reprinted with permission of the Wall Street Journal
A Judgment on Iraq
By Wesley K. Clark
August 17, 2006
Republican strategists could hardly be happier with the outcome of the Connecticut Democratic primary. And Democrats should be deeply concerned in the near term. But if I were a Republican, I’d recognize this as the beginning of the end. Forget about the neocons. This era is over.
Near term, for the Republicans, this is a triple-edged opportunity. First, the vote was close enough that, if Joe Lieberman follows through on his threat to run as an independent, there’s a strong possibility of his winning, with a lot of Republican support, and thereby raising the bar even further for the Democrats’ quest to regain control of the Senate this year.
Second, the fact that Mr. Lieberman lost the primary can also feed a national spin machine to talk about “feckless, antiwar Democrats,” “not strong enough to protect America,” and all the other noxious labels currently in play by the president’s defenders. And the third bonus effect for Republicans is to play up the story about how the Dems are split, and lack the unity to win midterm elections, much less govern.
For the Democrats, the election is a snapshot of a revolt in the making, but not yet done. The truth is that Democrats are as patriotic as Republicans, want a strong and secure America, and like every other American, want to trust the president and his team on national security issues. And perhaps, being in Washington, associating with the administration and lawmakers of the other party, it’s been more difficult for elected Democrats to sense the mounting rage in much of the electorate over the failures of President Bush’s policies, and especially the seemingly never-ending war in Iraq, and his blatant partisanship.
It’s been easy for some of the media to talk disparagingly about “bloggers,” but it’s also misleading. For the anti-Lieberman vote in Connecticut wasn’t just bloggers. The public doesn’t have to live with the reminders of old sentiments, jingoistic pronouncements, or votes in the House or Senate. Instead, the public is free to observe, listen and judge. And that judgment has been passed, especially on Iraq: The war was a mistake. Flawed intelligence, overly optimistic planning (or in some cases, none at all) and grandiose geostrategic designs, hyperinflated rhetoric about democracy, and perhaps raw political advantage. Whatever. The public hasn’t quite sorted it out—but they know a failure when they see one. And Iraq, as well as the larger Middle East policy, is such a failure.
Iraq isn’t Vietnam. America can’t just walk away without horrendous consequences. But “stay the course” isn’t a strategy. And the longer the bleeding goes on there, the harder the electorate will dig for answers—and the tougher they’ll be on those who got us in, and aided, abetted and apologized for them.
Perhaps politicians in office will listen a little more attentively now to the outside-the-beltway voices; they’ll challenge more, stand up earlier, fight a little tougher against the administration’s leadership. And perhaps they’ll sweat a little to gain some stand-off from their earlier positions. Longstanding relationships at home, a comfortable bank account, and the continuing blandishments of the lobbying crowd will no longer be sufficient—Joe Lieberman’s defeat shows that the public is now engaged in politics.
The Republicans will suggest that Democrats aren’t up to it. They’ll play the terrorist-threat card, hope for a few more messages of bin Laden, and ask whether an antiwar party can be trusted to keep America safe. But this is just the spin. The truth is the Democratic Party—elected leaders, party regulars and the big-time donors—pretty much agree on the failures of the administration, and even on the policies that need to be adopted, like stronger diplomacy and more reliance on allies and international organizations, coupled with a willingness to fully fund, rearm, strengthen and use America’s armed forces. The Connecticut primary will ensure that the Democrats push their positions—and their differences with the administration—even more forcefully.
Now Democrats have to be able to stand toe-to-toe against Republicans and their failing policies on national security. There’s no dodging it, and no hanging on to the administration’s coat-tails, either. Democrats in every race have to be able to speak the language of national security. And convince the electorate that we are a “full-service” party, as ready to be trusted on national defense as on health care, education, or equal opportunity.
The Connecticut race and Republican spinmeisters will be troublesome for Democrats. But the growing public awareness provides Democrats the opportunity to reshape our party to help America meet the challenges ahead. For Republicans, it signals the end of using patriotism to cover up for persistent failures to deal effectively with pressing national security issues.
