Saturday, February 03, 2007


Victor Davis Hanson says the Democrats are hedging their bets on Iraq at the moment. I would say that they are acting out of their deepest convictions and moral principles. Not that they actually have any convictions or morals, you see; but that is exactly and precisely the point.

You can't act on convictions and morals you don't possess.

Hanson concludes his piece with this:
...privately, some sober Democrats realize that the use of force in the present was a reaction to the frustrations of the past. For all the slurs against the neocons, it could be wise to stay mum, and see whether the stabilization of Afghanistan and Iraq might well, in fact, still provide the United States with options unavailable in the past. It could be even wiser to let Bush take the heat for the ordeal in Iraq, and the slanders against democratization, and then, if it all finally succeeds, to huff, snort, nit-pick about the messy details — and then take advantage of the favorable outcome.

In contrast to the complex daily Democratic triangulation, the Republican position has solidified and can’t really be further nuanced. More troops, Secretary Rumsfeld, new tactics — these are no longer issues between a Sen. McCain and the administration. And the other front-runners likewise support the current effort, and its success or failure will help determine their own particular fates.

We are in a rare period in American political history, in which the battlefield alone will determine the next election, perhaps not seen since 1864. The economy, scandal, social issues, domestic spending, jobs, all these usual criteria and more pale in comparison to what happens in Iraq, where a few thousand brave American soldiers will determine our collective future.

All politicians are guilty of trying to hedge their bets when they can get away with it. But the rhetoric employed by the Dems has consistently rested on US failure and defeat because it plays well to their leftist base, who have bet their entire ideology on America's defeat and humilitation.

The Democrat's dilemma is that they can't possibly win an election with only that base, so they have to pander to the patriotic Americans just enough not to alienate them completely. Clearly, from their perspective, it would be best if America surrendered and admitted defeat. That would be the best possible outcome. They could keep their lunatic anti-American, anti-Bush, base; and win over those disgusted that the Republicans and Bush managed to lose a war and sacrifice American lives for nothing. But, oh dear. What if things turn around. People will remember any definitive action they implemented to impede success.... So, best to not actually do anything and just talk about doing something and see how things play out. If they took simultaneously committed to both the rhetoric and obvious behavior to ensure a path to surrender-- and then that nincompoop Bush managed yet again to pull things out of the fire, they would be DOA in 2008.

They can't be bothered with doing anything productive or coming up with any strategies to win a war their country is involved in, but they can be counted on to be genuinely concerned with winning in 2008.

UPDATE: The first 100 hours was obviously a triumph of Democrat values (i.e., form over substance), as well as their customary budgetary restraint.

No comments: