David Ignatius writes in a terrific piece in the Washington Post:
This should be the Democrats’ moment, if they can translate the national anger over Iraq into a coherent strategy for that country. But with a few notable exceptions, the Democrats are mostly ducking the hard question of what to do next….
I wish Democrats (and Republicans, for that matter) were asking this question: How do we prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state? Many critics of the war would argue that the worst has already happened — Iraq has unraveled. Unfortunately, as bad as things are, they could get considerably worse.
I think a lot of people see the Iraq situation as a bad one, but not one that they’d actually like to fix. We probably need more troops there, not less, but we’re out of troops – yet most people would oppose a draft. We probably need to put more money into fixing Iraq, as long as it’s spent wisely – yet most people would probably oppose a tax increase to pay for it.
Most people see Iraq as a big nuisance, something bad that they see on TV, something to get angry about but not something that actually affects them. That’s true about many things in the news – stories create a negative emotional response, but it’s a distant response, blocked by the barrier of the TV screen, the computer screen, the newspaper. It’s not something that actually affects most of us in a concrete way, so we feel as bad about it as we feel about seeing a favorite TV character put in a bad position. We root for things to get better, but we don’t really have anything invested in it except our emotions.
I think that’s how most of us feel about Iraq. “Damn shame. It makes me so angry. Now what’s for dinner?”
This piece is for the most part terrible, Jeff. The issue is not that Iraq is a tough problem to fix, as he said–it’s that the United States cannot fix it. If there is a peaceable solution, it involves the United Nations or some other international coalition that does not itself bear responsibility for the existing state of affairs, because Iraq is no longer willing to accept any solution that we provide ourselves. He cites Joe Biden favorably, but then dismisses his plan (which might be put usefully into effect once the country is no longer polarized by occupation). All right, David, if you’re such a deep thinker, what do you suggest we do? Nay-saying for its own sake is not a worthwhile contribution to the national discourse.
And if the Democrats are playing “gotcha,” I don’t blame them. Nothing whatsoever will improve if the Republicans retain power, so it’s in no one’s interest to pretend that this situation can be hemstitched into a happy ending. The logical policy response is indeed to stop pouring our resources down the drain, and the logical political response is to do anything necessary to achieve that end.
There’s also this tidbit:
“How can America prevent Iraq from becoming a safe haven where the newly hatched terrorists will plan Sept. 11-scale attacks that could kill thousands of Americans?”
A gratuitous 9/11 reference for the sake of scaring the audience. What an asshole. Iraqis hate us now because we’re there, and they’ll hate us more if we leave while things are still chaotic, and they should, because their plight is entirely our fault, and nothing is going to change that.