GovernmentExecutive.com

The war in Iraq is probably the biggest single variable that will influence the outcome of the 2008 presidential and congressional elections. It is likely to be a more important factor than whom each party nominates for president or how the parties fare at candidate recruitment and fundraising. And Iraq will be a liability for Republican candidates, just as it was last year.

The 2006 election math was simple: Republican voters turned out in numbers that were slightly lower than in the previous midterm election and had only modest defections from their party; Democrats turned out in slightly greater numbers than in the previous midterm and had only modest defections. Independents swung the election by supporting Democratic candidates by an 18-point margin.

Last year's arithmetic on public attitudes toward Iraq was also quite simple: Democratic voters were very much opposed to the war; Republican voters were very supportive. Independents' opposition to it, while not as strong as Democrats', was still profound. In other words, public opinion was divided in much the way it was over the 1998 impeachment of President Clinton: Democrats were opposed, Republicans were in favor, and independents' attitudes were similar to those of Democrats.

In the months since the 2006 election, GOP members of Congress have continued to support President Bush on the war, but they are beginning to resemble long-tailed cats in a roomful of rocking chairs. Although Republicans on Capitol Hill remain steadfast in their opposition to imposing a deadline on U.S. involvement in Iraq, they seem to be busily thumbing through the thesaurus in search of synonyms for "deadline" -- some point fairly soon at which, if clear progress hasn't been made, they too will head for the exits and no longer back the war.

Looking ahead to the 2008 election, it's not hard to imagine independents favoring Democratic candidates in numbers similar to 2006. Indeed, the far bigger challenge is coming up with a plausible scenario in which Iraq is no longer a problem for the GOP and the political playing field is not tilted in favor of Democrats.

Republican congressional leaders are already sending not-so-subtle signals to the White House that their patience is wearing thin and that their willingness to serve as spear-catchers for the president on the war is waning. The fact that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz are still in their jobs, however, demonstrates that even not-so-subtle messages are often ignored by this White House.

Many observers believe that unless the troop surge unexpectedly succeeds by late summer or early fall, Republican lawmakers will begin saying forthrightly they can no longer support Bush on the war. At that point, some suspect, the president will be forced to withdraw two-thirds of the U.S. troops from Iraq and assign the rest to securing the country's borders. The remaining troops would spend a little time patrolling populated areas and protecting oil facilities but would significantly reduce their own vulnerability.

To be sure, foreign-policy experts are generally appalled by such a possibility, pronouncing it a losing proposition and unsustainable. But, so is the status quo. The difference is that the pullback scenario is a losing proposition with many troops headed home and with much lower U.S. casualty rate than the current losing proposition.

Regardless of what happens in Iraq, Bush will leave office in January 2009. The question that Republicans on Capitol Hill are asking themselves is how many of them will be forced to leave at the same time.

Don't expect to hear Republican lawmakers say, "We were wrong; Democrats were right." That's not going to happen. Instead, watch for GOP strategists to begin building a story line that the United States spent precious lives and treasure to give Iraqis a chance but that the Iraqi government never did its part -- never assumed responsibility for taking control of its own country, never made the tough decisions that building a nation requires.

It's time for Republicans to develop their own Iraq exit strategy.

COMMENTS

• Hans, touché! That was a sound volley from an evidently committed Republican. BTQ, the reference you mentioned was from a song by Dave Edmunds, not Cheech and Chong; but I will admit to a small attempt at snappy repartee when perhaps I shouldn’t have. Knowing the history of JJ in Guyana, I try to avoid both bong water AND kool-aid. Neither is in your best interest. As for anonymity, if you look real hard you will probably find my name, series, job position, and even organization somewhere in these responses; they’re out there. The current is shorter and I’ve found more conducive to the free exchange of ideas and opinions. Many GovExec readers out here feel more confident expressing themselves only if they feel safe from reprisals; particularly on sensitive political hot potatoes like this. If there are any other personality traits you wish to denigrate, please feel free to take your shots. I often take the Devil’s Advocate position to foster discussion. To be honest, I have expressed some misgivings about Slick Willie’s record. Monica’s war (MW) springs to mind. Let’s not even mention his Senatorial other-half and Whitewater-gate. Still, his personal life doesn’t interest me in the least; his accomplishments in office do. Unfortunately being a centralist and independent, I tend to be reactionary to folks who are inclined to vote only party lines, always blaming the other party for the nation’s ills when there’s plenty to go around. You are probably accustomed to such reactions. It always amazes me that Americans tout our two-party system and yet so many of them wish to eviscerate the opposition. But back to the article, it merely states what many of us (particularly independents) have come to know; that more than just Collin Powell and several generals have left the Republican Party and government service due to their inability to continue supporting a conflict that has no basis; and felt chagrin for being deceived. This article merely notes that your party members are beginning to join that august assemblage. Good luck in 2008, I think you and your party are going to need it. Tip off Posted May 16, 2007 3:58 PM
• I will handle both Molison and Tip off in one paragraph or less. On Molison’s comments the spin attributed to revisionist historians lies mostly with the less educated Democrats. The desire for a collective experience not dissimilar from the Holocaust deniers runs in the vein of “if we print it and we put it on the internet it must be true”. America is being stabbed in the back by Democrats there is no need to rewrite history the Dems are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure and a legacy of shame. Tip off you poor sad little blogger with out the courage to share your name. History (the real kind not your Teen Beat version) tells us that more often than not presidents have had affairs while in office. President Clinton transitioned from lothario to felon when he lied to the grand jury; that’s why he was impeached. I do like your Cheech and Chong reference at the opening of you comments. Unfortunately it was down hill from there with the balance of your comments being awkward, ill-conceived and poorly written. I am sure it sounded funny in your head and if you take nothing else away from my comments please heed this; don’t drink the bong water; just the kool aid. Hans N. Weiffenbach Posted May 16, 2007 9:27 AM
• Democrats fear that after America pulls out of Iraq the Republicans will later rewrite history. They'll claim America was stabbed in the back by the Democrats. Democrat's reluctance to go with the majority of the American people's desire for peace can be traced to that fear. Weiffenbach's belittling comments, the treehuggers, hippies, hackisac crowd, shows the direction the Republicans will go. Alfred Molison Posted May 15, 2007 6:16 PM