WITHOUT meaning to do so, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has pushed the debate on Iraq in a new direction.Reid claims that the war is lost and that the United States has already been defeated.
By advancing the claim, Reid has moved the debate away from the initial antiwar obsession with the legal and diplomatic controversies that preceded it.
At the same time, Reid has parted ways with Democratic leaders such as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who supported the war but who now claims that its conduct has been disastrous. What they mean, by implication, is that a Democratic president would do better than George W. Bush and win the war.
Reid’s new position, however, means that even a Democratic president wouldn’t be able to ensure a U.S. victory in Iraq. For him, Iraq is irretrievably lost.
Some antiwar analysts have praised Reid for what they term “his clarity of perception.” A closer examination, however, would show that Reid might have added to the confusion that has plagued his party over the issue from the start.
Because all wars have winners and losers, Reid, having identified America as the loser, is required to name the winner. This Reid cannot do.
The reason is that, whichever way one looks at the situation, America and its Iraqi allies remain the only objective victors in this war.
Amir Taheri in the New York Post
Read it all here. It is a different view to say that under competent management, Iraq is a war that can be won. What Harry Reid is saying is that there is no way anyone can manage a successful end to the war in Iraq. He asks the question of who the winner of the war is…if the United States has truly lost it, and there doesn’t seem to be one at this point. This won’t always be the case if the Democrats succeed in ending our involvement in Iraq.