Replies

This is a good thing. It means they have entrenched themselves in an all-or-none investment in defeat. The way things are going in Iraq, that bodes ill for them next year among regular Americans (they'll always have their kook base).

Tactically, perhaps, in a purely political sense. But for the nation, it is really bad to have one political party invested in America's defeat.

We need to find a way to let the Dems back down from this and pretend like they are entitled to some credit for the coming victory in Iraq. That invests them in the WOT. We will be fighting this war for 20-40 years and we cannot win with half the population opposed to victory.

There is a precedent for this. How many dems now claim they were right there with Ronnie winning the cold war? In fact, by 1972, the vast majority of the dems were actively campaigning for our defeat in the cold war. By the 80's, the dems opposition to winning the cold war reached a fever pitch.

If Jimmy Carter had been just a little less incompetent and won a second term, defeat in the Cold War would have been a very near thing. We were very lucky to win.

You make a good point. Thank you for the virtual "slap on the cheek" as it were, as what I posted was myopic in its scope, shaped by longstanding cynicism, and indeed purely political. Usually I take pride in taking the long view of matters, but this time it is you that have done it.

There is a key difference between this hot war and the Cold War: heat. Men on the ground, real casualties. The Cold War required massive expenditures in production - production of uranium, plutonium, tritium, lithium-6, precision machining of casing parts at Oak Ridge. A massive industrial complex costing billions. But no shot was fired and no one died in direct armed conflict with the Soviet Union.

What I am suggesting is a fundamental difference the pressures to stop the two respective conflicts unilaterally: The Cold War pressures primarily rooted in fear and finance, whereas demand to end the present conflict found in actual death tolls. Fortunately, very fortunately indeed, this latter reason seems to have subsided rapidly in 2007 courtesy tactical and deployment changes brought about by the Surge. That leaves those invested in defeat stuck with "political progress" - indeed, building a politial structure can take years of not decades as witnessed by the Korean example cited. It is a much weaker rung on which to hang than that of bloodshed.

Getting the democrat cat out of the tree... yes I too lived through 1989 and was a newly-minted political junkie at the time; I remember the stark events of GHWB's inaugural days with clarity, and have noted the phenomenon of which you speak about traditional opponents coming down to celebrate the victory for freedom. The questions that arise: what threshold of success must we achieve in this present struggle - one of admittedly reduced violence with clear military success - to bring them over? Do you see it happening now to any significant degree? And - another cynical political question - faced with a press dedicated to the systematic exclusion of Iraq success how long will it take for a sizeable shift of public opinion back in favor of our work in the ME?