The public is already digesting and debating the merits of President Bush’s plan to surge around 20,000 troops into Baghdad. There are many problems though. The most forceful and articulate advocates for the surge are military historian Fred Kagan of AEI, who is the chief architect of the move and John McCain, who has called for a troop increase for the past 3 years. Kagan has said that at a minimum, 50,000 troops would be needed. McCain has said that the surge most be “substantial and sustained” with it lasting between 12-18 months to really see concrete results.
Buried in this Newsweek article, comes this paragraph on the White House’s plans for selling the surge to Americans:
White House officials are keen to portray the new policy as a compromise between two extremes. On one side are the John McCains of the world, demanding big numbers of new troops for extended periods in Iraq. On the other side are the antidependency Democrats, demanding a phased withdrawal, or a timetable for withdrawal, to shock the Iraqis into action. (The White House dismisses the third option of rapid withdrawal as simply a form of defeat.)
At today’s House Armed Services Committee meeting, Defense Secretary Gates said of the increase:
“I think most of us, in our minds, are thinking of it as a matter of months, not 18 months or two years“
McCain himself has pointed out the hazards of such a surge:
The worst of all worlds would be a small, short surge of U.S. forces. We have tried small surges in the past, and they have been ineffective because our commanders lacked the forces necessary to hold territory after it was cleared. A short surge would have all the drawbacks associated with greater deployments without giving our troops the time they need to be effective.
It seems likely that Bush will go ahead with that small, short surge of troops even though it has a small chance of succeeding in a mere matter of months. Given that 70% of the country opposes it and Republican senators are deserting like crazy (by my count, at least 9 Republicans have come out against the surge and several more appear leaning in that direction), Bush might not even have much of an opportunity to get the surge he wants on the ground.
The implications of the 2008 race are clear. By coming out so publicly in favor of a surge, John McCain effectively tied himself to it. If the surge does happen, but fails to decrease violence to a significant degree, McCain will pay a big price in his poll numbers. Now that Romney and Giuliani have essentially endorsed the surge as well, they would conceivably be hurt too. This is where Brownback’s surprising decision to oppose the troop increase could prove prescient. If the surge fails and public support dips even further, Brownback could honestly claim to have called it. This could help him in the polls (Jon Alter even writes that it may even provide an opening for Chuck Hagel). Of course, if the surge succeeds than Bush will be vindicated and McCain status will become greatly increased.
My biggest fear is that the Iraq War will destroy the GOP’s electoral dominance that we’ve enjoyed over the past 40 years. If you look at the past century of politics in this country, you see several patterns emerge. Opposition to President Wilson’s liberal internationalism and a resurgent isolationist sentiment in the country led to the Republican victories in the 1920 election. The Great Depression led Americans to ditch the GOP in favor of FDR’s New Deal in 1932. The New Dealers were able to solidify control of the government from 1932-1968 until Vietnam and opposition to the Great Society liberalism of the day led to the election of President Nixon in 1968. Since 1968, the Republican party has had a “national security advantage” when it comes to presidential elections that have had foreign policy as an overriding issue. This is why the only two Democrats elected President since ‘68 have come during the unique times when foreign policy wasn’t an issue in the election (Carter in ‘76 because of post-Vietnam isolation and Clinton in ‘92 and ‘96 because of the end of the Cold War and immense economic prosperity). But given how vastly unpopular the Iraq War is now and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future, it could be extremely hard for the Republicans to retain control of the White House in 2008. This means that the “national security advantage” will no longer be a potent weapon. We all saw a prelude to this during the November midterms when the Democrats pulled ahead of the Republicans by 3 points leading up to the elections. If the war is still on going by the time the 2008 elections roll around, it may be almost impossible to win in such a climate.
January 12th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Oh, I don’t know. Iraq is largely viewed as the president’s project, for better or for worse. It’s true that the Big 3 support the surge and most Americans don’t, but that could also work to their advantage, making them seem serious about the GWOT, especially if Iraq is completed on Bush’s watch. If GOPers on the Hill keep bolting and we leave Iraq in some sort of democratic mess by year end, McCain, Rudy, and Romney will all be able to implicitly claim that they would’ve been just as hawkish on Iraq, but would’ve run the war more effectively and thus achieved a more positive result.
Ultimately, Kagan is probably right that it would take 50,000 troops and, let’s be honest, several more years to get the political and military institutions of Iraq up to par, and to try and weed out the forces of corruption that are permeating the democratically elected government. And even then the Sunni/Shia pathologies may run too deep for a stable democracy to develop. The fact that so many GOPers are now bolting on the Hill doesn’t bode well for a long-term strategy.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Dave,
If GOPers on the Hill keep bolting and we leave Iraq in some sort of democratic mess by year end, McCain, Rudy, and Romney will all be able to implicitly claim that they would’ve been just as hawkish on Iraq, but would’ve run the war more effectively and thus achieved a more positive result.
Generally, I do agree with that. My worry though is that just like the past Eisenhower (ending the Korean War) and Nixon (“peace with honor” in Vietnam) campaigns, the time would be ripe for a Democrat to come along and pledge to end the war. Perhaps I’m just being overly pessimistic, but the way things are going, the floodgates have been opened and more and more GOP politicians will feel emboldened to turn against the war. If the surge fails, I don’t see much else we can do, policy-wise in Iraq and the push for withdrawal in both parties might be overwhelming. If the Dems run a strong candidate, who incorporates a fierce anti-war position (not a McGovern type, but more like RFK), the “more competent version of Bush” GOP might not work. But either way, it’ll be an extremely hard race and the Republicans need to nominate our strongest candidate, which any way you look at it is McCain or Giuliani. I’m not sure how Romney could stay competitive in such an environment.
Ultimately, Kagan is probably right that it would take 50,000 troops and, let’s be honest, several more years to get the political and military institutions of Iraq up to par, and to try and weed out the forces of corruption that are permeating the democratically elected government.
One of the most depressing things about this war is how horribly the post-war period was botched that contributed to 90% of the problems we face today. We went in with half the number of troops that the military had recommended for an invasion, we disbanded the 400,000 men Iraqi Army without pay (a lot of who then joined the insurgency), we let political expediency get in the way of fighting the war (we let al Qaeda take and hold Fallujah from April to November 04 because Bush didn’t want to stage the invasion during the campaign for fear of tipping the election to Kerry) and our strategy of building up the Iraqi Army from scratch in order to stand down American troops was fundamentally flawed. The people we recruited for the police and Army were heavily sectarian and loyal to Sadr. The result is that most of the civil war now is being conducted by members of the Mahdi Army that have infiltrated the police and are killing large numbers of Sunnis. In response, Sunnis can’t turn to the Iraqi government for protection so either they flee the country, stay and get slaughtered or try and secure the protection of al Qaeda against the Mahdi Army. That doesn’t even get to the fact that the surge is entirely dependent of PM Maliki’s willingness to allow the US to go after Sadr, but Maliki needs him because Sadr can easily topple his government if he so choose. Plus, there’s the whole fact that almost 3 million Iraqis have already fled the country (the largest refugee flow in the Middle East since the Palestinians fled after the creation of Israel in 1948).
So it’s so tragic because the surge we’ll end up getting is one with the bear minimum number of troops (we had to pull troops from Afghanistan to even get to 20,000 additional in Iraq) and the window of opportunity will be so small that it’ll be almost impossible to accomplish much. Especially if Gates is already saying that the surge will be temporary and only a matter of months.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:51 am
Very interesting points by both Dave and LJ. Let me try to split the difference on what this all means for the future of the GOP. Keep in mind it’s 1am here on the tundra, so forgive me if this is a bit incoherent.
I have been saying for three-years now that Dubya is the reincarnation of Harry Truman. And as everyday goes by the comparison grows stronger IMO.
Both were viewed as intellectually impoverished (to put it nicely) and in way over their heads; they both were criticized for pushing executive power past the breaking point; both started extremely unpopular wars; they both had approval ratings in the toilet for the majority of their presidency (although Truman’s were worse than Dubya’s) and still managed to eek out a re-election campaign against the odds; and both of their respective political parties were ecstatic to see them leave office (there are many, many, more similarities. But I will stop there.)
The problem for the Dems is that they don’t have a Dwight D. Eisenhower waiting in the wings this time. Even after all that Truman had done to make Americans long for the day he left office, the GOP still needed an Ike to win to break the Dem’s electoral stranglehold.
The GOP still has 2 candidates that can beat any Dem in Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. So I do not think that winning in 2008 is (or likely ever will be) in mortal danger. Unless, that is, we nominate someone other than those two.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:20 am
This is obvious. If Iraq continues to go south, the GOP has no chance in 2008.
Even Hillary could win in 2008 if there’s another 1500 dead by the election, another $250 Billion, and no noticeable improvement. Heck, Kerry could win in that situation.
Unless we go after Iran, and the rally round the flag affect helps the GOP.
But yes, the Iraq War could very well ruin the GOP for a generation.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:47 am
It certainly doesnt help if your performance on your trump issue is an unmitigated disaster.
Can anyone seriously argue that a President Gore would have made as big a mess?
Given GOP unpopularity on just about every other issue, a generation out of power seems quite likely.
January 12th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Where were all of you who now say the handling of the war was an unmitigated disaster before the polls turned against it. Seems to me Bush handled the war about as well as he could under the circumstances. Do you really think the American people would have supported vastly more troops 3 years ago? It seems most of you are assuming way more flexibility on behalf of Bush’s war plans than he ever had. Is it now an obvious mistaken policy when 70% of the people supported it at the time? I’m trying to remember the politician had a realistic alternative at the time. Way more troops was not realistic.
January 12th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Mes Confrères:
Please allow me to comment briefly on the substance of the “Big 3’s” support for the President’s proposed “surge” of troops in Iraq, as opposed to discussing its potential effect on the “horse race” in 2008.
In an address on Long Island on 09 January 2007, while reiterating his support for the “surge”, Rudy Giuliani also said this: “We must not wait for a year or more to measure the success of our strategy but must develop a system to do so monthly weekly even daily so we give our troops the necessary support to succeed.”
These specific remarks have apparently gone essentially unnoticed by both the MSM and the Blogosphere. This is, however, actually a new contribution to the debate over what to do in Iraq, and I think a potentially VERY IMPORTANT contribution! Moreover, it is uniquely Rudy’s contribution. What he proposes here is essentially the CompStat Program his administration initiated for the New York Police in 1993, i.e., the very program that worked so well in, inter alia, reducing homicides in the City by 67.9% during Rudy’s administration. As Rudy used to say, with respect to CompStat: “What gets measured gets paid attention to. What gets paid attention to gets accomplished.” Bravo Rudy!
January 12th, 2007 at 11:48 am
I don’t think a “President Gore” would have done anything…at all. That’s exactly the point.
A President Giuliani however would never have let the rebuilding process Iraq go so poorly. A Compstat like approach to measuring and combating the violence would have led to a very different outcome.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Some responses:
“Is it now an obvious mistaken policy when 70% of the people supported it at the time?”
I’ll stand corrected if necessary, but my recollection tells me that this 70% number, bandied about quite a bit, is somewhat of a myth. As I recall the support for invasion was in the low to mid 50’s up until the troops actually crossed into Iraq. Only then did it go up to 70 as a natural function of people wanting to be supportive of troops who were actually engaged. But the issue here – what the dispassionate opinion of the people was regarding whether or not we should invade should be measured by the polls done in the months preceding the actual invasion, not polls done once the invasion began.
“I don’t think a “President Gore†would have done anything…at all. That’s exactly the point.”
If by nothing at all, you refer to not going after al-Q, after 9/11, then that is patently ludicrous. If by nothing at all you mean he would not have invaded Iraq, then I agree. And yes, it is exactly the point.
As to your statements about Rudy, would you care to give us some evidence of that? As far as I can tell, Rudy has been completely supportive of the Bush approach. I dont see any reason to credit him with having any sort of vision for how to conduct this war that was in any way different from how Bush did it.
January 12th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Tano,
“If by nothing at all, you refer to not going after al-Q, after 9/11, then that is patently ludicrous.”
Is it? What record can you point to that shows Gore would have gone beyond just more appeasement? Other than issue indictments and pass a stern resolution in the U.N. Security Council, I mean. I admit I don’t know his record that well. Enlighten me.
January 12th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
LJ,
I think your commentary in #2 just about nails it regarding Iraq. Democracy in Iraq means letting the Shia have a society structured the way Sadr and his ilk would prefer, which probably means a mild Shia theocracy and the oppression of Sunnis, and democracy also means letting the Sunnis have what they want, which is probably some sort of revived Baathist state and the oppression of the Shia. All the energy is on the side of something other than Western-style democracy and peaceful multiculturalism. Ultimately, the pathologies of the Middle East may run too deep to avoid what is really a regional war that so many over there seem to crave. And I don’t think that a few months and a few more American troops can make centuries-old grudges go away. In the end, a stable democracy in Iraq is probably an oxymoron, and we’ll have to decide whether we want to leave Iraq a democratic mess, in which civil war will likely break out and we may end up with a situation similar to the breakup of Yugoslavia, or whether we want to leave Iraq stable but not truly free, which is tempting, but probably a bad idea, as every Shah of Iran the West has installed around the world seems to ultimately lead to more problems down the road than they’re worth.
January 13th, 2007 at 3:42 am
Mark,
You are not serious are you?
When we went into Afghanistan, it was with congressional approval. The vote was 99-0 in the Senate. 420 -1 in the House. Can’t get much more unanimous than that. Dennis Kucinich voted to go to war against al-Q. Al Gore made his first real public statement after the FL debacle, pledging his full suppport to the war effort led by “my commander in chief”.
There is never unanimity in the country over anything, but there certainly was unanimity in political circles for the war against al-Q. What Gore, or any other rational person, irrespective of party, would have done would have been to continue the fight against al-Q until they were destroyed. Rather than leaving them to fester in Central Asia while turning attention to a completely irrelevant (to the islamist threat) situation.
Need I remind you? 5 1/2 years on, the guy who led the effort to kill 3000 Americans is still free, while we hae spent another 3000 lives creating a new failed state in an even more dangerous place.
January 13th, 2007 at 3:59 am
Tano,
This is off topic (I don’t want to get dragged into what a hypothetical Gore presidency would’ve done different than Bush since it’s not very productive…): I was wondering out of curiosity which Democrat you were backing in 2008 or if you had made up your mind yet?
January 13th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
LJ,
No, I havent made up my mind. I am very intrigued by Obama, but of course I would need to see how he manages to fill out his suit over the next two years. I am rooting for him to turn out the way so many are hoping he does, but we are gonna have to see about that.
Otherwise, I like Edwards Richardson, and Clark, although all of them also need to show me more.
Clinton I have less questions about – but also less attraction. She would be acceptable though.