What if the situation in Iraq improves?

[Silverhair]

This is NOT a prediction that the situation will improve. Because of my training as an officer in the military, and in several occupation that I have persued outside the service, I have learned to ask, "What if...?" I personally don't think the situation will see much improvement, if any at all. Nevertheless, this is a forum for exchanging ideas, so let's play with this one and see where we go.
-------

The Army has switched to more police work/intel gathering type stuff as they attack terrorist cells. That was how they found Saddam. (No, I don't believe he was held for months and then brought out. I am not a tinfoil hatter. Although there are so many that I should have bought stock in an aluminum company.) We haven't been losing a soldier a day lately. So let us suppose that in a couple of months the new gov't of Iraq has a rough shape. They put Saddam on trial, lasts a few weeks, then he is found quilty, sentenced to death, and a few weeks later is executed. That is a show of strength by the new gov't. The people of Iraq are used to not having opinions and obey the person in charge, as long as he is Arab. Most of the general population could start supporting the new gov't just to have peace, and start turning in info on terror cells. With the Baathist network crumbling, the new gov't is less challanged, and some of the troops start coming home in mid summer. Lowered troops levels lead to less violence and the new gov't gets the credit. More troops are withdrawn, until almost all are gone by September. The new gov't takes full charge of Iraq. UN observers are brought in to monitor the first elections in August.

Iraq does not become completely calm, but has definately taken the first major steps toward democracy and internal peace. Gov't probably take on the Swiss model.
-------

What does that do to us Democrats and how do we respond?

REMEMBER, THIS IS NOT A PREDICTION. I personally assign the above scenario a low order of probability, but it is worth thinking about some.

[prolesunited]

1. Doesn't change a thing

The Bush administration has ignored the world and shown contempt for a number of international organizations and treaties. The pre-emptively invaded a foreign country and are bankrupting the U.S. to pay for an illegal occuapation of a foreign land.

The Dems task is to continue convincing the American people that this Texas cowboy foreign policy is bad for the world and harmful to the U.S.

BTW, you're scenario would only take place in a parallel universe.

[bryant69]

3. You have to sell that idea

And it might not be the easiest sell. I've heard several people at this point say that it doesn't matter if President Bush lied to get us into war, on the theory that we should have invaded anyway, and so the Administration did what they had to do to get us in there.

And the scenario described is possible in the short term--in other words we could see a couple of quiet months. Long enough to creat an illusion of peace, I'd say.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[jokerman93]

14. only in a parallel universe

Maybe, maybe not. But it seems to me the scenario described here is damn close to what Bushco is praying for at the moment.

I also feel we should hope for a speedy return of our troops. The war in Iraq is not and never was the real issue. Bush's cavalier rape of Iraq is characteristic of this administration. They are similarly looting the treasury of the US Government and intentionally redefining the ethos of American society to the point that the failed economy with record levels of unemployed is about to become the new normal.

Economy. Jobs. Independent Press. Civil Liberty. Church/State Seperation. Domestic Security. Education.

All are profoundly threatened as a result of Bush's disengenuous policies.

The real war is here, and it's not going to go away until we force these vampires out of the WH -- and the Congress.

[thebigidea]

33. "The war in Iraq is not and never was the real issue. "

maybe not for you, but to lots of people its a monstrous crime of epic proportions.

Tell the families of those killed that the war isn't the real issue.

Or the millions of protesters!

[OldSoldier]

2. We get to refocus on the economy

Peace in Iraq is Bush's worst nightmare; it changes the focus from "Bush is a great war hero" to "Bush has no interest in domestic matters."

In March 1991 Bush's daddy was the Savior of the Kuwaiti People. In January 2003 Clinton's hand was on a Bible. This Bush knows it, which is why we're going to have continuous war at least through the election: Bushes can only sustain high approval ratings when there are bullets flying.

[HFishbine]

4. Then Clark Loses Appeal

and the domestic agenda becomes the focus.

[RandomUser]

26. Not unless Bush finds Bin Laden

The national security hurdle won't go away as long as 9-11, terrorism, and Al-Qaeda is not resolved.

[catmandu57]

5. Then we bring the soldiers home

quit spending a billion dollars a week on a country that 80% of Americans couldn't find on a world map. Start looking for osama been forgotten, concentrate on the economy and the situation here at home.

[JailBush]

6. Improve, Success - whose terms?

Obviously, there are different factions and interests involved in Iraq, many with competing interests. Success for one means failure for others.

Many Democrats and liberals are so obsessed with appearing to be patriotic in order to get votes for the Democratic presidential candidate, that they lose sight of the big picture. This was is monstrously unethical, illegal, evil and stupid, and a success for George W. Bush would only motivate the Neocons to invade more nations.

The kind of success you described would be very awkward. A reduction in violence and return to some semblance of autonomy would obviously be good for Irqis in the short run, but any government approved by the U.S. would probably be bad for Iraqis - and the entire region - in the long run. At the same time, any "success" that helped garner votes for George W. Bush would obvious be bad, not just for us but for the entire world.

People need to set aside their phony patriotism and look at Iraq as part of a giant chess game, with each move setting the world up for the next move, perhaps culminating in a checkmate too frightening to contemplate.

[Cocoa]

7. your premise is false, imo

you seem to think that the criticism of Bush depends on failure in Iraq.

It doesn't. The actions Bush took were impeachable at the time he took them, regardless of the outcome. Like Graham said, Bush isn't being actually impeached because of the GOP congress, but he can be virtually impeached via the 2004 election.

[wuushew]

10. What would he have been impeached for?

Both Spanish American War and Vietnam were based on bullshit. I don't believe that LBJ was ever impeached.

[htuttle]

12. Maybe he should have been

Just because someone gets away with something, especially a president, doesn't mean that you never worry about others committing that offense.

[Cocoa]

13. using forged evidence in State of the Union

an additional count for every time he lied about WMD.

Then there's the stonewalling of the Sept. 11 investigation.

That's just for starters, the impeachment proceedings would turn up much more, and no doubt he would committ additional impeachable offenses to obstruct the investigation.

[wuushew]

20. You would have to prove that Shrub personally played a hand

The usefullness of the Nixon tapes is very useful in this respect as it shows Nixon saying one thing and doing another. In that case he himself was involved in the breaking of very concrete federal laws.

In order to convict shrub, you would have to show that he believed what he was saying to be a lie. Where would you find the evidence? Shrub has no tapes, doesn't read and apparently destroys and or seals vital administration records.

Additionally can you convict a dillusional man for lying? Shrub believes that God talks to him and that the world exists in black and white. Nixon was an extremely intelligent and evil man so the case to prove criminal guilt is much easier. Do you believe that Shrub was in on the CIA draft editing sessions? If he wasn't then he is guilty of repeating a lie though not fabricating one(If he was aware of the disclaimer at all, which Cheney apparently took care of).

[Cocoa]

25. it's on tape

I saw it with my own eyes. It's not under dispute that he said it, and it's not under dispute that the Niger document was a forgery.

I think there are so many other instances of lying that the standard of proof should be very low. He has no credibility. He actually said "we found the WMD."

That he is not held accountable is not natural, it's an artifact of the crooked GOP and crooked media.

At the polling place, it's a different story. It's the people's chance to convict him based on the overwhelming evidence, and the people's common sense.

[PFaithful]

8. Then we don't have to deal with a "slog" in 2005.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

9. ok

Seeing that this is a parallel universe kinda theoretical conversation we're having here, here's my take:

First a bit of history:

snip:
"Pyrrhus inherited the throne of Epirus in Northern Greece around 306 B.C.E., and as a young man proved himself on the battlefield again and again. Pyrrhus apparently had great strategic skills, but he also had the reputation of not knowing when to stop. In 281 he went to Italy and defeated the Romans at Heraclea and Asculum, but suffered bitterly heavy losses. The devastation led to his famous statement, "One more such victory and I am lost" -- hence the term "Pyrrhic victory" for any victory so costly as to be ruinous. "
(http://www.who2.com/pyrrhus.html)
snip:

The Democrats say that victory was never in question. We state our unequivocal, unshakable support for the fighting men and women of this country, and of the scientists and planners and support-staff of the military. The end was never in question, the US has the smartest, strongest, best trained fighting force in the history of (to quote a fellow DU'er) well. . history. The debate was never over whether or not we would be able to "liberate" Iraq from Saddam Hussein. The Democratic stance is that it was only a question of how many of our girls and boys in uniform would PERISH as a result, and HOW LONG the campaign would be, and what the campaign's OBJECTIVES were, and how much the campaign would COST, and how many ALLIES would join us to share this burden.

The capture of Saddam Hussein was a Pyrrhic victory. With more allies we could have done the same thing with less cost in YOUNG LIVES and national treasure. Instead, Bush sacrificed young lives and the national treasure, all the while losing allies - some of whom go back centuries and helped liberate US from tyrrany.

[Silverhair]

21. Interesting. Good riposte. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

11. Look things would be better with a dem in office...

But it's better that things are good with Bush in office than things being bad with Bush in office. I'm not praying for bad news I'm praying that America will wake up and see what Bush has done to them.

[spinbaby]

15. If things get better,

then we press to get our troops the heck out of there and concentrate on that wreck we call an economy.

Unfortunately, though, a lull in U.S. deaths doesn't mean much. Attacks go down every time the U.S. has a "crackdown" and then pick up again the moment the pressure eases. This leads, of course, to another crackdown which alienates still more Iraqis who join the attack the next time the pressure eases, leading to still another crackdown...

[adriennel]

16. the Persian Gulf War

was considered successful and BushI had very high approval ratings. He still lost ;)

[wuushew]

17. We lose by a small electoral margin

Americans can easily tolerate one death of an American solider per day. My theory predicts that the voting public is not affected by iraqi casualties and very little by American wounded. I refuse to make predictions about the effect of the military vote and the votes from their families. Unless military personelle votes are unusually concentrated in say a state like Florida the overall effect will be too dilluted. One or two helicopter/transport "accidents" in the course of a month or two would cost him 5-7 points in the polls.

On matters of the ecomony, everything except job growth is improving which is a situation which has never occured in this manner. That having been said I don't think people quite know what to make of it. It is often said that if the Great Depression happened today there would be violence and rioting. People in the actual Great Depression were too shell shocked to be angry.

The stock market, EXTREMELY low interest rates and continued strong housing construction are all factors which historically should lead one to believe that ecomony is on the rebound. The long term fundamentals are not good for the nation but it is not rational to expect the ecomony to sour without reason before the 2004 election. The economic cycle is following historical patterns and it has been a long three year recovery one would expect after the size of the 1990's bubble. Bush will say that the improving economy will bring jobs. This will be true but the overall rate of job creation will not be adequate. People will only realize the change in the American economy after a period of strong positive growth without job creation. The realization will come too late however much like NAFTA which took 5+ years to vindicate Perot's ideas in the minds of the public.

Not only these important two factors but the conservative stance on things like religion and civil/gay rights will come into play. As long as Bush does not bend futher backwards to appease the religious right he will not lose ground on his current stances.


Right now as of the end of 2003 I think we wil be lucky to earn all 260 electoral votes we would have today. Unless you can guarantee the strong turnout that dems had in several swing states the outlook for 2004 is not good. The substantial incumbency factor alone should give him a comfortable cushion. One could hope for a state such as Ohio to go Dem, but how many people actually work in modern steel production? surely unemployeed retailers, merchants, and those dependant on cheap steel outweighth the smaller group of vocal and pissed off union workers.

[Silverhair]

22. A logical, rational response.

That is prety much how I see it too. What would be our best damage control?

[Warren Stuart]

18. Power corrupts

Everytime. As soon as power is transferred back to the Iraqi's then the various factions will demand more than their fair share of the pie, everyone will feel cheated.

This in turn will lead to instability and the vicious cycle resumes.

It may very well be possible that right now the situation is at its best state it's going to be in for a long time. The situation will improve when ethnic differences don't matter anymore. Short of ethnic cleansing, this ain't gonna happen.

[Silverhair]

23. Yes, any stability there is short term. But what if he gets it

to last for a few months before it falls apart?

[ThomC]

19. Keep pounding the street with "Bush Knew"

With that message Iraq won't matter nor will the economy.

[Silverhair]

24. Are you talking about LIHOP? It will be easily shot down as

a crazy conspiracy theory.

[Frank Rose]

27. War, economy, civil rights

I hope the war ends early and our kids get to come home, gw be a hero or not. However, and theres always a however, gw wrecked the economy, jeopardized civil rights, and tore up 2 countries so far, and read a book during the worst failure of US intel. If he fixes everything he's broke, we aren't supposed to feel good about it. There's no progress in just fixing any of what we've lost. Being a progressive is about progress. Also if we win the peace, and all goes well, we've still lost 500+ friends, sons, and daughters. he can't put them back.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

28. even if bush gets bin laden ..the iraq war was still WRONG!!!!

a Republican team leader who hopes we all will have a new beginning this holiday season and reject "Peace on Earth" and other LIEberal propaganda.....i love bob boudelang

[NNN0LHI]

29. You lost me at "...as they attack terrorist cells"?

Do you feel a bit disingenuous using the term terrorists to describe the Iraqis who for whatever reason want us to leave their country? After all it is their country we have invaded. This is not just a case of simple semantics either. This goes well beyond semantics. I actually fear that some of us may be losing touch with reality.

Don

[ElsewheresDaughter]

32. they are NOT "terrorist cells" they are patriots of iraq defending against

invaders!!!
Don i agree with you 100%

[Demeter]

30. THINGS ARE NOT GETTING BETTER

And there is no mechanism that will make this dire situation change anytime soon.

"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging"

This is a principle that the GOP doesn't understand. For every bill, directive and order that undermines yet another fraction of the US and world economies and/or the US Constitution, for every family that suffers loss, the GOP big plan is undermined.

The pain level is at 40% at least, after being down to maybe 10-15% during Clinton's Presidency. And the process is accelerating.

The stock market isn't going to stay up, the interest rates aren't going to stay down, and the casualties aren't going to stop. Joe Sixpack will find he can't afford beer anymore and get off his ass and vote for change.

And by pulling Saddam out of a hat

(9 months to find this guy--but then, if a rookie cop hadn't blown the game, Rudolph would be still hiding in the Appalachians-more than 5 years later)

for a little extra Christmas boost, means one less PR spin for the other side before the election. There are only so many rabbits in the hat, and there is a lot of public skepticism about this one. It will be a lot greater about the next.

All hat and no cattle--people catch on.

[West Coast Democrat]

31. But little has gone well so far in Iraq

so how will eventual improvement of the situation somehow undo all of the hardship and expansion of the deficit? We all know there are no WMDs and that Saddam was not an imminent threat--so none of this was worth it.