Victor Davis Hanson: Voting the War - Thoughts for early caucus and primary voters.

National Review Online ^ | January 03, 2008 | Victor Davis Hanson

[neverdem]

January 03, 2008, 0:00 a.m.

Voting the War
Thoughts for early caucus and primary voters.

By Victor Davis Hanson

The question for Americans at the start of 2008 is not — after over four years and a great deal of American blood and treasure — whether we should leave Iraq (all agree that we should), but when and under what conditions. In this regard, consistency of belief reveals a lot, since it suggests that views are formed on principles rather than the prevailing, and constantly shifting, majority impression.

Senator Hillary Clinton voted for authorizing the war, then, as the costs mounted, became a critic — but not to such a degree that she could not still hedge should things still turn around. The result is that we now have a pro-war Clinton, a “suspension of disbelief” Clinton, and a quiet Clinton on the war, much in the way Bill Clinton initially supported the war, then proclaimed he had been against it from the beginning. But are there any core beliefs here about the wisdom or folly of removing Saddam and trying to foster consensual government in his place-other than ‘if it is going well, I’m for it; if not, I’m against it-for now at least’? We should remember that one of the supposedly most astute politicians of our age, Hillary Clinton, gratuitously insulted with the “suspicion of disbelief” cast-off line, a commanding general who was on his way to becoming a genuine American hero. Not smart at all.

Sen. Obama is believable when he states he was against Iraq from the beginning and still is, though we can’t ascertain that fact, given he wasn’t yet elected a senator at the critical moment of authorization. Sen. Edwards was for the war, and gave eloquent speeches why so, then moved hard left and damned the war and any who supported it — and now is relatively quiet on Iraq (other than wanting all U.S. troops out within 10 months) since his nearly acquired William Jennings Bryan populism seems for now to bring more dividends.

It is hard to determine much difference in the positions of the leading Republican candidates — the removal of Saddam was necessary, the three-week war was well run, the four-year occupation was marred by mistakes (made by someone else), and the surge has helped bring stability — one that requires a careful American drawdown, predicated by facts on the ground in Iraq. Much of this is gleaned through assertion since few of the candidates, excepting McCain, were in a position to go on record for or against the surge and staying the course. Thompson and Giuliani made the most effort to tie their support for the war to larger geostrategic anti-terrorism strategies.

There is a sort of Orwellian quality, however, in the Republican candidates’ positions on the war: all seem to support the present Bush course but can’t quite name the President, given his 36% favorable rating in the polls. The result is that we hear of little substantive difference from the present strategy, but frequent protestations about past mistakes — that seem intended as necessary cover for de facto associating oneself with George Bush’s Iraq.

Where does all that leave us? Gen. Petraeus and the success in Anbar have radically changed the politics of the war in Iraq. Six months ago, we were supposed to have envisioned Iowa as an Iraqi battleground, where Middle American said ‘no’ to war, and those candidates with the most anti-war fides found traction.

But this past monthly period in Iraq was the least costly to America in terms of wounded and dead in Iraq, and the media is reduced to running back-page stories about poor graveyard workers with too little work, or supposedly lazy Iraqis who aren’t cleaning up debris in prompt fashion. As the violent trends decrease, the positive ones — power, oil revenue, GDP, returning refugees, security forces — increase. The result is that we are in one-year, election-cycle holding period of “What’s next?”

The voters have lately turned a deaf ear to anti-war activists; Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and Code Pink are mostly receding as bad memories. Instead, the public is probably willing to continue to support a Petraeus-like counter-insurgency solution as long as the violence steadily abates and they can begin to see incremental withdrawals of American troops, the fact of such, rather than the actual numbers, being initially what matters.

Bottom line: for now Iraq per se is not a major issue in the primaries, at least to the degree it is seen as something separate from Afghanistan and the general war against Islamic terrorism. Those on the anti-war side who harp that it is will sound strident, given public support for Gen. Petraeus and good news from the front. There are subtle differences among the Republican candidates, both in their past statements and positions and their recommendations; but for now they are not of much significance, at least for the immediate primaries.

What to look for? It depends on the pulse of the battlefield: Continued good news, makes the war less and less of an issue, especially if some troops are withdrawn either late summer or early next autumn.

The final irony? No candidate apparently argues that someone did something right to have prevented another 9/11-like attack for over six years, removed two dictatorships, fostered the continued, stubborn presence of democratic governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, helped change the Middle East dynamic from Lebanon to Libya, and at present won friendship and support from key countries as diverse as France, Germany, and India.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.

[neverdem]

Shiite Praises Anti-Insurgent Militias

India's Taj Mahal slams door on weak U.S. dollar

[neverdem]

Happy New Year!

[ClearCase_guy]

Continued good news, makes the war less and less of an issue

While that may be true, it certainly ought not to be true.

There are candidates (Obama, Ron Paul to name two) who have taken a thoroughly wrong approach to the war. They have egg on their face. They have proven their inability to handle foreign affairs. And the conclusion? *YAWN* It's less of an issue now. Let's talk about something else.

It shouldn't be that way.

[rellimpank]

—that last paragraph is key—

[attiladhun2]

Yeah, but Obama’s support is based entirely on anti-Bush and antiwar sentiment. President Obama will undoubtedly pull defeat out of the jaws of victory. Iraq will disintegrate into chaos that will spread to the entire region. Oil goes up beyond $150 (even $200) per barrel. We have economic dislocations like we've not seen in 25 years.

[stainlessbanner]

for now Iraq per se is not a major issue in the primaries

It's a major issue with all voters including the primaries. We've listened to all of them answer how they would handle foreign relations and watched them jockey for the mantle of "most experience" in this area.

[frogjerk]

The final irony? No candidate apparently argues that someone did something right to have prevented another 9/11-like attack for over six years, removed two dictatorships, fostered the continued, stubborn presence of democratic governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, helped change the Middle East dynamic from Lebanon to Libya, and at present won friendship and support from key countries as diverse as France, Germany, and India.

In tribute to the Man being referred to...George W. Bush

[Billthedrill]

Bottom line: for now Iraq per se is not a major issue in the primaries, at least to the degree it is seen as something separate from Afghanistan and the general war against Islamic terrorism.

That last was the result of a conscious decision on the part of Democrat strategists to frame the overall war such that they could have their cake and eat it too; that is, pretend to support the "good" war in Afghanistan and decry the "bad" one in Iraq as a purely Bush adventure that "distracted" from the WOT. That way they get to pose as pro-national security and anti-war simultaneously. A nice bit of parsing if only we'd not managed to win the thing.

That's a problem now and they're scrambling a bit. Certain ones (Obama for example) have not given up the fence-straddling act and indeed have made it worse by sounding bellicose with regard to Pakistan. Nobody much is buying, nor should anyone - the position has been nuanced into oblivion.

The safest bet, and the one I think we're going to see the most of, is for the Dems to publicly praise the troops with all the sanctimony in their considerable store while doing everything possible in the background to undermine their mission. In short, business as usual. And frankly, most of the Republican candidates are attempting the same ridiculous parsing. That's one reason McCain has shown a sudden resurgence - he may be a lot of things elsewhere but he's consistent on the topic. My personal guess is that any Republican candidate who attempts to shove Iraq onto Bush's shoulders will pay dearly for it. And deserve to.

[Tolik]

    Victor Davis Hanson Ping ! 

       Let me know if you want in or out.

Links:    FR Index of his articles:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
                His website: http://victorhanson.com/
                NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
                Pajamasmedia:   http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/

[Tolik]

Happy New Year to you too!

Thanks for many ping lately! Much appreciated.

[Jeff Chandler]

No candidate apparently argues that someone did something right...Republican candidates... can’t quite name the President, given his 36% favorable rating in the polls.

A big mistake in my eyes.The Republicans should have by now figured out that the Bush Administration is not going to lead the public relations war, and Republican leaders should have arisen to carry the banner and stand behind their President. What that man has done since 9-11 is near miraculous. A candidate who stands behind Bush's accomplishments would have a huge leg up in courting my vote, and I can't believe I'm not alone.

[guinnessman]

I agree.

It would also demonstrate some political courage, which is what Republican primary voters are aching for.

[guinnessman]

McCain is giving himself a lot of credit for backing the surge, but keep in mind that his public criticism of Rumsfeld gave cover to a lot of Democrats to oppose the war effort.

[AmericanVictory]

but he is quite right; Republicans are not arguing on better ways to improve the effort to win and, thereby, are ceding ground to those who want to lose. This does not demonstrate the leadership that we need.