Dems will ignore good news from Iraq

David Limbaugh:

The Democrats' long-entrenched position, partisan interests and ideological inclinations militate against them changing their mind on Iraq, regardless of the facts on the ground.

First, please consider honestly what the Democrats' reaction will be if in September, Gen. David Petraeus reports that our troop surge in Iraq is yielding unambiguously successful results against the enemy and in training Iraqi security forces?

Do you believe there is any realistic possibility Democrats will rejoice at the news, applaud the efforts of our troops and retreat from their demands that we begin immediate troop withdrawal? (Their reaction to the surge's success so far give us some clues, does it not?)

If I am correct that they will not -- and I would be most happy to be wrong -- why do you think that is?

One major reason, of course, is that they cannot stand President Bush nor bear the prospect of history vindicating his stubborn determination. They have staked the last four years on discrediting him on Iraq and know that history cannot vindicate him without repudiating them.

Their repudiation would decrease their chances of electoral victory in 2008. Can you imagine all the capital they will have wasted on their efforts to destroy President Bush and undermine our mission in Iraq?

They shouldn't have the economy as an issue, including the deficit, since Bush's tax cuts are leading to fulfillment of his promise to cut the deficit in half. They'll still trot out class and race warfare and push national health care. But a consistently strong economy, apparent success in Iraq and an earned reputation for softness on national defense and security during time of war will be formidable hurdles.

But I submit that their unremitting hostility toward Bush and their partisan interests are not the only reasons for their intractable opposition to the war in Iraq. The Democrats want us out of Iraq, not necessarily because they don't think we can win, but perhaps because they fear we can, because they don't believe our cause there is just.

...

He gives several examples of what they believe about the war. I think there is a larger underlying core belief that drives their opposition to the war and their fear of success in the war. They want permanent restraints on the sue of force. Failure in Iraq helps them achieve that objective and success makes it harder for them to restrain the sue of force in the future. It is why they are so desperate to lose.

The Belmont Club excerpts an interview with Michael Yon where he discusses the success of the surge in the areas he has visited in Iraq. Wretchard concludes:

...

There will be two types of answers to Michael Yon's assertion by critics of the war. The first will be that he is wrong in his assessment. But the more common answer, at least in private will probably be, "it doesn't matter. Political support for the war has evaporated. The project is broken. It might have been possible to win it once, but not now. Even if the Surge is working."

To some extent the breakage is due to the mistakes of GWB and the Pentagon. But to a certain degree -- and we can argue by how much -- the breakage is desired outcome of those who politically opposed the war and now feel that their goals are within reach. It will be argued by some opponents of the war that they merely pointed out the failings of its conduct. But some of the more forthright will proudly say "we made the war fail". We stopped US Imperialist aggression.

...

While people are quick to put responsibility on President Bush for the failures in Iraq, and politically he bears that responsibility, he was relying on the advice of our military and they will still be around after he leaves and they better figure out what went wrong and fix it because failure will mean more such adversaries using similar strategies.