One more thought about partisan debates and national security

One further thought apropos my recent post on how to conduct partisan debates in an election cycle: Is it always unseemly to claim partisan credit for a national security policy success? I think the answer is no, but it is a delicate and highly fraught business. 

The electoral imperative requires in-parties to claim that they have adequately safeguarded America’s national security, and that booting them from office will jeopardize those gains. Likewise, out-parties face the same imperative and make the equal-but-opposite claims. This was not invented by Karl Rove nor by the Republicans, though of course it has been a staple of Republican campaign rhetoric for decades. Yet, whether it is bomber/missile gaps, "Daisy" commercials, pointed charges about a reckless Reagan’s finger on the button, bombast about coddling the "butchers in Beijing," or the slash-and-burn critique offered by Gore, Kerry, and Obama in three successive electoral cycles, Democrats have shown themselves to be equally willing and capable of playing this basic game. There are no slouches on either side of the aisle, so far as I can see.

We can bemoan this, but it is not like bemoaning tar balls; it is more like bemoaning the tide. There is little point to complaining about it because it originates from the structure, not from some temporary breach in the structure.

There is a point, however, to policing the process and reflecting on noteworthy high or low points in the saga. Which brings me to Vice President Biden’s recent trip to Iraq. I just can’t decide whether it is a high or a low point.

The situation in Iraq is quite fragile and knowledgeable insiders are worried that it might be unraveling. Biden, however, gave an exceptionally upbeat assessment. This is not the first time he has been so bullish on Iraq; he gave many of the same sound-bites back in February, of course that was before the intervening five months of political stalemate in Baghdad. I wanted to believe him then and I want to believe him now.

What makes his recent comment so noteworthy are two new features. One, for the first time, Biden shows a willingness to share the credit with President Bush due to the legacy of the Iraq surge. The Obama White House have been assiduous in avoiding crediting President Bush for anything positive, especially in regards to the Iraq war, and so this can only be described as a positive step. 

I am less certain which side of the ledger I should tote the second noteworthy feature: Biden’s claim that because of all the alleged progress in Iraq, voters will reward Democrats in the November elections. I know that when Karl Rove and the Republicans made the analogous argument exactly 8 years ago, there were howls of protest about the politicization of national security. I haven’t found examples of these same pundits bashing Biden now for engaging in the same practice, but perhaps they will do so soon (Note to self: Is hypocrisy among partisan pundits more like the tide or more like tarballs?).

When I first read Biden’s election comments, I found them a bit unseemly, not to mention premature. The comment struck me as skating very close to validating doubts that the reason for sticking with the arbitrary timeline in Iraq is its utility as a talking point for the midterm election. It is acceptable to let foreign policy achievements dictate campaign talking points, but it is exceedingly risky business to let midterm electoral strategies dictate foreign policy choices. But, assuming/hoping that is not the case here, and upon further reflection, I am inclined to give him a pass. If Biden’s mission-accomplished boast really does get validated by the facts on the ground, then I think he is right that Obama and Biden  (remember, Biden owns the Iraq file and so more than any other policy he owns responsibility for success or failure) deserve credit (alongside many others from both sides of the aisle). If things in Iraq turn out as Biden has promised, then Team Obama will have ably handled a very difficult national security matter and I, for one, would be happy to give them kudos.