Doing the 180

It has been my long held opinion that even opponents of the Iraq war on Capital Hill HAD to have reached some empirical understanding of the actual threats and consequences of rapid disengagement in Iraq.  A reasonable reading of open source, objective material delivers you to, a least, a pregnant pause in terms of what the consequences could very easily be.  This observer has long held the opinion that within Washington ending the war was more about political theater and the opportunity to procure power than about threats and consequences to the nation.

While I am absent research assistants to provide fodder for analysis, there has been a fundamental shift  in the position of Democratic candidates.  The predictable move to the middle.

If memory serves, (damn that absent research assistant) we’ve heard all manner of rhetoric from end the war now, end it in eighteen months, stop the money now, stop the money in September, stop the money in March, we’ve lost already and so on. The candidates now have taken the position that it could take their entire first term in office to bring the troops home.  Good for them, I truly applaud the onset of rationality.

Why the most recent change in position?  A few possibilities occur to me. 

Ø      The surge is working.  While the candidates are loath to actually say so, the change in position could be a left handed recognition that it is, in fact, the truth of the matter.

Ø      Assuming the surge is working, there can be no more dangerous position for the Democratic candidates than to maintain their positions of, oh I don’t know, three months ago and have the pace of success  in Iraq become a geometric equation with success leading to more success. Considering the importance of the Iraq issue, actual success in Iraq is a tree branch they would rather not be left clinging to.  The aggressive rhetoric that called for  bringing the troops home starting Noon on January 20^th 2008 has now been abandoned for the five year plan.

Ø      The rhetoric of Congressional leadership is beginning to get uncomfortable.  Leader Reid’s declarations are beginning to be viewed as a repetitive video tape with no consideration for the possibility of changing situations.   

Ø      A fundamental disengagement from the far left wing of the Democratic party has begun.  This disengagement is a strategic imperative for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama as they look forward to the potential dynamics of a general election.  Winning in a general election will be highly questionable if the perception persists that the far left is calling the shots.

Looking behind the curtain as best one can the current position of another five years of troops in Iraq is reasonable, responsible and in all likelihood not much different that Republican aspirations for troop withdrawals. 

The context of the new position is, of course, “we don’t know what we’ll find when we get to the Oval Office.”  OK, fair enough.  But as one who is ridiculed for the number of hours spent with CSPAN radio and TV it occurs to me that the number and breath of inquiries, hearings, debates, statements and speeches related to Iraq may be unprecedented.  Committees on  Intelligence, Military Affairs, Government Oversight, Judiciary, Ways and Means and Veteran’s Affairs to name just a few have tackled the administration on Iraq.  So one must ask what is the possibility that Congress and the candidates will be information poor when they get to the Oval Office? 

There is also another point of context that should not be forgotten.  The candidates have done a 180 degree turn in a very short amount of time. We have in a matter of three weeks gone from the dynamics of  Mrs. Clinton accusing, elegantly, General Petraeus of lying about the dynamics in Iraq and the candidates not distancing themselves from the Move On ad to the admission that it will take an entire first term in office to bring the troops home.  That is a big change in a short period of time.  What other changes in position might be on the horizon? 

The difficulty for Democrats is, at it’s lowest common denominator, that the  worst nightmare is continuing success is Iraq.  That’s is a potentially tough position to be in should that success continue.  How does one run against delayed but eventual success, when that issue has clearly formed the centerpiece of the campaign?