In yesterday’s Washington Post we read this:
At least 10 Senate Republicans have openly questioned the president’s Iraq strategy, even as they remain reluctant to embrace Democratic legislation to change it. Republican war critics said they are detecting a shift—albeit a slight one—toward outright dissent, as their colleagues digest the Petraeus and Crocker testimony and the prospect of a maintaining a large U.S. military presence in Iraq for the near future.
Republicans will not fundamentally break with the President over Iraq at this point. While the situation in Iraq remains very difficult and success is certainly not foreordained, we are seeing demonstrable progress on both the security side and in bottom-up reconciliation. Republicans stood with the President during the most difficult hours of this war; it only makes sense to stand with him when things are improving.
Conventional wisdom has it that what matters most when it comes to the politics of Iraq is troop levels. The more American troops stationed in Iraq and the longer they stay, goes this reasoning, the more unpopular the war will be—and the more Republicans will suffer. The sooner we withdraw troops, this line of argument continues, the better it will get.
In fact, the most important metric is not the number of American troops in Iraq, but how well (or badly) the war is going. The main engine driving the war’s unpopularity hasn’t been the number of combat brigades in Iraq; it has been conditions on the ground. What upset the American people most of all, in my judgment, is that they felt (with some justification) the war was being mismanaged and was failing—and if it was failing, the cost in lives and treasure simply wasn’t worth it.
Now that the trajectory of events is more in our favor, there is a chance to build up some support among a war-weary public. Iraq will never be a popular war—but it is possible to sustain enough public support to achieve a decent outcome.
A thought experiment: assume that in June 2008 we have 130,000 American troops in Iraq and violence there is substantially less than it is today. Assume, too, that we are seeing more signs of progress in bottom-up reconciliation, the “Anbar Awakening” is spreading to other areas, al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) is in retreat, and we are even seeing tangible and encouraging steps from the central government.
Now assume that in June 2008 we have 80,000 American troops in Iraq and violence there is significantly worse than it is today. Assume, too, that the progress we’ve seen in Anbar Province is undone, AQI is resurgent, ethnic and religious divisions deepen, and the central government collapses.
Which situation do you think most hurts Republicans in 2008—the 130,000 troop scenario or the 80,000 troop scenario? The question answers itself.
Our policy in Iraq should be driven by what is in our national interest and meets our moral commitments. But if politics is going to drive Republican Members of Congress, then they might as well get behind policies that will lead to the best political outcome. And that means supporting policies that have the best chance of leading to success rather than catastrophic failure in Iraq. For better or worse the Republicans “own” this war; being the architects of a strategy that leads to a premature withdrawal and a defeat in Iraq will earn them nothing but contempt—and for good reasons.
Success in Iraq may well be attainable; Republicans should do everything they can to make that possibility a reality. And these days “everything they can” means giving General Petraeus the support he needs. Give him the tools, and he and his team will finish the job.
