We talked about post-Vietnam syndrome, and the threat it poses to the Democratic campaign, just about a year ago. Richard Cohen observes today that it might cost the Democrats the presidency:
Cohen’s writing is tinged with phrasing that demonstrates he questions the legitimacy of the charges he expects Republicans to make. But most Democrats agreed a year ago that the surge had failed and the war was lost. They have fought for (and continue to promise) a prompt withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the situation on the ground. This has forced Barack Obama at least, into pretzel logic: reserving the right to re-engage in Iraq after withdrawing, in the event that al Qaeda is found to be operating there. Considering that al Qaeda is now operating in Iraq under the deceptive name ‘al Qaeda in Iraq,’ does Cohen regard it as illegitimate to lampoon such a stance? The Democrats face being painted as weak on security because…well, let’s avoid the cliche. They face being called weak on security because they favor withdrawal regardless of the conditions on the ground. Respected party leaders are pushing for decisions based on conditions that changed years ago. It’s not hard to characterize this as irresponsible, and it’s hard not to make it look silly.
