President Bush and Vice President Cheney cannot make the case that their Iraq policies have succeeded, so they are doing one thing they do very well: taking a serious argument over the future of American foreign policy and turning it into a petty partisan squabble.
This is not really an argument over the "surge" of troops into Iraq. It is a fight over whether we want to make an open-ended commitment to keeping combat forces in Iraq for many years or whether we anticipate pulling most of them out within a year or two.
With some in the loyal opposition changing their positions on the war over the years to suit the polls and election cycles, this accusation about who is responsible for turning this into a partisan political squaggle is rich (rising even to Frank Rich standards). When our Congress declared war on Iraq and now pretends this is the president's war, don't talk to me about political posturing. When the loyal opposition boasts of the gains they will make in 2008 over the war, a little silence on this partisanship question would be in order.
As for the debate really being an open-ended Ameircan commitment versus pulling most of our troops out in a year or two, I must respectfully disagree. This is a false choice and the wrong question.
We all know that our commitment is not open-ended. Our new Congressional leadership has made it clear we will go home some day soon. And the Left's nonstop yapping over the last four years has clearly sent the message that our commitment is not open ended.
The real debate is whether we have the resolve to win a war that our Congress declared (and yes, Congress did declare war with an authorization to use military force--we don't do declarations of war for a very practical reason). Do we fight to win a legal war? Or do we pretend we can end the war with no consequences by just wishing our enemies will call the whole thing off? This is the serious question at hand.
Oh, and our policies are succeeding in Iraq, notwithstanding Dionne's dubious judgment. And they have been for some time. But if you assert defeat as a given fact as Dionne does, it makes it easier to ignore the whole serious victory or defeat debate.
I don't know if Dionne is deliberately obscuring what the real debate is or whether he is simply unaware. I suspect the former.
E. J. Dionne is a worthless partisan hack. I don't have a nicer way of putting this. He is probably a decent and intelligent man, but I've long since despaired of getting an honest portrayal of events from him if President Bush is even remotely involved. I gave up on his NPR blathering because the contrast of David Brooks trying to be even-handed (though he represented the Right) while Dionne would respond as a full Left Operative was too much. Indeed, it was sickening.
It was not always thus. I seem to remember he once was a reasonable writer though I can't say he persuaded me on much. But I could read him without spewing my coffee. Perhaps as 2009 passes, Dionne's Bush Derangement Syndrome will go into remission and he will become readable again. I once did read his work, after all.
