And, of course, Iraq

Iraq sets a new trap for Democrats
By Clive Crook
Published: November 25 2007 18:37 Last updated: November 25 2007 18:37
Security in Iraq has improved of late. Violence is down by about half from its peak. Victory, whatever that means, is nowhere in sight, to be sure. Progress, welcome as it may be, must be seen in context – and the broader picture is still too depressing to contemplate. Nonetheless, the facts on the ground have shifted and this has implications for US policy and politics alike.
In September in this space I criticised America’s wishful thinking on both sides of the Iraq debate. I said the administration was wrong to think that the war could be won – and their critics wrong to think that rapid withdrawal would not make matters worse. The surge had failed, I said, because its goal was not a temporary curbing of violence but a political breakthrough, and of that there was no sign. Policy needed to focus on the modest and inglorious goal of staying engaged and limiting the damage.
This still seems right – but the improvement on the ground looks like more than a downward blip in the violence. There is no sign of a grand political settlement, but uneasy local and regional accommodations do seem to be forming. For whatever reason – the addition of American force, the improvement in US strategy, exhaustion among the combatants, the movement of refugees and the degree of ethnic cleansing already achieved – the situation has improved more than I expected. Needless to say, it is all very fragile. A sudden reversal is easy to imagine. The recent level of violence, though diminished, is still intolerably high. Nonetheless, calculations about US politics and policy must acknowledge that things, for the moment at least, have changed.
Doubtless fearing some spectacular setback, and mindful of the self-inflicted injury of “Mission Accomplished”, the administration is receiving the news cautiously. That is wise – and not just because everything could still go bad. If the surge has made such a difference, one wants to know why the policy was not tried until 2007, four years into the war. John McCain  and, for that matter Hillary Clinton, both called for bigger deployments much earlier. They were right. Moreover, even if things continue to improve, the White House cannot plausibly claim vindication in embarking on this war in the first place: the costs already endured are too great. The administration presumably understands this, even if it cannot acknowledge it.
The big question is whether the improving security now speeds America’s exit from Iraq, or strengthens its commitment to stay. You can argue it both ways. Lower levels of violence give cover for a withdrawal of troops without seeming to betray Iraqi victims of the war. Alternatively, diminishing violence shows that larger forces were needed – at the very least, it undermines the claim that America’s presence is making things worse – and thus lends support to the view that America should stay until the job is done. Pushing the same way, improved security lessens the American electorate’s opposition to staying engaged: losing a war, not fighting one, is what the country cannot tolerate. As the news from Iraq has improved (and as news on the economy has worsened), the war has begun to slip down the list of issues that voters say most concern them.
The gruelling option I reluctantly advocated before – a large continuing military commitment, in support of more modest goals – looks a little more feasible. Without delay, it needs to be supplemented with efforts to restore and improve Iraq’s economy. Electricity supplies have reportedly improved, but provision of water and sewerage has not. The health and education systems are in disarray. One in three Iraqis is unemployed. If the improvement in security persists, it offers an opportunity to begin addressing these issues. The aim should be to capitalise on Iraqis’ perception that their situation is at last improving.
The better news, though, poses a challenge for Democrats as the election approaches. Opposition to the war has been their chief theme. This still commands broad and strong support, of course, but the intensity could continue to fade. Republicans will seek opportunities to accuse Democrats of wanting the US to fail, or of wishing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory – and those charges will acquire some force if the view that the surge has worked takes hold. For Democrats, even putting the recent fall in violence in its correct context poses a political risk, because it can be portrayed as failing to recognise the military’s efforts and achievements. If the Republican presidential contenders have any sense, they will tread very carefully here – while hoping that Democrats fall into the trap and helping them to if the opportunity presents itself.
Up to now, Democrats have been stinting in their recognition that the situation in Iraq has improved: “Yes, violence is down a bit, but . . .” That is the wrong posture. They need to celebrate the success, as long as it lasts, as enthusiastically as the Republicans. They also need to stop harrying the administration with symbolic war-funding measures demanding a timetable for rapid withdrawal, as though nothing has changed. This would take little away from their larger valid criticisms of the war and of its conduct until very recently. And it is not as though Iraq is all the Democrats have going for them in this election – they are on to a winner with healthcare. Any suspicion that they are rooting for defeat in Iraq could sink them.
Send your comments to clive.crook@gmail.com
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
// Do not remove comment