both proposals as a cowardly retreat.

Robert Scheer and some others on the left have condemned the Levin position, embraced by most of the Democratic caucus, as "shameful straddling." I'm afraid that I have to disagree. There is a reasonable difference of opinion on whether the U.S. military presence is exacerbating or limiting the violence in Iraq. I think that it is quite possible that the place is going to descend into civil war no matter what we do, but I can certainly see how a pull-out date certain would be construed as a victory by the rebels.

I also fail to see any real substantive difference between a benchmarking system and a fixed withdrawal schedule, besides the flexibility the former provides. What annoys me about the Kerry-Feingold position is that while it obviously appeals to the peaceniks in the party (for whom the solution to Iraq is to pretend we'd never gone in), it undermines the Democratic rhetorical position on the war without really breaking any new ground. As such it looks either naive or cynical - neither of which is good politics.

Harry Reid is trying to come up with a sensible Democratic position on Iraq that is both good policy and political defensible. We're going to have enough trouble not being assailed as cowards without a proposal for unilateral retreat on the table, the presence of which the Republicans will use to smear all Democrats with.

I think the Democrats do have the capacity to take the offensive on this issue. Paul Begala for one has a good suggestion: de-emphasize our own differences and focus on the Republicans' thick-headed "more of the same" strategy. I also think we should keep asking the Republicans where their plan for victory is, other than just hoping things turn out okay. They'll respond with how great things are going, which will make them all seem like the asses they are. Or they'll say that they are pursuing a benchmarking strategy, which will give Democrats the ability to either a) assail them for incompetence, b) blur the differences between the parties, removing a Republican weapon, depending on the particular race in question.

I also think that Democrats should focus on Bush's desire to keep troops there permanently - in other words to make Iraq a client state so that he can make his oil buddies happy. Democrats are united in their opposition to this idea, as are most of the American people. Highlighting this issue will force the Republicans to repudiate their own President or look like they went to war for oil.

To re-interept an old military dicta, the whole art of politics consists of uniting one's own supporters and dividing one's opponents. So far Democrats have been focusing on what divides us rather than figuring out what divides us from the Republicans and the Republicans from each other. That's just no way to run an election campaign.