2 Legit 2 Quit: Why Bush's Surge Failed and Why Dems Are At Risk in '08

While its often fun (or at least diverting) to follow the minutiae of this or that daily political controversy, it sometimes helps to take a step back and judge things by first principles. With this in mind, let's have a look at two hot topics-- Bush's Surge™ in Iraq and Democrat's chances in '08-- under the simple light of basic political legitimacy.

Legitimacy In Iraq

The premise of Fred Kagan's Bush's plan for The Surge™ was that shifting the US mission from training to enforcement by putting more US troops in Iraqi neighborhoods 24/7 would provide the Iraqi government with enough "breathing room" to make real political progress. There's only one problem: it could never work. Every time US soldiers step in at the street level to impose order it only undermines the legitimacy of the Iraqi government.

The reason is simple: The US military do not take their orders from the Iraqis and everyone knows it. Consequently, the force that US troops bring to bear is not an extension of the Iraqi government's power and it therefore does nothing to shore up the Iraqi government's legitimate claim to govern. In fact, it does just the opposite; it highlights its weakness by underlining the reality that the central government cannot fulfill even the most basic task of governance-- maintaining civil order-- without foreign help.

As an American, what would your opinion be of a US administration that needed, say, Canadian Mounties, or Chinese infantry to keep order on the streets of the US? How much trust would you have in the pronouncements of the president under those conditions? How much faith would you have that the government could follow through on its claims? Its foolish to imagine that the average Iraqi's opinion of a central government that requires US troops to maintain order would be any different.

Every car stopped at a US-manned checkpoint, every door kicked in by US forces, every armed US patrol that rumbles through the streets of Baghdad only serves to erode the legitimacy of the Iraqi government. The basic premise of The Surge™-- that making US troops more active and visible in Iraqi neighborhoods would somehow strengthen the Iraqi government enough to pursue political reconciliation-- was doomed from the start. The more The Surge™ succeeds in its short-term goal (US troops impose order) the more it ensures that its long-term goal (strengthening the Iraqi government) can never be reached. It is, and ever was, a naive and counterproductive PowerPoint-warrior fantasy that totally ignores the realities of power and the nature of political legitimacy.

Legitimacy On The Hill

In 2006, Democrats explicitly ran on a platform of changing the course in Iraq, ending Congressional corruption, and restoring our Constitutional protections and the rule of law. The American people listened. Voters rose up in vast number throughout the country to throw the GOP's rubber stamp Congress out on its ear. They-- we-- gave Democrats a chance to prove that they could make their ideas stick; that they could provide a legitimate alternative to the radical ideology and institutionalized corruption that defines the modern GOP.

Sadly, almost a year later, we voters have little to show for our congressional revolution. On their three key platform planks-- Iraq, corruption, and restoring our constitution-- Hill Dems have delivered not much more than an endless cycle of excuses and, worse, outright reversal. There have certainly been many improvements under the new majority, but on those issues in particular-- issues which the Dems themselves chose to run on-- they are proving over and over that they lack the coherence and legitimacy to govern.

Regular readers and contributers to Daily Kos generally understand the complexities of the current political climate. We're aware that responsible governance is never easy under the best conditions and we are sympathetic to the realities of trying to get things done with slim majorities that Democrats hold in both chambers of Congress. However, none of that really matters when it comes to Hill Dems proving their legitimacy to hold power.

Again, legitimacy derives from an entity's ability to make its pronouncements stick; to back up its claims; to keep its promises. Given our basic commitment to diversity of thought and culture, there will always be someone, or some faction, in the Democratic caucus who disagrees with this or that proposal. Its just unavoidable. But when a party identifies itself as closely with a series of proposals-- as Dems did in 2006 on the issues of Iraq, corruption, and constitutional restoration-- those are the benchmarks by which its legitimacy will be judged, and on those key issues, the caucus must hang together.

The conventional wisdom among some powerful Hill Dems is that Bush and the GOP generally are doing a fine enough job of destroying themselves and it would be unwise to pick fights that open Democrats to charges of being "soft on terror" (whatever that means). They would rather fritter about the margins and maybe take on the heavier lifting of undoing Bush's radicalism once the next president is in office; when no one is looking. Unfortunately, as with Kagan's Surge™ plan for Iraqi, this is a fatally flawed strategy that ensures that any short-term gains come at the price of undermining the longer-term goals.

Yes, by voting with the GOP on that despicable FISA bill the Blue Dogs/Bush Dogs  blunted attacks from the right during members' time in their districts. But that month-long "win" came at the price of undermining Dems' stated, longer-term goal of restoring our nation's constitutional protections.

Those Blue Dogs/Bush Dogs who imagine that playing go-along-to-get-along on the issues of Iraq, corruption, and constitutional restoration will get them an easier reelection in 2008 must hear-- both from the Party leadership, and from their constituents-- that their plan is flawed and counterproductive. Democrats-- all Democrats will be judged by the current Congress's willingness and ability to fight to make the Party's pronouncements "stick" on those issues. Anything less than no-holds-barred unified action on those issues only serves to undermine the legitimacy of the Democratic Party and directly weakens Dem's chances to keep their Congressional majority (and pick up the presidency) in 2008.