The Democrats' Real Iraq Problem

It isn't Fordization or the stab-in-the-back narrative. It's this:

Can I just point out that if Hillary Clinton—or really, anyone—wins the Presidency and then tries to "end the war and bring our troops home" without, you know, completely ending the war or bringing all of our troops home (or at least reducing US casualties to zero), The Left isn't going to take it any more. As Kevin Drum points out, Clinton leads Democrats on the question of who is "best at ending the Iraq war", which means that if she doesn't, she will disappoint a lot of her fans by the time 2010 or 2012 rolls around.

The Dirty Fucking Hippies—and I'm not talking about Code Pink, but the 25% of the public that's always been against the Iraq War without marching in the streets about it, plus the 30-35% of us who have become convinced there's nothing more that the US military presence can accomplish in Iraq—will have put up with a Kerry/Edwards ticket that sold itself as "Bush with better management" on Iraq, sat patiently as a Congress caved after the withdrawal veto, and endured serious dissembling from Clinton on the question of the US mission in Iraq. If Iraq continues to be a quagmire with no signs of progress or intent to withdraw, anti-war voters (and again, not just scruffy college kids but Midwesterners who don't see what we're accomplishing) will stay home in 2010 and find a primary challenger in 2012. Hell, I'd get on the Russ Feingold bandwagon at that point.

Since I think there's about a two percent chance that Hillary Clinton will have all U.S. troops out of Iraq - or U.S. casualties down to zero - by 2010, you can expect to hear a lot more of this in the days and years ahead.

Comments

2012 is the much more important date than 2010. As long as there's some progress by 2010, things won't be that bad (though it will be a very contested election). We don't have to be out, but we do have to be leaving.

I think the public might accept a mission roughly analogous to our mission in Saudi Arabia post Gulf War I: sit around on big bases and don't bother anyone. Casualties may not be zero, but they better be very, very low.

The saving grace here is that Clinton is very politically savvy, and I think she and her advisors know most of this.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | September 17, 2007 10:43 AM

This guy, and you, are dishonestly identifying the anti-Iraq war impulse with the Left. The American people are against the war, by overwhelming margins. Stop pretending that that isn't the case.

Posted by Freddie | September 17, 2007 11:35 AM

"25% + 30-35%" doesn't sound like it's identifying this with the Left alone (nor does "Midwesterners"). Even at this point, I'm not sure the polls show "against the war, by overwhelming margins" -- at least not in any operative sense ("was the war a bad idea?" asked right might get overwhelming numbers -- "withdraw totally now" does not, last I saw the polls anywhere).

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | September 17, 2007 12:09 PM

The American people are against the war, by overwhelming margin

Whoa there. I'm as against continuing this farce as anyone, but, if you look at the percentages in the quote, they're 1) approximately correct and 2) over 50%. Also, there's a very real problem here, that people can be both against the war, while we're at war, and also against withdrawal, while we're withdrawing. In fact, it's almost guaranteed to flip near the end.

However, the domestic political problem isn't nearly as intractable as war supporters are making it out to be. First, war support is incredibly partisan, which means that the people who would hate Hillary for withdrawing from Iraq are overwhelmingly the same people who already hate her for 10 other reasons.

Second, the benefits of an announcing a withdrawal timeline are front-loaded, while the drawbacks are at the end. Once we announce a timeline, the government will start making deals, the insurgents will try to merge and form a political front and the Shiite militias will lay low. It's only once the troops actually start leaving that the violence will jump, and the president can by that point claim her hands are tied. And Congress will, of course, dither and argue the whole time.

Third, there's an election in Iraq in 2009, which will either be unable to form a new government or form one much more hostile to the US. Either outcome will strengthen support for a withdrawal timeline in the US. If the Sunnis participate fully in this one, any government formed will have to be pro-US-withdrawal.

Finally, the inevitable drawdown of forces in 2008 will set the stage for a Tet 2, which will make the happy talk currently infesting the right untenable.

On preview: In general, Marquis, 20-25% support an immediate withdrawal and 35-40% more support a gradual withdrawal, where by gradual they mean by next spring (i.e. 8-12 months). Since any withdrawal will involve a congressionally-mandated timeline and be done over at least 18 months, it's fair to say it will have majority support, at the start at least.

Posted by Bo | September 17, 2007 12:36 PM

Anyone who wants out of Iraq will not be, or should not be voting for Hillary since she is supporting, "redeployments".

The Democrats do not want the blame for the civilwar in Iraq. They will get the blame for not letting this occupation drag on forever.

The only person who can be trusted to bring the troops home is Ron Paul. He has a 30 year track record of intergrity and he was against this war when it mattered

http://www.ronpaul08.com

Posted by brian | September 17, 2007 1:44 PM

I think Ross is basically right. As I said in the thread he links to, if a Democrat gets elected and doesn't do a real withdrawal (defined as US casualties close to zero), the frustrations of the base are going to boil over and it's going to be 1968 all over again, with street protests.

Posted by Dilan Esper | September 17, 2007 2:32 PM

Jokes about "The Left" don't seem to translate once you leave the left-of-center blogs. My fault.

The MSM has the tendency to identify all anti-war criticism with a sort of nebulous hard left ... think ANSWER or the Socialists on college campuses or Berkeley radicals ... without any real examination of the demographics of either the hard left or the anti-war position. The hard left in America doesn't exist in any meaningful way ... it's like 2% of the population tops, and is highly concentrated among campus radicals and aging hippies/enviros. Sure, there are Dem activists who would like to elect President Dennis Kucinich or Barbara Lee, but most such activists aren't going to desert the party even if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination.

So, "The Left", when capitalized in the center-left blogosphere, represents something much broader than the hard left. Really, it represents the Democratic base, which despite the white working class exodus over the last 25 years still contains an awful lot of working and middle class suburban voters. You need these voters to make any point in the primaries, and they won't take it anymore if there isn't progress on scaling back the mission in Iraq.

I think the polls show something like 75 percent disapproval for Bush's handling of the war, and like 58-60 percent for "it was a mistake". Roughly a quarter of the public wants out yesterday. If a quarter of that quarter goes from voting in 2008 to staying home in 2010, Democrats have in the best case scenario something like the 1978 midterms, where a few Dems lose but most people keep voting Dem
out of fear of how much worse it could be with Republicans in charge. If it's still a mess in 2012, and half or two-thirds of that quarter decide that enough is enough, somebody (Feingold? Webb? Dodd?) will decide that ending the war is too important, and it's worth threatening the detonation of the party over it.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | September 17, 2007 3:22 PM

I think there's real danger for Democrats in this scenario, but it's real physical danger, not the electoral sort. Most Democrats would favor any Clinton war, just as they oppose Bush wars. But some, on the fringes, have been stirred up and won't be easily settled down. If you think that the US president knew about/was in on 9/11, and invaded Afghanistan for the pipeline, and invaded Iraq as part of the same scheme, well, you won't be happy when the US stays in Afghanistan and Iraq under a Democrat.

Posted by Thomas | September 17, 2007 6:11 PM

Re: If a quarter of that quarter goes from voting in 2008 to staying home in 2010, Democrats have in the best case scenario something like the 1978 midterms, where a few Dems lose but most people keep voting Dem
out of fear of how much worse it could be with Republicans in charge.

A lot could happen between now and then, including economic problems or energy troubles that will simply make everyone forget about Iraq even if it's just as big a mess as it is now. Also, don't discount the possibility that once Bush is gone (with Dems controlling the White House and Congress) a lot of very nasty evil stuff will come out of the woodwork concerning the last 8 years, leaving the public so repulsed at the GOP that they could run Jesus Christ and Mahatma Gandhi for office and they'd go down in a landslide defeat.

Posted by Jonf | September 17, 2007 9:56 PM

Well, no kidding, Jonf, Gandhi is Hindu. We wouldn't stand for that.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | September 18, 2007 1:48 PM

What happens to American interest in Iraq (a) when Castro dies? (b) if current troubles expose the weakness of the American economy?

Posted by sm | September 19, 2007 8:55 PM

blizz statice superconfirmation pungently unmocked martian wrapping camphoric
http://www.energy.sc.gov/index.aspx?m=8 >South Carolina Radioactive Waste Disposal Program
http://hydeparkbrewing.moonfruit.com

Posted by Moises Mckee | November 23, 2007 1:00 PM

blizz statice superconfirmation pungently unmocked martian wrapping camphoric
http://www.saintmary.org.uk/ >Saint Mary's and St Columba's Parish
http://www.mid-statetermite.com/

Posted by Alma Cruz | November 29, 2007 12:42 AM