Ending the war

In his morning opus--and frankly the only opinion worth reading* in the Washington Post today, Harold Meyerson looks at the real possibility that the Democrats will LBJ** themselves between 2008 and 2012. It's a distinct possibility. Nobody likes to talk about it today, though it should be a tremendous outrage, but it probably is in the Democrats' political interest that the war not begin to end under this president. At least narrowly.

Yes, if Congress won the day and forced the president to begin a draw down, it would mollify the Democratic base. But it would also give Republicans a pass on the last six years of misery and would rob Democrats of their strongest weapon going into 2008. It's ugly politics and I hesitate to cast aspersions to widely, but the incentive is undeniable.

However! If Democrats win the day in 2008 but fail to end the war in the eyes of Americans by 2012, then it will be a short-lived victory.

*=Elsewhere in the Post, you can, if you insist, read Michael Gerson as he notes once again that conservatives should continue to mistake moral certitude for the ability to actually accomplish anything; and as the editors--who, like Gerson himself, rail tirelessly against tyranny when it suits them--as they worry that any congressional acknowledgment of the Armenian genocide might mean the end of Turkey's willingness to allow us privileged access to their air bases. That decision would, sadly, diminish our ability to recklessly bomb other countries in the Middle East.

**=I realize the LBJ comparison is a little off, but you get the idea.