Here’s an excerpt from a story running in Military.com’s headlines today:
Now that violence in Iraq is abating and other issues are consuming more of the presidential debates, political activists are wondering if the war will prove to be the defining issue that Democrats have long assumed.
Some Democrats say frustrated voters have given up on altering President Bush’s handling of the war, and will make Republicans pay in 2008. Others say Democratic candidates are stubbornly and dangerously out of step with an improving situation, and their most promising campaign issue may prove far less potent by next November.
Polls show clearly that most Americans have soured on the war, causing Bush’s second-term approval ratings to plummet as congressional Republicans anxiously eye the next election. But it’s less clear how many voters are so unalterably angry that they cannot be influenced by other campaign issues, assuming Iraq does not take another dramatic turn for the worse.
While the Iraq situation is somewhat fluid, the top Democratic presidential contenders are locked in their Iraq-is-a-disaster message because anti-war voters play such a huge role in the party’s primaries, several politicians said. It’s possible the message will sound a bit off-key by mid-2008.
“The Democratic Party has become emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq — reluctant to acknowledge the progress our troops are now achieving,” said Sen. Joe Lieberman, a hawkish independent from Connecticut who was the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee in 2000. “If Democrats don’t take off their ideological and partisan blinders,” he said, “they risk compromising our national security and losing next year’s election.”
So I’m reading this along with stories like this one suggesting we’ve turned a corner of sorts in Iraq and I’m wondering whether the war will ultimately be the deciding issue of the 2008 election.
What do you think?
–Ward
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
I can’t wait for every “Bushie” on this board to label this site as being left winged for bringing this issue up. It will be fun to watch this one for the next few days! But to answer the question…No the war won’t be the primary issue. The pendulum has swung back to the working man’s pocketbook. Gas prices, the falling dollar and the mortgage crisis will be the new focus of the next election.
hey Ward…
my first thought was “no,Iran strike possibility and resultant Gas prices”……then came to comments, and saw Solomon had it nailed already.
americans vote their pocketbook
well as for bushies i dont think hes been as horible a president as some (slick willy for one)oh yea speaking of slick willy thank him for falling dollar as he gave the chinese the ability to call us to heel without resorting to war threw our pocket books
as for the war in iraq(why does everyone for get about the war in afganistain) were realy winning thanks to the serg it looks like. But for those of you who are afraid this might help the president to not feel he is the devil dont worry the wusses in congress will make sure we fail by not giving the military the money it needs. They are already pointing to malikis government and saying look it hasent passed any benchmarks(neither has the democratic controlled congress passed its 100hr benchmark after how many days) BUT THE PEOPLE ARE THE ONES YOU HAVE TO CHANGE AND THEY HAVE! They have gotten tired of the bull crap they put up with everyday ppls are coming back from syria and jordan and every other state because were finaly winning again
remember were trying to start up a democraticaly elected state not a autocracy if the people can change the country has a chance and if maliki is sucking at his job….well thats what elections are for
Aren’t you guys a little too quick?Sure there’s some positive results, but it’s far too early too claim victory.
The “surge” will be finished in march 2008.Then if the situation continue too improve, we will have some very good news.But until then, I would stay cautious.
As far as hoe long it takes to establish a democracy, S Korea didn’t have one until the mid 1980′s. From the Korean war until then it was ruled by a series of military dictatorships brought into power by a continous series of coups.
During that tie, it went from on of the world’s poorest countries to the top 20 wealthiest. It is now at # 9.
I am unsure if any of us here can really say something that isn’t out of step with the common voter. If you are reading this you are an appreciator of technology and believe the US Military is a force for good.
These two main themes are out of step with most people are pushed to believe today.
From Hollywood we get a continuous stream of “Apocalypse Now” imagery. Just the other day I was watching the Bionic Woman and she helps stop the military from Gassing entire towns. No explanation is given why some people in the military would be doing this… It really is a crap show.
Technology. Most people do not get it. While they love their computer and cell phone, everything else is thrown into the “technology isn’t making us happier” (which it is) and the “we are such a wasteful society “, carbon footprint crap.
I am a big fan of efficiency and wait expectantly for a viable plug in electric car (they are getting close…).
However, there is a strong “Technology is bad” sentiment running through our society. Manufacturing is going away not just because they can make things cheaper in China and elsewhere, but because many states don’t want the “dirty factory” anymore and are running them out of town with the help of OCEA the EPA and zoning.
So what am I saying is; how are we going to know how the
Crass, you ass;
FYI, GWB had higher IQ test scores and university grades than EITHER Gore or Kerry. So if he’s a moron, they’re vegetables.
The difference between the Iraq conflict and the end of WWII is that this is just part of an ongoing struggle with the avowed and non-stop effort of political Islam to subvert and rule every country on Earth. Previously there has only been the demonized Israel as a democracy in the ME; having a functional and prosperous Iraq will a huge seachange. (Turkey is in balance; it is being steadily subverted by Islamists, including the current prime minister.) Iraq will face a major decision about whether to continue the fatal course of keeping Islam as an “official state religion” and “source of legislation”. That way lies the Pit.
As for the situation on the ground and its effects on the election, much depends on whether the MSM is successful in its continuing attempts to choke off and blank out positive information about what’s going on. But the Ds are going to get stuck with the “surrender monkey” label regardless — if there’s any justice.
I read somewhere that the Taliban controls 54% of Afghanistan & that there is a chance that they’ll be in Kabul n 2008.We did not put serious forces in Afghanistan to control & pacify it.The only NATO ally in Afghanistan with “serious” armor capabilities is Canada with their Leopard 1 tanks,BV206S APCs,& their version of Paranha GEN III Stryker vehicles.Even Germany with their puny Wiesel 1 Armored Vehicles has more armor than the U.S. in Afghanistan.We never even committed any Stryker Brigades to Afghanistan.Is it because,besides supporting “Al Qaeda”,the Taliban blew up those buddhas that we can’t work with them? We’ve never had problems supporting totalitarian regimes before,like Saudi Arabia & Pakistan for instance.While it appears that our surge is working in Iraq,Afghanistan is slipping away through our fingers.WE attacked Tora Bora & NEVER left any troops there to secure it & keep the Taliban &/or Al Qaeda from reoccupying it.
Roy Smith, could you provide a link or the publication that says the Taliban controls 54% and might be in Kabul next year? Daily Kos perhaps? Taliban website? Al Qeada website?
You do realize that to get to Kabul, they would have to defeat Nato and the US armed forces.
Mortgage crisis?
It is strange that for something that is supposed to be a major election issue, the candidates sure aren’t talking about it. That is probably because none of them have anything they plan on doing about it.
Falling Dollar?
This just shifts more jobs back to the US, boosts our own exporters, at the cost of more expensive imported goods. If you buy American, it doesn’t harm you at all. If you buy Chinese, which is where most of our crap comes from anyway, it won’t matter because China keeps their currency pegged against the dollar to keep their exports cheap.
Gas Prices?
For all that has been said about gas prices, little can be done about them. The US can weather high gas prices better than the rest of the world, because we can afford to pay more. Countries like China are much more vulnerable.
Iran?
If you refuse to attack Iran for fear of gas prices, what do you think will happen to prices once Iran gets nukes, and then the Saudis and others follow suit? How do you think a very real risk of nuclear war in the middle east will affect gas prices? The problem with opposing an attack on Iran on the grounds of gas prices is that it is very short term thinking, and consideration must be given to the long term consequences of allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons, the most immediate of which would be rapid proliferation throughout the middle east.
The message now is: “There has been no political progress, and without political progress there is nothing.”
The anti-war types in this country take their cues from their fellow anti-war types in the media, who provide them with all the talking points they need. In the case of the Iraq war, the left is not and will not eat any crow. They will stubbornly refuse to concede any rhetorical ground unless and until the Bush doctrine is 100% successful and a thriving democracy is irrefutably established in the middle east. Even if that happened, they would whine about cost, saying it was too high.
People who were not reasoned into their position, can’t be reasoned out of it. The anti-war types are opposing the war largely on the basis that the projection of US power is inherently evil and must be stopped. They see nationalism as evil and patriotism as suspect.
Kaltes
Very good rhetoric! Now back to the question at hand…do you believe that the war in Iraq will be the decisive issue of the 2008 election?
We can’t know. We can guess, but nobody will know until after the election. How will Iraq go up until ’08? Will there be a continued decrease in violence? An upswing? Dunno. And we won’t know until after its over.
http://www.presstv.ir/
detail.aspx?id=32134§ionid=351020403
Taliban controls 54% of Afghanistan
The Taliban has a stable presence in 54% of Afghanistan which puts it in grave danger of falling into Taliban hands, says a report.
The 110-page report, released on Wednesday, has been issued by The Senlis Council, a Brussels-based international policy think-tank, on the basis of what it called an exclusive research.
The Taliban controls “vast swaths of unchallenged territory” and is exercising a “significant amount of psychological control, gaining more and more political legitimacy in the minds of the Afghan people,” the report revealed.
“It is a sad indictment of the current state of Afghanistan that the question now appears to be not if the Taliban will return to Kabul, but when this will happen and in what form” and reaching the city in 2008 appears more viable than ever, it said.
The report suggested that NATO-led International Security Forces of some 40,000 troops should be doubled, and should also include forces from Muslim countries as well as NATO states which have refused to send troops to the country.
Senior British and US military commanders reportedly agree with the report in private despite their public emphasis on short-term successes against Taliban fighters.
Oh Crap,I didn’t see the “ir” at the end of the web address.That means Iran.Lets try again with the Daily telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/22/wtaliban122.xml
Taliban control half of Afghanistan, says report
The Taliban has a permanent presence in most of Afghanistan and the country is in serious danger of falling into the group’s hands, according to a report from an international think tank.
An Afghan police officer searchs an Afghan man. Taliban control half of Afghanistan, says report
An Afghan police officer searches an Afghan man, after he left the town of Musa Qala, in an area controlled by the Taliban
The Senlis Council claimed that the insurgents controlled “vast swathes of unchallenged territory” and were gaining “more and more political legitimacy in the minds of the Afghan people”.
It said that the Nato force in the country needed to be doubled to 80,000 front-line soldiers who should be allowed to pursue militants into Pakistan.
The 110-page report said that its “exclusive” research found the Taliban controlled 54 per cent of Afghanistan.
It calculated that Nato countries should contribute 2.3 soldiers per
My apolitical opinion:
Iraq/GWOT/Iran is now a side issue for most voters. Could change, but I doubt it. Generally as long as it is not a major disaster, US domestic topics are more important than international topics. Euro’s hate it, and so do I, but that is our culture.
Perceived or real negative Domestic/Economic issues are now the major concerns of voters, even though candidates really don’t talk too much about those. Why, because they can’t do a damn thing about it. “I feel your pain” is the best anyone can do, and then blame the other “guy” or the “man”.
All the Presidential Candidates are a cruel joke, so anyone who wins, will be a total failure, and very little will change. I guess Hillary is still likely to be the next President. No 21st century visionary/game changer in this group. :(
THERE IS ONLY THING THAT IS FOR SURE, and I literally bet my money on it: The US will continue to become less relevent in the world, and others, mainy China will continue to fill our decline; security, political, and especially economic.
The senlis council is full of crap. I read that news story as well and it doesn’t pass the straight face test. The taliban does not control 54% of afghanistan, that is just stupid.
We have had people claiming Afghanistan was on the verge of defeat many times, predictions of some mythical taliban offensive that would rise up and overrun coalition troops, and yet nothing of the sort has ever happened. The taliban time and time again has been beaten badly whenever they have tried to use conventional attacks, so they resorted to suicide bombers and such.
If anything, increased fighting in Pakistan will mean less resources for the taliban to devote to afghanistan.
When it comes to Afghanistan,I believe the argument is that we & our NATO allies need to invest MORE forces to it.Compared to Iraq,It seems to me that we(the U.S.) have only invested “token” forces in Afghanistan.I’m very sure that Abrams Tanks,Bradley Fighting Vehicles,& Strykers will work just as well in Afghanistan as they do in Iraq.For anybody who says that logistics wouldn’t allow for those vehicles to operate in(much less be delivered to) Afghanistan,I ask,”then how the hell did the Canadians get their Leopard 1(& as soon as they can,I’ll bet their Leopard 2A6M) tanks & Piranha GEN III Kodiak Armored Vehicles to Afghanistan?”I’m sorry,the current U.S. forces in Afghanistan are just token.We have a stronger military force wasting away in South Korea.
I’m not talking “mission creep,” I’m talking common sense.
Beware of the people who would dispute what Pat Buchanan is saying here,especially the “cakewalk” crowd criticizing Mr. Buchanan.
NEW BUCHANAN BOOK DECLARES ‘END OF AMERICA’
Sun Nov 25 2007 20:40:15 ET
**Exclusive**
“America is coming apart, decomposing, and…the likelihood of her survival as one nation…is improbable — and impossible if America continues on her current course,” declares Pat Buchanan. “For we are on a path to national suicide.”
The best-selling author and former presidential candidate is on the eve of launching his new epic book: DAY OF RECKONING: HOW HUBRIS, IDEOLOGY AND GREED ARE TEARING AMERICA APART.
This time, Buchanan goes all the way:
“America is in an existential crisis from which the nation may not survive.”
The U.S. Army is breaking and is too small to meet America
Roy,
Why do you post entire articles on here instead of just the links and the author’s name?
Also, the question was about the war in Iraq which happens to be the issue. Most Americans and the rest of the world have no issue with our involvement in Afghanistan, but as the writer here was trying to point out…Iraq is the 800 pound rat in the room (meaning that its dividing the nation..well maybe, most polls show that the public wants out but the Dems can’t deliver). So I don’t understand your fixation on the Afghan war. Your last bit with Buchanan I won’t even touch. Explain your line of thought on this…PLEASE!