If you haven’t seen Jack Murtha’s "Meet the Press" response to Karl Rove’s New Hampshire speech in which Rove accused Dems who want an Iraq exit strategy of cut-and-run defeatism, you can see it here. (Wait till page fully loads.) I suspect that Murtha is not just speaking for himself, but for a significant constituency in the military leadership with whom he has good relationships and high credibility. Maybe that gives him capital to fight back in a way that other Dems think that they can’t. But that’s no excuse for such Dems–nothing is going to be handed to them, and they can be sure that they will be outmaneuvered if they adopt such a passive attitude.
The best way to fight the cut-and-run accusation is to show some backbone, as Murtha is doing, and go on the offense rather than to worry so much about how the other side is trying to brand them. The Dems need to fight to make the case
- that there’s no effective leadership to salvage whatever little might be salvaged in Iraq–as long as Bush is in office things will continue to get worse rather than better;
- that what we’re doing in Iraq now is a pointless waste of blood and treasure–even if (big if) there were achievable, worthy objectives behind the decision to go to war, they are not achievable now;
- that the Iraqis ultimately have to figure things out for themselves–we can’t make them do it.
If there was ever any hope of salvaging anything in Iraq, it was lost
when the country re-elected George Bush. I’m not saying Kerry would
have succeeded, but he would have had a better chance of coming up with
a sane policy. What we’re doing there now is insane, and we need someone like Murtha who has some credibility to just say it–but then he needs to be supported by others in Congress. What Republicans understand and what Democrats don’t is how to give ideas–even ridiculous ideas–cultural legitimacy. The Democrats are inept about making even sane ideas seem legitimate. It requires a concerted organized effort to say over and over again what a ridiculous waste of life and money our non-policy is the cause of in Iraq.
"Stay the course" is not a strategy; it’s political posturing. And anybody who buys that as an effective policy is not thinking but simply reacting to a Pavlovian stimulus–the fear of not appearing manly or strong. The cynical Rove knows which bells to ring to get unthinking Americans to react. I’m hoping that the Dems will bet that that Americans are better than that; obviously Rove is betting they aren’t.
But if the Dems take that bet, they have to make their case. They have to give Americans a robust, thoughtful alternative to the Cheney/Rove non-policy. The case for withdrawal has to be made in a way that most decent Americans can see that it’s the right thing to do–especially those Americans who thought that invading Iraq was the right thing to do in 2003. Democrats running for Congress this fall should make it the centerpiece of their campaign, but they won’t unless they get support from the the current leadership in the house, and they are not getting it so far. A few courageous individuals like Murtha are speaking out, but few are following.
If the Democrats are pathetic, it’s not because they want to cut and run in Iraq, but because so few will fight to make the case for withdrawal to the American electorate. Karl Rove is betting that’s a fight most Democrats won’t take on. He has good reason to think it’s a bet he’ll win.
Leave a Reply