War Politics: Why the Democratic Party Leadership
is Right to Play Politics with the War in Iraq
By Matthew Lahm

Before even beginning, you must know that I braved
New York on that freezing cold day in February, 2003
to protest this war before it even started. I went to join
the tens of millions of people around the world who knew,
that invading Iraq was a really stupid idea. Like many of
you, I want this war ended as quickly as possible and I
understand the magnitude of irreparable damage that our
country and the world endure every day that it continues.
With that being said, I would like to make the argument
for why the Democratic Party leaders cannot and should
not make any rash attempts to end this war now. If you
are a progressive like me, and you just groaned in disgust
because of what you just read, I ask you to not dismiss
my ideas prematurely. I assure you that if you would
indulge me with your attention, I will present a compelling
argument and logical that supports the conclusion that
playing politics with the Iraq war is the best thing we could
be doing under the present circumstances. If you really
want a solution in the Middle East that will lead  to a lasting
peace, I believe that our current positions have the greatest
chance of achieving our goal: ending the war.

Before criticizing, it is noteworthy that the radical anti-war
wing of the Democratic Party was a powerful force behind
the election victories in 2006.  And, I oppose the war as
well. Their passion and commitment spearheaded the
issue of the war in the elections and made great
contributions to the political narrative. However, this
group’s influence has been a mixed blessing since the
elections. Their presence has not been without dis-
advantages, and in some cases; they have been
more of a liability to the party than a benefit.

There has been a trend of confrontational between anti-
war radicals and Democratic representatives since the
2006 elections. Congressman Rham Emanuel had a
press conference that was crashed by Cindy Sheehan
and other anti-war activists even before the 110th Congress
was sworn in. This short-sighted aim to end the war
quickly not only works against their interests, but it also
harms the interests of the party and the country. Not only
do I believe that this wing of the party risks everything by
demanding immediate results, I also believe that their
belligerence on this matter marginalizes them. It isn’t any
wonder that the party leadership keeps them at arms
length considering that they were faithlessly criticizing
them even before they took office?

Such behavior is not in any way a gesture of loyalty
towards somebody who you want to listen to you. If you
were an elected official, you would not take too kindly to
people who complained about you before you even started
your job. I contend that the members of this group are not
looking at the big picture and that they are demonstrating
a limited knowledge of American politics.

If people really want to end the war, they would
understand that the war and the 2008 election are intrinsically
connected. If we lose the election, we will also lose the war.
The fighting in Iraq is only half of the war. The other half is
in Washington D.C. and it is a political war. What will happen
in Iraq is directly connected to what happens in Washington,
and if we lose in Washington, we will lose in Iraq as well.
This is why I believe it is important that we are not too quick
to criticize or condemn the leadership of the Democratic
Party for playing politics with this war.

Everything about this war is political and the most critical
battle in this war will be fought in voting booths in November,
2008. In this battle, the enemy is the Republican Party and
their alliances with big oil and the military industrial complex.
Only by defeating them can we go on and defeat al Qaeda
and broker a political deal to stabilize Iraq. Only by winning
the White House and a larger majority in Congress can we
have the leadership that is necessary to end this war correctly.
Until we understand that the outcome of this war is completely
dependent on the outcome of the 2008 elections, we cannot
understand the scope of this war and the nature of the
enemy we face.

This brings to light the ramifications of the 2006
elections and the new balance of power in Washington.
2006 was the warm-up for 2008, and understanding 2006
is the first sobriety test of our current situation. We are not
in power as a result of the 2006 elections. “In power” is a
popular phrase we hear on cable news shows but it simply
isn’t accurate when describing the Democratic Majority.
What those elections really meant is that we now have
some power and the Republicans have less power. For
all intents and purposes, the government went from one
party rule to being evenly balanced. We have Congress,
they have the White House and the Supreme Court is
split down the middle.

Shortly after being sworn in, the reality set in that
things would not run as smoothly as some people thought.
We saw quickly that Senator McConnell and the Republican
Minority in the Senate could easily block bills from being
voted on by use of the filibuster. It took weeks to even
have a debate on Iraq in the Senate because we only
have a one seat majority and that one seat happens to
be Senator Johnson who is still recovering from a brain
aneurysm. So as of right now, we technically don’t even
have a majority which means that President Bush can
laugh from on high knowing that he can veto whatever
he wants and that the Democrats will never get the 2/3
majority needed to override it. This is quite a difficult
position especially when as the majority party in congress,
we don’t even have a majority in one of the houses and
yet the expectations for results have fallen conveniently
on the Democratic Party’s shoulders anyway.

This dynamic has the Democrats in a very precarious
game of cat and mouse leading up to the 2008 elections.
If the game is lost, forget about any chance of this war
ending. In fact, count on it expanding in ways that defy
even our worst nightmares. This, in essence, explains
why we cannot take the bait that the Republicans are
dangling in front of our faces. Considering public opinion
and the current state of things, they would love any
opportunity they can have to share the responsibility of
Iraq’s failure with us. We cannot, under any circumstances,
let them make this our war. We cannot risk any exploitable,
negative major development in Iraq to be blamed on us.
This is why cutting funding is not an option. Cutting funding
with this President in office could lead to a blood bath for
our troops because even if we cut off the funds, we cannot
count on his responsibility to act accordingly. Furthermore,
there is too high of a likelihood that his administration
would spin this effectively against us. As long as Bush is
President, this must stay his war and the Democratic
leadership is very shrewd in not trusting the 68% anti-war
majority numbers showing up in the polls.

There are some who hate the war because it’s immoral,
and then there are others who hate it because we are
losing. We should place no faith whatsoever in the latter
group because they will simply hate the party more
responsible for our failure. In the end, if that party happens
to be us, we may as well just hand the Republicans
a victory in 2008, thereby guaranteeing them a return
to the White House with the risk of once again, of losing
our majorities in Congress. That will assure us a bigger
war with no end in sight because, under those
circumstances, they will see their return to domination
as a mandate to go even further with their objectives in
the Middle East.

The experts are saying that Iraq will really disintegrate
into chaos (worse than now) the day we leave, whether
that is in a week or a year or five years. We are simply
keeping a lid on a boiling pot, and it doesn’t matter how
long we hold that lid down. It will boil over the minute we
leave and if this happens while George Bush is President,
we risk an onslaught of propaganda that could potentially
decapitate the party if the pull-out was against his will.
Do any of us really believe that the Republican scheme
machine is dead just because they lost an election in
2006?

The animal is not dead, it’s just wounded and it can
still strike if we turn our backs on it. An excellent example
of what the Republican political machine can still do is
the story of Al Gore’s electric bill that broke right after
the won the Oscar. That story was ready like a horse in
a starting gate with a red hot poker inches from its ass.
The minute they announced his name for the award, that
horse was off and running like a bat out of hell. I did a
Google search the next day and the topic listed in 432
news articles nationwide within 36 hours. If only Al had
just said “looks like somebody is afraid I am going to run
for President” and walked away with a grin and a nod, it
would have put this whole thing into perspective. Obviously,
that whole story was planned as a smear campaign. It
didn’t matter that his high bill is explained by the fact that
he pays a lot more because some of it comes from wind
power or that its illegal in his town to install solar panels.
None of that matters because in the end, having a
negative thought about Al Gore was the end goal to
try to squelch his growing popularity.

This story demonstrates how easily the right-wing media
can shift into high gear and spin any story effectively if
we give them the chance. Let’s face it, it worked with
Al Gore. I am writing about it now which means people
still remember it. I’ll bet you remember it. In fact, I know
progressive people who turned away from him because
of that story. They wanted to make sure that the public
didn’t have long to dwell on Gore’s Oscar and they
succeeded. If they can do that with Al Gore’s electric bill,
imagine what they could do with an even bigger story like
a battle in Baghdad that results in the death of 2000 people
in a weekend. What if the Republican leadership tied it to
us because we ended the war by cutting off funding and
as a result of the heightened conflict, petroleum markets
spiked and gas went up to $5 a gallon for regular?

Imagine the new political trend that would celebrate
George W. Bush’s resolve to keep going with an
unpopular policy even as members of his own party
started deserting him because he knew that staying the
course was the right idea. Are you nauseous yet? Well,
you should be.

Ending the war depends on the outcome of the 2008
elections. I really hate the idea that more American
soldiers will die because of how we have to play this
political game with this war however, it is the lesser of
two evils in the end. We have to try to minimize the
deaths of more soldiers and make sure that there is
no question in the minds of the American public when
we walk into voting booths in November, 2008 that
this is the Republican’s and George W. Bush’s war.
He has demonstrated such irresponsibility and
incompetence in his management of the war and used
such venomous rhetoric against his political opponents
that cutting off funding while he is in office is a terrible
risk we cannot afford to take. The Republican Party in
their one-party rule has had a lot of time to create
alliances that can still be used to their advantage.

There are many  White House Press Corp members
who would be happy to help politicize this in exchange
for some high-level access. We should trust the prudence
and wisdom of our party leaders and accept that they
know infinitely more than we do about the inner workings
of the politics of this war. We need to be patient and,
most of all, we need to understand that playing politics
with this war is exactly what we need to be doing as
long as things stay as they are. Of course major
changes could be over the horizon, and when that
happens, we can obviously rethink our points of view.
However, until that happens and this dynamic remains
unchanged, we must stick to our guns and keep our
eyes on the target: winning in 2008 and ending the war
for good.  If we don’t, many more will die in the end, and
the Iraq war will push America further towards oblivion.

© Matthew Lahm 2007