Democrats and Iraq

One of the main criticisms levelled at Democrats these days is that, no matter how badly Bush and the Republicans have screwed up (and continue to screw up) Iraq, they have no plan to deal with Iraq, that is, to fix the problem that Iraq has become. (From a Republican perspective, what this means is that a bad plan, or a plan proven to have failed, is better than no plan at all -- specious reasoning, to be sure, but one Republicans hope voters will buy once again, just as they did in '04.)

And yet, as Kevin Drum noted yesterday, responding specifically to Andrew Sullivan's reiteration of the criticism, Democrats do indeed have a plan -- and it's one that critics like Sullivan have more or less proposed themselves: "It may not be perfect, but it's more of a plan than Republicans have offered; it's supported by Democrats of all stripes; and it's awfully close to the kind of thing Sullivan says he wants to see. So what's the problem?"

The problem, I suppose, is that many people, Sullivan (presumably) included, still buy the Republican spin in one grotesque form or another -- the prevailing narrative, repeated over and over in the media (even the "liberal" media), that Democrats are irredeemably weak on national security and the military, that is, that they are a party of doves, while Republicans, warts and all, are the ones to turn to when the going gets tough.

Some people, even smart ones like Sullivan, just won't give Democrats a chance. Which is a shame, because what America, Iraq, and the international community need desperately is for the Democratic Party to prevail both this November and in '08. When given the opportunity, I am confident to predict, Democrats will provide the kind of effective, visionary leadership required in these troubled times.