My Updated Iraq Prediction (w/ apologies to Dr. Gray)

[Pangloss]

I've come to the conclusion this past week that I was wrong in predicting that we will depart prior to the 2008 presidential election. My basis for that earlier prediction was the fact that neither party wants Iraq to hang over the election. The Republicans don't want it because it's seen as their mess. The Democrats don't want it because they don't want the long-term "loser" baggage that comes with victory on this issue. But what I didn't realize is that both parties would find a way to take Iraq off the table without actually bringing the troops home.

 

Listen between the lines of this coming week's rhetoric (amid the circus of General Petraeus's testimony) and you'll hear something that both sides agree on -- they'll call it "sustainable force", or something similar. This is a middle ground that neither side will openly talk about because they don't want it to be roasted by the other side's vocal partisans. But it'll be there if you listen for it.

 

What I think is going to happen is that we're going to draw down to ~50,000 troops, which solves the most immediate deployment problem. Then both sides will declare victory and move the agenda on to other issues. The Democrats are going to turn a deaf ear on the far left, which will conveniently coincide with the end of the primaries and the beginning of the general election cycle. That's overdue anyway -- mainstream Democrats are already feeling a bit abused in that department, IMO.

 

Democrats are going to be okay with this resolution to the Iraq crisis because of the simple fact that departing would guarantee failure, and they don't want to be responsible for that. Maintaining a force capability means that even if we can't stop violence from happening, we can at least react to it and look like we're doing something. So they'll settle for a "Mission Accomplished" moment of their own.

 

Republicans will be okay with it because it takes Iraq off the table in time for the election.

 

The White House will be okay with it because it means that Iraq becomes the next administration's problem.

 

The wild card in this will be the far left. If it catches on quickly and starts shouting about it then some Democrats could break ranks and pull the party off track. But my guess is that sufficient numbers of partisans will realize that this is the correct political choice for victory in 2008 -- groups like MoveOn.org will likely go that route, IMO. It's not like they're a real peace movement anyway, they're just anti-Republican.

 

A few political observers seem to be leaning in this direction as well, including Newsweek Editor and Foreign Affairs columnist Fareed Zakaria, who touched on this idea last weekend in a television round table. I think if you look around you can also see signs of a less-demanding position from columnists and others (it's just an impression I get). The message about leaving being a bad thing has been delivered, and it has sunk in with the general public.

 

And that's it, folks. The end of the Iraq saga. The fat lady sings, just not the tune everyone was expecting. All that'll be left are the dregs of extremism and perrenial ABB whiners and die-hard peace-uber-alles types. Good fodder for message boards, but not the sort of thing that shapes policy.

[Realitycheck]

Puny Sunnis.