The New, New reason for surrender

According to a new Pew Poll

The number of Americans who say the military effort is going very or fairly well is much higher now than a year ago (48% vs. 30% in February 2007)

More importantly

For the first time since Pew began tracking the question in December 2005, more respondents say that the United States is making progress in reducing civilian casualties (46%) than say it is losing ground (40%). Similarly, 49% now say the United States is making progress in defeating the insurgents, while just 35% say it is losing ground. A majority (57%) now says the U.S. is making progress in training Iraqi military forces (29% say the U.S. is losing ground).

Even on the key political objective of establishing democracy in Iraq, a plurality (49%) says the U.S. is making progress

Additionally

Opinion on the critical question of whether the U.S. should keep troops in Iraq is now about evenly divided, the first time this has happened since late 2006. About half of those surveyed (49%) say they favor bringing troops home as soon as possible, but most of these (33%) favor gradual withdrawal over the next year or two, rather than immediate withdrawal.

So it is not surprising that a debate about how the war is going in Iraq is the very last thing Democrats want

Democrats privately said Reid was not enthusiastic about resuming the debate on Iraq at this point  — he had hoped to put that fight off until the supplemental spending measure comes up later this spring....Republican Senators are aiming to put Democrats in the uncomfortable position of having to cast votes on a measure that links war funding to a scaling down of operations in Iraq. The proposal mirrors similar legislation that failed last year.

As one Republican aide put it: “It’s not as great a vote for them as it once was.”...

No, Democrats don't want to talk about Iraq in terms of success and failure. They tried the "we've lost" argument for surrender. Now it turns out we haven't lost at all.

When violence in Iraq started to decrease as a result of the Counter Insurgency Strategy employed by Gen Patreus, some Democratic leaders attributed it to lack of targets

If violence is decreasing in Iraq, it may be because insurgents “are running out of people to kill,” House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said Monday.

“There are fewer targets of opportunity,” Obey said in a speech to the National Press Club.

Obey was responding to a question about reports touted by Republicans that security is improving in Iraq and that President Bush’s “surge” strategy is working. He stressed that military success has not led to political reconciliation.

“The issue has never been military,” Obey said. “The issue has always been political improvement.”

So when it became clear that violence was down not because there was no one left to kill, but because "The Surge" was actually working, they then tried the "OK. We're defeating the terrorists but Iraq is not making political progress" argument for surrender. But then there was political progress.

Now, the new rationale for surrender is that the war is costing too much.

Democrats took on the issue of the war's price tag during a hearing by the Joint Economic Committee. One witness was economist Joseph Stiglitz, whose new book says the combined cost of the war to the federal budget and economy could reach $3 trillion.

Stiglitz factors in hidden and future costs such as veterans disability and health care benefits, replacing equipment, interest on money borrowed to pay for the war and restoring the military to its previous strength.

The committee chairman, Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, said, "We can't allow this skyrocketing spending in Iraq to displace other very real domestic and foreign policy priorities."

We are just hearing th beginning of this argument. But since the economy has replaced the Battle for Iraq as the top concern for American voters, this argument will gain more prominence as the election season progresses.

But there are two things about this:

First, Barack Obama admits that he may have to send troops back to Iraq if things deteriorate after he enacts his plan for precipitous withdrawal. So we will incur the huge cost of moving all the troops home and then the cost to move all of the troops back.

That would be more expensive then just keeping them there.

Second, the cost of the war at the moment is not much more than having the troops in-garrison: you pay them the same salary, the cost of training is not much less then the cost of deployment. And since casualties are low, we have already peaked in terms of paying for the cost of caring for the wounded. But if we were to bring the troops home, and determine some type of bogus "peace dividend" that we then spend on some social program that never ends, the long term cost is more, not less.

In other words, we will stop spending for the War in Iraq at some point, but if the money is reallocated to an entitlement program, that cost never ends until congress cuts the program.

And when was the last time you heard of Congress cutting an entitlement program?

The fact is that many Democrats, primarily the Democratic leadership, which wants to surrender to the Islamists. At this point, it is clear that the only thing that changes is the argument for surrender. If the war could be shown to cost us nothing as a nation, they would come up with a new, new argument for surrender.

At least they could be honest with the voters and say "Hey! We're the party who wants to surrender to the Islamists. Vote for us, and we will surrender."

Why do you suppose they avoid this line of argument?