Political Surge: Look who won Petraeus week

OpinionJournal.com ^ | September 14, 2007 | KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

[Aristotelian]

Had anyone suggested six weeks ago that the GOP would emerge from the Petraeus hearings on the political front-foot, they'd have been laughed at all the way to Anbar. There's a lesson here for Republicans, in particular those most worried about how Iraq will play in next year's elections: Good military policy is good politics.

That wisdom was a hard sell this spring, when the news out of Iraq was glum, the war supplemental debate raged, and dozens of Republicans were threatening to call it quits. The White House instead made an impassioned plea that the party hold tight through the summer and let Gen. David Petraeus do what they'd sent him to Iraq to do. Sen. Mitch McConnell and Rep. John Boehner were subject to endless moaning and fretting and even a few senatorial mini-defections, but for the most part succeeded in keeping their political troops in formation. In July, when House Democrats forced yet one more vote on Iraq withdrawal, only four Republicans joined the other side.

And slowly, slowly began a trickle of good news:

[Aristotelian]

She makes another telling point: Speaking of Democrats, they've conversely had a bitter taste of the perils of investing their political fortunes in military failure. Their decision to throw in with the antiwar left has left them with nowhere to go now that the better news is rolling in. That much has been obvious by the speed with which they've been blowing through new political strategies--each one less convincing than the one before. .... Republicans would do well to absorb the military-success lesson, and quickly, because big challenges remain. The John Warners and Chuck Hagels of the world aren't yet ready to relinquish their self-proclaimed roles as "brave" GOP war dissenters; expect them to team up with Democrats on creative legislative language that might yet tie the military's hands.

****

IMO, the Dems have invested in Iraqi failure because they want to tie Republicans to a military defeat. Time after time, voters turn to the GOP as the party of national security. The Dems aim to break that connection through failure and defeat. They want it to be said that "Republicans can lose a war as easily as we can."

[goldstategop]

The Democrats will drop it next year because if they can't inflict a defeat on Bush, they will be loathe to tie an incoming Democratic President's hands. We will NOT be exiting Iraq in the near future.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Uriah_lost]

I have maintained, for some time, that more of the (so called) “cut and run” sentiment was from those that just didn’t think the war was being prosecuted firmly and seriously enough. Bringing them back into the fold is just a matter of showing Petraeus’ side of it.

[Darkwolf377]

Dems are perpetuating a culture of whiny, wimpy crybabiness which doesn't have time for seeing things through or holding steady and having faith in one's and one's country's abilities. From the earliest days of the invasion of Afghanistan they were screaming "Quagmire!"

They seem to believe there is such thing as A Perfect War in which everything is done perfectly, there are no casualties other than Bad Guys, and that if only we did what their folks said, we'd be just fine. Those who say "We should have done" X, Y or Z may appear to be correct now that we see the flaws in what we DID do, but they have the luxury of having been ignored--if those other ways were tried, who knows what could have resulted? We'll never know.

Iraq is a gruelling ordeal for our brave soldiers. It is a political opportunity for the Democrats, who don't give a damn about individual soldiers and choose to believe that all this Islamofascist stuff is just xenophobia.

Whatever my qualms about Bush, he seems to be the one unshakable political pillar in our Iraq invasion. He knows why we're there. He knows what will happen if we cut and run. The Democrats seem to believe that we can just leave Iraq and put this thing behind us and get back to life as it was on 9/10.

Unfortunately, I think they're right, we CAN get back to life as it was on 9/10--and you know what came after 9/10.

This could possibly be a turning point in terms of public perception, not of the war but in how it plays out from here. Petraeus comes across as non-political in the face of a bunch of political hyenas, and whatever the talking heads try to make us think, the average American may be having second thoughts about their second thoughts about this war.

[SIDENET]

Good military policy is good politics.

An important point which SHOULD be a no-brainer.

[topher]

An important point which SHOULD be a no-brainer.

Not for the HIPPIES who run the Democratic Party and were Vietnam War protestors in the 1960s and 1970s.

There are considerable anti-war sentiment in the leadership of the Democratic Party and in some of the Northern Liberal Republicans...

[guinnessman]

Good post.

We forget how many on the left were crying, “quagmire” just three weeks into our attack on Afghanistan.

[Darkwolf377]

We forget how many on the left were crying, “quagmire” just three weeks into our attack on Afghanistan.

The Democrats' entire strategy for war is based on forgetting their previous actions. Not to mention forgetting their pasts (Kennedy, Clinton, etc.). They like to hit the "reset" button over and over, and expect us all to believe in their new definition of reality each morning.

[Allegra]

Baghdad's been much quieter the past few weeks.

That's all the proof I need.

It's not over yet and we still hear those noises, but it sure is showing significant signs of improvement.

[Sacajaweau]

As Timmy Russert said, "If the Dems can stay focused on Iraq (and Repubs losing the war), they can win back the Whitehouse.

Oops, looks like Timmy might have called it too soon again. Remember, Florida!!

[Dilbert56]

Most Americans want us to win. Given even a glimmer of hope they will support our efforts. For four years they've seen nothing but negative publicity and still something like 40% see through it and realize the importance of winning.

Winning wars is important. Even worthless efforts like Bosnia have to be won. If your primary strategy is deterrence, weakness undercuts it. Winning in Iraq actually important. It's geographically important, separating Syria from Iran. Defeating Al Qaida is important. Having a Sunni Muslin, Arab population reject them is hugh.