Bloodless Coup

Levin-Reed: An Opportunity for the Dems? A Missed Opportunity for Bush?

The party out of power has little if any power to get the media (and thereby the country) to pay attention to its policy proposals. One of the things I find so funny about the powers-that-be (or the powers-that-perceive-themselves-to-be) constantly harping on the Democrats being without vision or strategy is that they release policy positions with some frequency - but since they aren't in charge of any part of the government they go largely ignored by the media - and therefore, when it comes to the national political dialogue, they don't exist (a win I guess for theories of constructivism!). I fear that will be the fate of Levin-Reed, a sober, sensible proposal on the Iraq War if ever there was one. If it gets coverage and gets identified with the Democrats - I think there's a lot there to further entrench unhappiness with the president's plan (or lack thereof) and make the Democrats look like they are being serious about the conflict. And their proposal fits, seemingly with what the US populartion wants - they want the war to end eventually, they want the Iraqis to become responsible for their own security, but they are wary of constraining the president's power too tightly (and hence falling into possible arguments about putting troops at risk by limiting the president's mobility) and deadlines that can't be moved. This proposal pushes the country toward achieving those ends, and pushes us past meaningless catch-phrases like "stay the course". As I say, I think the media might largely ignore this and the public might not see much of it - but if they do, I think this is a winner for the Democrats (and probably the country).

That said, knowing that something like this was coming down the road, I can't imagine a reason (other than obstinancy and bull-headedness, and of course that explains a lot in this administration) why the White House didn't have the president announce a limited set of troop cuts last week. Even if it was only 10,000 or so. I mean he could have spun the FINALLY appointed prime minister FINALLY finishing appointing his cabinet and the death of Zarqawi in ways that would suggest that everything had turned a corner - Iraq was now DEMOCRATIC and TERRORISTS were killed. But instead of an action like that which would have conveyed at least a limited victory, a policy success, increasing US security, substantive accomplishments, bringing (some) of the troops home victorious, and of course further associated terrorism and Iraq in people's minds (which the White House loves of course) - instead of that we got ... words. Again. More talk, but no clear substantive benefits behind the hot air. And that was followed by more dead American soldiers (this time, tortured ones). Clearly Bush is going to keep massive levels of troops in Iraq until he leaves office. He's said that much. But the opportunities of this month seem to me to have presented the possibility of a much bigger "Zarqawi bounce", and the outflanking of the Democrats on moves like Levin-Reed. A win-win for the White House. This White House is politically adept at (just barely) winning elections. But otherwise I really question their political skills.