Iraq, The Numbers

By order of Special Llama Decree 9/17/04/01, no blogger shall henceforth offer any opinion on the situation in Iraq - pro or con - without first having read and digested Wretchard's information over at The Belmont Club. Part 1 is here. Part 1.1 is here. Part 2 is here.

That is all.

UPDATE: Are you done? Then go read Ralph Peters in the Post. Also, if you can get a dead-tree copy, read today's lead editorial in the WSJ.

The primary "mistake" we have made in Iraq in the past year has been playing softball in the Sunni Triangle, hoping that we could use a little more carrot and a little less stick. Contra the spittle-flying ranting of Andrew Sullivan and others, this was a calculated gamble, not the product of Pollyanna-ish blindness in the White House. Nonetheless, recent events would suggest it has not worked. Frankly, I always believed that we should have dropped the hammer from Day One. As the links demonstrate, we can still do so, and I think we are going to soon, but it is going to be all the messier for that.

Unfortunately, with an election coming up, there is no way to separate the policy from the politics. So what does the Iraq issue mean politically? A slim majority of people say they support the war effort to date. I believe the majority of these people, like me, may quibble with some of the White House's strategic and tactical decisions, but overall believe that Dubya is serious about winning. To the extent they vote based on the war effort, they're probably going to go with Bush. I think the White House is holding off on a major offense at least in part because it doesn't want battle raging just before the election. But if the recent string of bombings keeps up with no apparent sign of our fighting back, support may fall off anyway. The worst thing Dubya can do is make people think he's no longer serious about winning.

On the other hand, a sizeable minority say they don't support the President's handling of the war. However, no poll that I've ever seen goes on to break down that figure into people who think we aren't doing enough and people who think we simply shouldn't have gone in the first place. My guess is that it's a pretty even split. Poor J. Francois Kerry is put in the difficult position of trying to woo both of these groups at the same time, which may go a long way towards explaining why he is all over the place on the issue. My guess is that he is going to go with the MoveOn.Org crowd and embrace the old McGovernite isolationism line once and for all. The alternative, that he tries to out-hawk Bush, is a risible non-starter. But as Steve-O notes in a post below, embracing the Dark Side is not going to help Kerry either.

IMHO, the bottom line is that the White House should get on with fighting the war the right way, doing the things that need to be done. Voters will understand that. As for Kerry, well, sorry kid, can't help you.

MORE: Read Mom's Favorite Columnist, the superb Charles Krauthammer, on Kerry's Iraqi flip-flopping. (Registration required. Don't worry - it won't bite.)

STILL MORE: Via Drudge, Kerry is accusing Bush of a stealth troop buildup. Now if I were one of those people who doesn't think we're doing enough, my first reaction would be "Kick ass! About time, too!" My second reaction would be "Nice going, John. You suppose the Bad Guys ever read the papers?" As I said above, this sort of thing will appeal to the MoveOn crowd. But it isn't going to excite voters who want to see some definite action.