Retreat of the Antiwar Democrats
by Patrick J. Buchanan
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
In November 2006, Republicans were voted out of power in the Congress and Democrats installed to bring an end to U.S. involvement in the war in Iraq.
The war had been going on as long as America’s war on Nazi Germany. No end was in sight. U.S. casualties and costs were rising. Bush’s approval rating had sunk to record lows.
The day after the GOP rout, Bush cashiered his war minister, Donald Rumsfeld. In December, the Iraq Study Group, chaired by Bush I Secretary of State James Baker, released its report.
The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. . . . A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq’s government and a humanitarian disaster. . . . The situation in Baghdad and several provinces is dire. . . . Pessimism is pervasive. . . . Violence is increasing in scope, complexity and lethality.
His policy collapsing, Bush made a last throw of the dice. Gen. David Petraeus was named to command U.S. forces, and his request for a “surge” of 21,500 additional U.S. troops accepted. Petraeus also demanded and got 10,000 more support troops.
Still, by April, as the “surge” brigades began to arrive, Harry Reid, Senate majority leader, was declaring, “This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything.” Democrats, the party base goading them on, tried to impose upon Bush, as a condition of further funding for the war, deadlines for the withdrawal of U.S. forces.
Bush vetoed the bill. He was sustained. Then, he rubbed the Democrats’ noses in their defeat by demanding and getting $100 billion more to finance the surge and the war. There are today 30,000 more troops in Iraq than when the Democratic Congress was elected.
As Petraeus testifies, the antiwar movement appears broken. Reid has said his party will not try to de-fund the war or impose new deadlines. It will follow GOP Sen. John Warner, who has suggested it might be helpful if the president withdrew a brigade by Christmas, to signal the Iraqi government to get its house in order. Petraeus has agreed to that.
Next April is the date when the Iraq Study Group said all U.S. combat brigades should be out of Iraq. By then, Bush and Petraeus will have tens of thousands more troops in Iraq than when the Democrats were elected and the ISG reported. The lame duck is not all that lame.
What happened to the party of Speaker Pelosi and Reid, which was going to end U.S. involvement in the war and not permit Bush to pursue victory the way Richard Nixon pursued it in Vietnam for four years?
Answer: Terrified of the possible consequences of the policies they recommend, Democrats lack the courage to impose those policies.
When it comes to issues of war, Democrats are an intimidated lot. Sens. Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd and Reid were all stampeded by Bush into voting him a blank check for war in October 2002. Why? Because they feared Bush would declare them weak or unpatriotic if they denied him the authority to go to war, at a time of his choosing, until he had made a more compelling case for war.
Now they regret what they did. But, in a showdown, they will do it again. For Democrats have been psychologically damaged by 60 years of GOP attacks on them as the party of retreat and surrender.
Their hero, FDR, was posthumously ripped apart for Yalta, the appeasement of “Uncle Joe,” and the abandonment to communism of Poland and Eastern Europe. Truman fired Gen. MacArthur, fought a no-win war in Korea and was savaged, along with Gen. Marshall and Dean Acheson, by Joe McCarthy. By 1952, Truman was at 23 percent and finished. In January 1954, the Tailgunner was riding high at 50 percent.
Came then Vietnam and the credible charge that the Liberal Establishment, The Best and the Brightest, had marched us in, then cut and run, abandoning our Vietnamese and Cambodian allies to a holocaust, and bringing on the worst strategic defeat in U.S. history.
When Ronald Reagan, in the closing days of the 1980 campaign, declared Vietnam a “noble cause,” the liberal media leapt on it as a gaffe. It wasn’t. Reagan was wired in to Middle America.
John Kerry understood this. Thus, he ran in 2004 as a decorated Vietnam vet, not the onetime icon of the antiwar movement.
Bush is winning today because he has jettisoned the jabber about global democracy and argues that a U.S. withdrawal risks a strategic disaster, national humiliation, massacre of our friends and triumph for al-Qaida. Democrats, fearing he may be right, are in paralysis.
Scourged for 20 years over “Who Lost China?” they don’t want to spend the next 20 years answering “Who Lost the Middle East?”
Thus the rout of the peace Democrats. But the movement will be back. For, Petraeus’ good news notwithstanding, there is no light yet visible at the end of this tunnel.
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by Johan Dieckmann on 12 September 2007:
“… a U.S. withdrawal risks a strategic disaster, national humiliation, massacre of our friends and triumph for al-Qaida …”
What a garbage… You shoud know better Pat… Finding yourself watch a bad movie, you know you made one mistake ($), but if you don’t leave right away, you are making two…
….
From “Sheikh Osama and the iPod general” by Pepe Escobar,
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II12Ak05.html
:
“…
The whole question around the face-off of the year is not how Petraeus will “save” the US$3-billion-a-week Bush war on Iraq. The question is why bin Laden felt so relaxed as to stage a comeback as statesman/strategist to proclaim, among other things, the utter failure of the Bush-conducted imperial project.
The answer is because Bush and the neo-cons have been playing al-Qaeda’s game all along. Had Petraeus been sent six years ago on a thorough counterinsurgency mission to smash al-Qaeda, Congress today would be grappling with really relevant issues, such as health, education, the erosion of American workers’ salaries and yes, global warming. Forget Petraeus: someone in Hollywood better call Bruce Willis to fight and kill the sheikh in Die Hard 5.
…”
2 Comment by robert reavis on 12 September 2007:
These kind of Pat pieces make me wonder if Pat is not trying to reconcile with his Republican past. I hope not, but Buchanan knows why the Dems are backing down and it isn’t because of the potential carnage “if we stand down, before Iraqis stands up.”
I like Pat and have defended him for years. If he wants to run for Senator of his home state, fine. But he doesn’t need the “right” wing of the duoploy to do it; or the left wing of that same “bird of prey” . He needs to do what Ronald Reagan’s former Secretary of Navy, James Webb, did. Run and win, with as little or as much “help” from “the party” as necessary.
3 Comment by Johan Dieckmann on 12 September 2007:
(Re. comment #2)
“… These kind of Pat pieces make me wonder if Pat is not trying to reconcile with his Republican past. …”
I have exactly the same impresson.
4 Comment by Melchior Cano on 12 September 2007:
Mr. Buchanan’s track record on the war in Iraq is well documented. He opposed the war from the beginning and has been perhaps the most consistent and lucid opponent of the war amongst conservatives. It seems to me that his article is a documentation of fact, not opinion. You will find, Mr. Dieckmann, that if you re-read the article, Mr. Buchanan does not state that “… a U.S. withdrawal risks a strategic disaster, national humiliation, massacre of our friends and triumph for al-Qaida …”, but rather that this is the stick with which President Bush beats his Democratic opponents into submission. Either you need a lesson in reading comprehension or intellectual honesty.
5 Comment by Simon Newman on 13 September 2007:
Al Qaeda will presumably claim the US retreat from Iraq as a victory, whether it happens in 2008 or 2018, but the real winners will be the majority Shiite population of Iraq, and Shiite Iran.
Re “massacre of our friends” – unlike Vietnam I don’t think the USA *has* any friends in Iraq.
6 Comment by Cassandra on 13 September 2007:
The party of Woodrow Wilson is the source of the Neocon folly, so don’t expect it to become the peace party. The Sixty-Eighters, the Flower Children, and other sorts who sat in the Filmore East and exclaimed “groovy, man” and “far out!” forgot Clean Gene long ago.
7 Comment by Cassandra on 13 September 2007:
The sad truth:
The Republicans haven’t a new idea since Lincoln. Pat shows the that Democrats haven’t one since FDR, be it domestic ideas or foreign. The 60’s New Left peace movement and McGovern had no effect. Both parties are war parties. And both parties are brain dead. The more things change …
8 Comment by Johan Dieckmann on 13 September 2007:
“… a U.S. withdrawal risks a strategic disaster, national humiliation, massacre of our friends and triumph for al-Qaida. …”
While there is an old say, “Scolding her daughter – telling off her daughter in law”, referring to a rather crude “indirection” to get across a point, Pat is hardly indirect in this article in expressing his above otherwise well-known “position” of the late, introducing it by “… Bush is winning today because …” and concluding by “… Democrats, fearing he may be right …”
Yeah, Buchanan was merely “an impartial reporter” in writing this idiotic little article…
In fact, in very many discussions on MSNBC and on McLauglin Group show in the last few months he expressed _precisely_ the above assertion as his own firm opinion, repeatedly.
As for a reasonable guess why he now behaves this way, see comment #2 above.
9 Comment by Ed Roberts on 14 September 2007:
“Mr. Buchanan’s track record on the war in Iraq is well documented. He opposed the war from the beginning and has been perhaps the most consistent and lucid opponent of the war amongst conservatives.”
Mr. Buchanan also wrote an article in 2003, right after the invasion of Iraq, which was featured on LRC in which he informed us all that once a war is started we must not criticize the president.
Mr. Buchanan is a republican, first, last and always. If he runs for Senate here, I’ll stay home just as I’ve done every time Warner is on the ballot.