It was a reasonable position (though a mistaken one) to oppose the war in Iraq. It was a reasonable position (though a mistaken one) to oppose the surge of troops at the beginning of 2007, on the grounds that it seemed unlikely the surge could succeed, and that some kind of not-too-damaging-withdrawal was the only option. But now the surge is succeeding. Any serious person has to be rethinking his position going forward in that light. No Democrat is doing any such rethinking, however. What Democrats are doing now is, in effect, denying evident success. And, by continuing to push for a withdrawal timetable, they are trying to prevent further success. Here’s Barack Obama, in what was generally a pretty successful performance on Meet the Press yesterday, trying to explain his position:
Obama wasn’t alone in predicting that the surge would be “worsening, potentially” the situation in Iraq. But it didn’t. The situation is better. And the Democratic party, and its presidential candidates, are in the ridiculous position of being more anti-war now that we’re winning than they were when we were losing. The surge, as Kimberly Kagan explains in the latest issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD, is clobbering al Qaeda. It could also end up clobbering the Democratic presidential nominee, who will be on record as repeatedly having sought to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. The Democratic candidates have, as Joe Lieberman said last week, “emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq.” They’ve also politically invested in such a narrative. It was a bad (and dishonorable) investment. It may well cost them the 2008 election.
