Can I ask a stupid question?

With all of the consultants, advisers, strategists, etc. working for the Democrats right now, can’t one of them come up with a way to take this ”the surge is working and the Dems don’t want to admit it!” meme away from the Republicans? It’s about all they have right now and they’re fitfully hanging off of it like deranged squirrel monkeys and the media is lapping it up.  I know it’ll piss off some of the more rabid elements of the anti-war movement, but can’t Dems think of a strategically sound way of pointing out that if it wasn’t for their electoral wins in ‘06 chances are pretty good we’d still be burdened with Donald “Dunderhead” Rumsfeld, who pretty much everyone, except for the most rabid dead-enders, has admitted was a colossal failure? There would be no Robert Gates.  There would be no General Petraeus.  There would be no reduction in our military fatalities.  There would be no surge.  And if they want to see continued “success” (or what’s interpreted as success) in Iraq and an eventual withdrawal from this War in Error, they have to elect a Democratic president and vastly increase the number of Dems in Congress.

It seems fairly simple to me.  Or am I missing something?

Posted by Kevin K. on 01/14/08 at 10:00 AM • Permalink
Trackbacks (0) •

Good point—the fact that if it weren’t for the Dems putting pressure on The Decider, there wouldn’t have been a change in strategy at all should be pointed out, again and again, until it sinks in. But I also think the Dems need to keep saying that it’s far too early to claim that the surge “worked.”

The goal of the surge, as outlined by GWB, was to give the Iraqis space to work out a political reconciliation. They have not yet done so. Therefore, the surge hasn’t accomplished its primary objective.

Contra the odious Bill Kristol, everyone is happy to see fewer people needlessly die in Iraq in December of 2007 than in December of 2006. But despite the utopian picture Kristol paints, post-surge Iraq is hardly a fountain of rainbows and ponies, as was demonstrated last week when the US found it necessary to drop 40,000 pounds of bombs in a country we’ve occupied for five years.

I saw HRC on Meet the Press yesterday, and Russert of course tried a “surge” gotcha question. She rightly pointed out that it’s far from over and that should the Iraqis get their act together politically, it’s more likely the result of them knowing that the US will leave if a non-Bush clone is elected rather than due to Bush’s endless blank check. She’s right.

Good point—the fact that if it weren’t for the Dems putting pressure on The Decider, there wouldn’t have been a change in strategy at all should be pointed out, again and again, until it sinks in. But I also think the Dems need to keep saying that it’s far too early to claim that the surge “worked.”

Agree 100%.  They’ve been pretty good at driving home point #2, but they really have throw the “it wouldn’t have changed without us” message onto a loop.  I’m just not hearing that at all from anyone.  There’s got to be a quick, elegant and effective way to get both points across without coming off sounding too nuanced. The Repubs are always better at nutshelling talking points than we are but I think it’s because their more simple ideas shoehorn easily into caveman grunts.  “No txes!” “Support the troops!” “Muslims kill us!” “Brontosaurus taste good!”

Any, yeah, Hillary did a good job of explaining point #2 on MTP.  Wish more Democrats would explain it that way.

I’ve found “yeah, the surge has worked. We’re back down to about where we were just before the surge,” to be fairly effective. “The Surge: effective at reducing the violence caused by The Surge.”