Marc Cooper has an interesting piece on how the Democrats are trying to hedge their bets on Iraq:
Last week when I was in the Sandia Canyon casino outside of Albuquerque, I was watching a mark play the roulette wheel in the most bizarre fashion. He had bet just about everything available. He was sure to get paid off each pass of the wheel. And just as sure to lose a small percentage of his stake each time. I noticed, for example, that he had put $10 on each of the three columns of 12 numbers each. Because every number on the board is in one or the other of the columns, the winning bet pays only 2 to 1. If you bet all three, you will get paid every turn of the wheel but you will only make back your bet. You will put $30 down on the table. And you will collect $30. You can’t win. But if a 0 or 00 comes up — a one-in-nineteen chance– you lose everything. Only a fool would take that tack.
Yet, that’s exactly the “strategy” the Democrats are using now on the issue of the war. It dawned on me today that the Dems are hedging their bet in the same exact manner. I listened very carefully today to two separate interviews DNC Chair Howard Dean gave on cable news stations. And it matched up perfectly with what Harry Reid told me a week ago when I interviewed him in Nevada. The Democrats do have a position on the war; in fact, they have three. Or is it four?
The Democrats are basically replaying their 2004 national security campaign – a campaign that led them to lose ground. The fact is that in the confines of the voting booth, the American people just don’t trust the Democrats on national security. They never have, not since the Kennedy Administration. They may not like Bush, and they might not like the war, but the Democrats have no coherent national security strategy – and they keep feeding the Republicans more and more material to strengthen their sagging position on this issue.
If this election comes down to gas prices, economics, and pocketbook issues, the Democrats could win. But it won’t. The Democrats have an almost pathological need to make every single election hinge around national security and play right into the Republican’s strengths. If the Democrats had a coherent plan for the war, they might have a chance of getting leverage. However, they simply do not. Something, even if it’s staying the course, will beat nothing every time. It happened in 2002. It happened in 2004. If things continue as they have, it will happen in 2006.
In wartime, this country needs determined leadership. The Democrats aren’t leading anything – they can’t even find a consensus position in their own party. That kind of mealy-mouthed crap demonstrates more than any Republican attack ad ever could why the Democratic Party is unfit to lead this country. The Democrats keep utterly failing to learn that lesson.
It would be exceedingly nice to have a Democratic Party that was committed to really winning this war. It would be nice if we could have debate about achieving victory rather than having a party of petulant naysayers whose only contributions to the war effort seem to be in assisting the enemy achieve their much-desired propaganda victory. The party of Truman, Scoop Jackson, JFK, and Truman has been replaced by the Party of Defeat. Sadly, that means that the Republicans will likely grow more complacent rather than less – which doesn’t help the country overall.
If the Democrats hedge their bets, the voters will too. Why take a risk on changing leadership with a party who can tell everyone what’s wrong, but haven’t a clue as to how to fix it? The Democrats have an astonishing lack of vision, and what wins election isn’t bitching about the other guy, it’s staking a position and defending it. The Democrats can’t dare do that without splitting their party between the Kossack radicals and those who are actually part of the political mainstream. The single saving grace of the GOP right now is that the opposition is infinitely worse – which may be good news for the GOP, but it’s hardly a ringing endorsement of American politics today.
The Republican plan is so awesome everyone in the world is jumping right on board.
I think Newt Gingrich summed it up pretty well when looking at the current administration; “Had enough”. From my observation this crop of Republicans wouldn’t recognize leadership if you hit them over with it.
The whole argument here is disingenuous. Bush will do as Bush chooses in regards to Iraq whether the Democrats control Congress next year or the Republicans do. To suggest that the Democratic Party needs lockstep unity among its nearly 250 members of Congress over Iraq implies that such unity would change things one way or the other. Let’s say the Dems pick up the House and wrestle the Senate to 50-50, with all of those Democrats immediately embracing the Murtha plan. Not even that would alter Bush’s Iraq policy. Why do you insist on pretending that it would?
Did you even bother to read the article?
The Japanese are leaving Muthanna Province because the Iraqis are taking over reconstruction duties – it’s one of the most stable places in Iraq. The Japanese government isn’t leaving because they disagree with Bush, and in fact Prime Minister Koizumi is one of our strongest allies.
But hey, don’t let such pesky things as facts get in the way…
Jay:
It’s good to know that at least one country went into Iraq with a clear mission, has defined what success means, and has accomplished that mission. Perhaps President Bush should pow-wow with Koizumi a little more.
Fact: Number of Japanese troops in Iraq now: about 600.
Fact: Number of Japanese troops in the near future: about 0.
As Jay said, Seth, didn’t you read the article?
Japan’s ground forces are leaving, they’re done. Their Air forces are expanding. Expanding. That means there will be MORE of them.
Japan has not ‘pulled out’.
But you go on telling yourself that it has.
Jack:
We really need a lot of help with air support in Iraq right now. I mean, the terrorists are just killing us in the skies over Baghdad. That Japanese air support, which uses technology that is only 20 years behind ours, will be invaluable.
Seth: I suggest you actually understand something about military matters before making yourself look like a fool. Exactly how did we kill Zarqawi again?
Here’s a hint: if you haven’t the faintest clue about what you’re talking about, it’s best to remain silent. For the record, the Japanese Air Self Defense Force uses a more modern version of the American F-16C with state-of-the-art avionics and weapons systems. It’s every bit as advanced as most front-line American fighters. Furthermore, the Japanese will also be fielding the F-22A Raptor in the next few years.
Typical of leftybloggers – not only are they ignorant of easily-researched facts, but they’re arrogant in their ignorance.
Jay:
I suggest you know what you are talking about before calling someone a fool. Japan does indeed have some aircraft that are very good. The problem, of course, is that Japan’s pacifist constitution limits its military to noncombat and support missions outside of Japan, and none of the planes you mention have ever been deployed to a hostile battlefield–those planes are a nice little message to China and are financed with heavy support from the United States. Not sure how the modern fighters are going to help us out from several thousand miles away. Enlighten me, please. In your high and mighty knowledge, I would be very interested to hear.
You make this easy.
The point of the comment about our air support, which you clearly were unable to grasp, is that we’ve got air operations covered in Iraq. What we need are troops on the ground. Preferrably troops from countries that have constitutions allowing them to shoot bad guys.
A review: I post an article. Jay implies I didn’t read it, saying, “Did you even read the article?” Part of that article is quoted as saying: “Japan’s pacifist constitution limits the soldiers to humanitarian and noncombat duties when outside Japan.” Jay then talks about how Japan’s attack aircraft is going to help in Iraq, while calling me ignorant.
The Japanese are providing military airlift capabilities – as the NYT article states – and their Air Self-Defense Forces are again outfitted with the same planes and technologies as we are. Your argument that they have “20 year old” equipment is simply untrue. And again, they’re not 2,000 miles away, they’re flying regular flights from Baghdad to Irbil.
No, what we need are Iraqi boots on the ground. That’s what we’re working on. That’s what’s being achieved, and that’s why the Japanese ground forces are no longer needed – the Iraqis are able to take over reconstruction duties in Muthanna Province.
Let’s review, shall we?
You argue that Japan is pulling out with the insinuation that it’s because the Japanese disagree with our reconstruction plans. The New York Times article states:
Then you argued that the Japanese have equipment which is “20 years behind ours” – I point out that’s not true. They’re flying the same airplanes as we are.
Next you make the argument that we need more countries in Iraq, which is not a particularly strong argument if one sees this war as ending with a functioning Iraqi state – a state that’s capable of providing its own security.