Consider for a moment the following set of circumstances: A Republican president is under constant attack by the Democratic opposition for having lied about the reasons for going to war.

The Democrats charge that the civil rights of Americans have been undermined by the administration's war policies, industrial interests have profited at the expense of the common citizen and the ranks of the Army are being filled by those who don't have the resources to pursue other options.

The Democrats question the prospects for victory against a determined foe fighting on its own turf, but reject Republican attacks on their patriotism as partisan efforts to define patriotism as synonymous with the Republican agenda. The Democrats made significant gains in the midterm elections and are optimistic about their chances to retake the White House in the coming election.

The scenario described above will, no doubt, seem all too familiar to most readers. However, I am not speaking here of current events, but rather about President Lincoln and the political and military circumstances he faced in 1863 and the first eight months of 1864. In the wave of patriotism that swept through the North following Fort Sumter, most Democrats in those states remaining in the Union were initially reluctant to criticize the administration.

However, as it became clear that the war would be of long duration, entailing many hardships, and victory in no way guaranteed, a "peace wing" of the Democratic Party began to attack the motives of the administration, claiming in the process that the abolitionists had forced war on the South and that President Lincoln's assertions that he was only interested in preserving the Union were lies to cover up his anti-slavery agenda.

The Peace Democrats argued that the suspension of habeas corpus and the suppression of opposition press were direct assaults upon the Constitution and undermined the legitimacy of the war effort. The Democrats fared well at the polls in 1862 and, despite the Union victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg in July 1863, still believed at the time of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in August 1864 that the war could not be won and that they would defeat Lincoln in the upcoming election.

Most historians credit Sherman's taking of Atlanta and Sheridan's success in the Shenandoah Valley with restoring Northern confidence in Lincoln and assuring the Republican's victory in that election.

However, it is also worth noting in the current context, that by the fall of 1864 it had become abundantly clear to most of the electorate that the Peace Democrat's belief that the South could be induced to voluntarily rejoin the Union if the North offered the right mix of compromises was an illusion. The Southern leadership never wavered in its pursuit of independence for the Confederacy. In other words, the Peace Democrats' "foreign policy" was not based upon a clear understanding of the other side's interests and objectives. The electorate. recognizing both the significance of the military successes and the lack of substance in the Democrats' position, returned President Lincoln to office in a landslide victory.

My point here is not to argue that President Bush will be viewed by history as favorably as Lincoln or even to predict that the Republicans will retain the White House this year. Rather it is to raise the issue of accountability. In the run-up to the 2006 midterm elections, Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats, including Congressman Clyburn, stated their intention to hold President Bush and the Republican majority in Congress accountable at the polls for what they described as a "failed" policy in Iraq and the war on terror.

Many Americans agreed with the Democrats, who regained a majority in both the House and Senate. Pelosi became House speaker and Clyburn was elected majority whip. Over the course of 2007 and into 2008 we have seen the Democratic leadership resist the administration's "surge" effort in Iraq and continue to call for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. In July 2007, in an interview with The Washington Post, Clyburn, when asked what the Democrats would do in September if Gen. Petraeus reported that the surge was working, replied, "Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that, simply because of those 47 Blue Dogs. I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to remain united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us."

Clyburn was understandably concerned about the difficulties he would face in keeping in line those Democrats (the Blue Dogs) who were willing to give Petreaus and the surge effort a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate success in changing the facts on the ground in Iraq. Now that we have seen that the surge is having a positive impact on developments in Iraq, Democrats are doing their best to minimize the significance of those developments and evade accountability for their position on the surge. More importantly, they are avoiding any real discussion of the longer-term strategic ramifications of a withdrawal from Iraq before our military and political objectives are met.

The Democratic leadership, including the leading presidential candidates, have been focused on criticizing the administration for having gone to war in the first place and outlining competing plans for a rapid withdrawal. That discussion might suffice when the audience is limited to Democrats, but in the general election, the Democrats should expect to be questioned about their understanding of the consequences of a U.S. failure in Iraq.

Democrats are arguing for a more robust diplomatic effort as an alternative to a continuation of the surge effort, but a military withdrawal will not increase our diplomatic leverage with either allies or adversaries in the region. Moreover, this discussion should not just be about the implications for Iraq and its immediate neighbors of a U.S. withdrawal but should incorporate a broader understanding of the global consequences of a U.S. defeat. There are other bad actors in the world who will be emboldened by evidence of a lack of American resolve. Based upon what I have seen reported about the Democrats' position on the war and its implications, it would appear their understanding of the situation is no better than the Peace Democrats' assessment of the South's willingness to rejoin the Union.

The Republican candidate for president in 2008, especially if that candidate is John McCain, will certainly hold the Democratic candidate's feet to the fire on this key foreign policy issue during the upcoming campaign. And around the country it is likely that Republican (and Blue Dog) candidates for Congress will point to the successes in Iraq as vindication for supporting the surge. To those who would still support a withdrawal on the basis that "things could not get worse", I would ask them to look at yet another period of history, the Carter years, when the Democratic candidate demonstrated a less-than-adequate appreciation of the fact that we live in a dangerous world -- the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Iranian hostage crisis, and the Mariel boatlift where Castro dumped the inhabitants of his prisons on American shores all followed.

-- Ronald Shattuck, Bamberg

You must be logged in to comment.