Published on FOXNews.com on May 2, 2008.
Bill O’Reilly asked Hillary Clinton the key question about the war in Iraq: What happens if we pull out and the Iranians move in? She talked around the issue, but never gave a convincing answer to O’Reilly’s question. She said she would replace force with diplomacy. But, as Frederick the Great said, “Diplomacy without force is like music without instruments.” If our troops are long gone from Iraq, the Iranians will snub our diplomacy and laugh at our entireties. They will add Iraq to their other trophies in the region: Syria, Lebanon and Gaza.
Hillary’s inability to answer O’Reilly’s question reveals a larger flaw in the Democratic arguments as the election approaches. Obama will be the Democratic nominee (take that to the bank). How will the Iraq War play in the race? On the surface, it would appear to be a disaster for the Republicans. With American deaths now over the 4,000 mark and the seriously wounded at around 15,000, we are sick and tired of this war. It has destroyed George W. Bush and could well do the same to John McCain.
But maybe not. McCain’s position is simple: win in Iraq. The experience and the success of the past year indicate that it may be quite possible to do so. But, whatever you may think of it, his is a simple solution.
What do the Democrats propose? Obama and Hillary both want to pull out as soon as technically feasible. OK. But what happens if Iran moves into the vacuum and takes over Iraq? And what if Al Qaeda takes advantage of the American absence and sets up a permanent base and sanctuary in Iraq, beyond our reach — a situation akin to the Taliban in Afghanistan where they could develop the capacity to hit us on 9-11 in their privileged, protected home territory? And what if hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who used to work with us start to be killed as happened when we pulled out of Vietnam? And what if the Iraqi oil falls into Iranian hands, sending the price even higher? And what if … The list goes on.
Obama really has no answer for these questions. Once he pulls out of Iraq, it will be politically impossible to go back in. Iran and Al Qaeda both realize this just as North Vietnam knew it when they negotiated an end to American troop presence in the South. In the context of an election debate, Obama is going to look weak and confused and without a clue as he tries to address these “what ifs.” Americans will sense the uncertain hand on the helm and will begin to second guess their decisions and move toward McCain.
If, by some chance, Hillary is the nominee, then the same problem will land in her lap and she showed in trying to parry O’Reilly’s thrust, that she won’t be any better at answering the doubts than Obama would be.
The truth is that the Democrats are cashing in on a mindless impatience with Iraq and an unwillingness to think through the consequences of pulling out. They are capitalizing on an emotional “no” in reaction to the war. But when the alternatives are carefully explained and examined, as they will be in a presidential debate, they are not going to embrace the answers Obama or Hillary will have to the “what ifs.” They will see the Democratic position as extremist and unworkable and will come to see the Democratic candidate who is pushing them as unprepared and unrealistic. If the candidate is Obama, their concerns will resonate with their perception that he is inexperienced and doesn’t know his way around foreign policy. This will raise more and more doubts about his ability to lead us in a time of crisis.
This unholy mess in Iraq, which has almost destroyed the Republican party and has destroyed the Bush presidency, may yet rebound and work against the Democrats in the election this year.
 |
Comments
Only subscribers to Dick Morris' '08 Play-By-Play may post comments. You must be logged in to post a comment.
[…] Read Full Story at Dickmorris.com. […]
Thank you Dick. Someone is finally shining a light on the failure that will occur if we see the answer to Iraq as some knee jerk reaction to the latest events, polls in the US or worse yet simply political ideology. It was a knee jerk reaction by Bush to a horrific terrorist attack, unguided by a well thought out foreign policy strategy and without any thought of consequences to the economy or a viable US energy policy that got us into this mess. Not to say a lack of understanding that attacking Iraq would accomplish nothing positive with respect to curtailing terrorism. Watching Obama and Clinton what I see are footsteps along the same path only reacting to the “we must get out” political/ideological expediency of this election year. I hope that as we go from here to November more people ask the questions about how our future actions in Iraq will fit within a broader foreign policy framework for the middle east and the rest of the world, how these proposed actions will impact an oil/dependence strategy and how all of this will affect American jobs and the future properity of the country. Questions we should have asked of little Bush.
Great point Dick. Americans tend to want to tie the proverbial yellow ribbon when asked. As much as they think the war was a strategic mistake and an overall failure, they understand McCain’s simple logic: win, or at least try and die hard in order to deter foes and maintain military credibility.
This argumentation paints a black and white choice: win or retreat. The Democrats have a much tougher challenge. The grim logic of leaving is that victory cannot be achieved and that if we stay and fight for another 5 or 10 years, we’ll just waste blood and treasure. When we ultimately do leave, perhaps after some negotiated peace or something like Vietnamization, the government we have established will fall. Just like the South Vietnam gov’t fell to the Communists, our propped up Iraqi gov’t has no chance of surviving once we leave. Our flaw in entering was a failure of premise: Democracy cannot be imposed by an external force because the gov’t will never have legitimacy among the local people - it will be seen as a U.S. puppet regime. We had the same problem in Iran when we propped up the Shah. Eventually he fell to Khomeni and the Revolution.
If we pull out tomorrow and Iran moves in, or some other new reality materializes that is bad for U.S. interests, the argument is that this kind of thing is unavoidable. That we’ve already lost and so - in the words of Wall Street traders - “your first loss is your best loss” Don’t hang around with a loser, get out. Don’t throw good money after bad…
History may show that this is the right course of action. But how the hec can Dems find a way to sell it to the American people? Kerry couldn’t. No anti-War Vietnam-era candidates could. And Obama will have a very hard time.
One of the great failures of the Bush administration is in allowing the post war occupation to be characterized as part of the Iraq War. When people are killed in Detroit, LA, or Washington, DC, we don’t talk of those as war related casulties.
But in Iraq, we invade, we defeat the Iraqi army, we kill or capture the enemy government, we hang Saddam, we install a new government, we have fair elections, print money, install a legislature, encourage them to write a constitution, etc, etc, etc… BUT… We haven’t won the war?!?! What does it take to win a war?
With the US Civil War, things weren’t completely peaceful for decades. But they still considered the war over in 1865. I bet there are confederate insurgents operating today. The yankee army hasn’t left yet, either.
The Iraq war was over years ago, and Saddam isn’t coming back. It is about time we reflect that fact in public discourse.
Dick, You gave a good suggestion to Bill O’Reilly where he requested your input on what to ask John McCain. You said ask if McCain favors giving health coverage to illegal immigrants (well over 12 million persons). If McCain does favor this, it will be a great magnet for many more really ill people to invade our country.
Another pressing budget buster is the non-existent Social Security trust fund. In 2017, tax revenue will be needed to pay a good part of the benefits. If benefits are given to people who paid into the system while they were here illegally this will be much worse. Tax money may be needed in 2014.
Illegal aliens have used other persons SS #s, either stolen identities or the numbers of dead people. Does McCain want the government to have to renege on some SS benefits for the benefit of those who used fraud?
Since there are no real SS bonds there would be no defaulting on some of the U.S. debt if the government did renege on some benefits. The worse thing would be to honor the Bush sponsored Mexican Totalization Agreement. Then SS would have to pay benefits to former Illegals for any retirement taxes which the corrupt Mexican government said were paid down there.
O’Reilly was too kind with his questioning…….of course, Hillary only answered the question with a question. War is a big business for those who are not putting their lives on the line everyday. The only thing that Iran and Iraq understand are the “power of the sword.” Somehow the conflict in the middle east is of world concern, however, it is the good old USA that is the only one physically there. This is another contemporary Vietnam, and we know what happen to Vietnam. If we (USA) is going to do it then do it right. It is always better to ask for forgiveness than permission. Diplomacy is a worthless word enacted by worthless people who have no spine or huspta. Strike hard the first time and worry about the collateral later.
[…] He asks: “But what happens if Iran moves into the vacuum and takes over Iraq? And what if Al Qaeda takes advantage of the American absence and sets up a permanent base and sanctuary in Iraq, beyond our reach — a situation akin to the Taliban in Afghanistan where they could develop the capacity to hit us on 9-11 in their privileged, protected home territory? And what if hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who used to work with us start to be killed as happened when we pulled out of Vietnam? And what if the Iraqi oil falls into Iranian hands, sending the price even higher? And what if … The list goes on.” […]