Morris the Iraq Contrarian

Dick Morris' latest column is out and it is all about Iraq as an issue in the 2008 election. Now, the conventional wisdom holds that the folks hate the war and thus it will be an albatross around the Republican's necks. Now, this may in fact still be so, but Morris takes an entirely different perspective.

Hillary's inability to answer O'Reilly's question reveals a larger flaw in the Democratic arguments as the election approaches. Obama will be the Democratic nominee (take that to the bank). How will the Iraq War play in the race? On the surface, it would appear to be a disaster for the Republicans. With American deaths now over the 4,000 mark and the seriously wounded at around 15,000, we are sick and tired of this war. It has destroyed George W. Bush and could well do the same to John McCain.

But maybe not. McCain's position is simple: win in Iraq. The experience and the success of the past year indicate that it may be quite possible to do so. But, whatever you may think of it, his is a simple solution.

What do the Democrats propose? Obama and Hillary both want to pull out as soon as technically feasible. OK. But what happens if Iran moves into the vacuum and takes over Iraq? And what if Al Qaeda takes advantage of the American absence and sets up a permanent base and sanctuary in Iraq, beyond our reach — a situation akin to the Taliban in Afghanistan where they could develop the capacity to hit us on 9-11 in their privileged, protected home territory? And what if hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who used to work with us start to be killed as happened when we pulled out of Vietnam? And what if the Iraqi oil falls into Iranian hands, sending the price even higher? And what if … The list goes on.

Morris has a rather interesting thesis, and frankly it is hard to argue against it. Morris believes the short simple answer is the one that plays with the largest part of the population. Remember, John Kerry got himself into trouble with so called "nuanced" answers. What that really meant was that his positions were long and rambling, and the public couldn't understand.

John McCain wants to win, and he is willing to stay in Iraq until we do. The Democrats are full of hypotheticals with a goal that neither can guarantee. Their plans bring up a plethora of what if questions: what if Iran moves, what if there is a genocide, what if Al Qaeda takes advantage? By creating so many hypotheticals, the Democrats, in Morris' estimation, begin to look weak. Contrast that to McCain short and simple position and they may have trouble in any debate against him.

While Iraq's effect on 2008 still remains to be seen, I think Morris has a very intuitive view and one that may spell doom for the Democrats.