General David Petraeus is due to give his assessment to Congress on the progress of the surge in Iraq on September 11th. If the report is positive, then there is cause for much hope for our military and for the people of Iraq. Regardless of your opinion before the invasion in 2003, positive developments should be welcome news to anyone’s ear.
It is unfortunate, therefore, to hear Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the House majority whip, say in an interview last month that a positive report from Petraeus would be “a real big problem for us,” referring to the Democratic caucus. The new Democratic majority has made setting a timetable for withdrawal a priority and opposed the President’s surge, so news of success in Iraq would be a heavy blow to their efforts to dictate military policy.
It is outrageous that a leader in the United States Congress places his party’s political agenda before a successful war effort. This kind of statement is unsurprising, based on the conduct of the Democratic leadership over the past several years. Exploiting the difficult situation in Iraq and scoring political points have become more important to Democrats than the sacrifices of our brave soldiers and the future well-being of Iraq.
In 2005, then-Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) compared American troops to Nazis and soldiers in the regimes of Stalin and Pol Pot. Just recently, the Democratic presidential contenders went to the annual DailyKos convention, which was organized by the liberal blog’s founder Markos Moulitsas. This is the man who once said “screw them” in response to four American civilian contractors being brutally murdered in Iraq. The Democratic leadership deliberately skipped the moderate DLC convention to pander to the hate-mongers of DailyKos. They have made their bed with these people, so I expect the Democratic leaders to continue to represent these special interests at the expense of our troops in Iraq.
These are not just isolated incidents; the party itself has become extremely hostile to the administration. A Fox News poll conducted last January found that nearly half of registered Democrats did not want the surge plan to succeed or could not decide if they wanted it to succeed. When the rank-and-file of the party hope for defeat in Iraq, one can reasonably expect the party’s leadership to follow suit. During past wars, political conflict was still frequent, but there has never been such a desire among one of the political parties to lose a war. This lack of support for the soldiers in Iraq is shameful and does nothing but divide us and embolden the enemy.
I would not be surprised if Democrats take on a more supportive tone if Petraeus’s report on the surge is a good one, if only for purposes of self-preservation. Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Carl Levin of Michigan recently hedged their bets and asserted that the surge is working. If public opinion becomes more supportive after the report, expect the “withdraw now” crowd to go silent. Bernard Kouchner, a French Socialist, has helped mend ties between France and the United States, and Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel have shown diplomatic support for democracy in Iraq. If the leaders of France and Germany support success in Iraq, so can the Democrats.
The management of the war in Iraq before the surge can be characterized as a disaster. The administration made mistakes and stubbornly “stayed the course” when a change of strategy was obviously needed. The president must be held responsible for his errors. However, to actively try to undermine the president’s plan to win in Iraq, or to hope that it fails, is partisanship at its very worst. Democratic leaders must stop putting the fortunes of their party ahead of the national interest and should pray as fervently as anyone for a positive report from General Petraeus.
