The Big Prediction
I don’t like to make predictions – most importantly, because I am lousy at it and have a terrible track record. If you were to see my stock portfolio or a printout of my (infrequent, thankfully) results in Vegas you would know what I mean. I also had to eat crow on my own blog a few years ago, having made some (again, thankfully) now-forgotten predictions.
I am, in sum, no Nostradamus, but neither, according to various critics, was Nostradamus himself. So, with my head ducking appropriately, here goes The Big Prediction – or more exactly, predictions:
The US will win the War in Iraq, and Hillary Clinton will be elected our next President.
Contradictory? Yes, I know. So what? And – okay, okay – I also know defining what constitutes winning in Iraq is no easy thing. It’s highly unlikely that Bin Laden, Moqtada al Sadr, or whoever, will sign an armistice agreement with David Petraeus and all will be solved. In fact, the thought borders on the ludicrous. But, I submit, “winning in Iraq” is rather like what Louis Armstrong said when asked to define “jazz” – “Man, if you gotta ask, you’ll never know.”
Well, not quite. But near enough. Of course some people wouldn’t declare it a victory even if Bin Laden, al Sadr, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hassan Nasrallah all disarmed, publicly renounced jihad and pledged allegiance to liberal democracy forever, while signing a document in blood and repeating it all nightly on Al Jazeera for ten years. And we should probably be skeptical if they did, what with the translation of hudna and all. And, of course, Iraq is only a way station in a struggle that could last for decades.
But still, returning to the Satchmo approach, I think we can agree on some generalities for winning in Iraq – increased quiet and lower violence, political progress with a relatively stable democratic system, economic growth, and, finally, the ability of the Iraqis to take care of themselves to some extent. In other words, not necessarily Denmark, but decent enough by comparison with the vicious dictatorship that proceeded it.
And that seems to be happening. For proof, you don’t need to believe recent reports from PajamasXpress bloggers Michael Ledeen and Victor Davis Hanson . These brilliant gentlemen are, I admit, biased (aren’t we all?) and tarnished, at least in Michael’s case, with the dreaded re-upped “n” word (neo-whatever-it-is). You can believe instead the major Democratic Party candidates – receiving basically the same information – whose criticism of the war has become strangely muted and who, to a man and woman, refused to promise to be out of Iraq by 2012. Why? If it was or is such a disaster, shouldn’t we be cutting our losses and getting the hell out? Good money after bad and all that…
But, no, these candidates are afraid to take a stand – or a solid one anyway – preferring to play games about who was against the war first, enough to placate the Moveon/Kos/Huffpo crowd, but not very much more. They seem more concerned at this point with health care, the environment and other traditional Democratic issues. So something’s up. And that something is more than likely a victory of sorts, propelled, at least in part, by Petraeus’ counter-insurgency strategy (aka “The Surge), which should have been put in place years before.
But no matter. How long will it take now? Well, as I said, I’m no Nostradamus and certainly not enough of one for that. But I will make this corollary prediction, which should be obvious: most people will be reluctant to admit this victory has occurred when it does. The right, having learned from Bush’s naivety (“Mission Accomplished!”) on the aircraft carrier, will be smart enough to keep its mouth shut (I hope so anyway), and the left has no vested interest in admitting anything anyway. So mum’s the word on Iraqi victory. Don’t look for it on the six o’clock News or in the New York Times – not on the editorial page anyway.
Instead, look for a Hillary victory in ’08. It’s almost pre-ordained – and we all know the reason. All together now:
“No good deed goes unpunished!”
We all remember that quote - attributed to Claire Booth Luce – because it is so often true. Here’s another, slightly more complicated, this one from William Morris (the Victorian socialist, not the agent):
“Men fight and lose the battle, and the thing they fought for comes about in spite of their defeat, and when it comes out not to be what they meant, other men have to fight for what they meant under another name.”
And speaking of names, while they may be treated better in some distant future history books, those dreaded bearers of the reviled “n” word – who are accused of instigating this wrong-headed and “fruitless” war – are not likely to be getting much vindication in the short run from victory, whatever its extent. Not fair? Sorry, that’s the way things go. Again, cf. Claire Booth Luce.
But they can console themselves with this. I found a link on the Tigerhawk blog to an October 19th article in Reasononline. It seems that the next President of the United States may herself be a “neocon.”
The Bushes get better advice than Nostradamus
“Hillary Clinton will be elected our next President.”
God help us if this occurs. The country will be destroyed. There will be little hope of ever defeating the Islamic nihilists. George McGovern and his fellow pacifists have captured the Democratic Party’s heart and soul. They also cannot even begin to confront the misbehavior of dark skinned individuals. The radical Muslims are perceived as victims of Western imperialism. It is supposedly our fault that they intensely hate us. The Democrats will therefore emphasize “dialogue and understanding.” Military action “will only get them angrier.”
Roger L. Simon needs to visit the allegedly center-left websites like The New Republic. The consistent theme of these people is that the war on terror is greatly exaggerated. At the very most, Hillary Clinton’s followers give lip service to the struggle against Islamic terrorism merely to con the middle-of-the-road voters. There is no longer a legitimate center in the Democratic Party regarding military matters! It is almost totally gone. A mere handful of Harry Truman types remain—and they have been marginalized. Please note that Joseph Lieberman had to run as an independent in 2006.
“Hillary Clinton will be elected our next President.
If this happened I don’t believe it would somehow “destroy” America; America is much stronger than that. I don’t believe that the terrorists will have won either. However, nor do I believe that Hillary will win.
I’ll also predict this . . . if Hillary is elected, there will be scandals that that rival those from when Billy was prez. Scandals bad enough that there may be plots hatching on both sides.
I’ll also predict this . . . if Hillary is elected, there will be scandals that that rival those from when Billy was prez. Scandals bad enough that there may be plots hatching on both sides.
Hillary in 2008? Even if Iraq is successful? Could be. The Brits voted Churchill out in 1945, even though most recognized his key role in aving the country during WWII.
OTOH, once the war was on, the Labor Party didn’t make undermining Churchill and the war their main focus. I would like to think that if Iraq continues to improve (knock on wood, I believe it will) that the success there will so invalidate the Democratic leadership for its non-stop agitation that the war is a quagmire, disaster etc, that Clinton will fail to win the election, and the Democrats might even lose the Senate.
That’s what I would like to see, and that’s what the Democrats deserve IMO, but as the Clint Eastwood character said in The Unforgiven, “Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.”
Only in neocon fantasy-land would the election of a female President be cause for joy among the Islamists.
Hillary, lest we forget, is a woman. Islamists hate women. Whatever her faults, there’s no question that electing her as President would be a poke in the eye for Islamic misogynists, not to mention those of the home-grown variety.
hi it is me sitso.
If we can pacify and stabilize Iraq, I will gladly take that with Hillary – even though I would never vote for her.
I will go with you halfway, The war will be declared a victory,
but Hilly has too many haters to win.
Rudy will out.
Cordially,
Uncle J
Hilly has too many haters to win.
That’s true. Although she has, for the moment, an edge in polling over Republican candidates, I wonder why so many center-right folks are already expecting her to win an election more than 12 months away.
It’s not like the Democrats are burning up the media with reports of their successes in Congress or elsewhere.
“Hillary, lest we forget, is a woman. Islamists hate women. Whatever her faults, there’s no question that electing her as President would be a poke in the eye for Islamic misogynists, not to mention those of the home-grown variety.”
I completely agree that Hillary Clinton in the White House will be a slap in the face of Islamic nihilists. Nonetheless, that does not begin to outweigh the ingrained pacifism of the Democrats—and their inability to deal with the misdeeds of dark skin people. President Clinton will also appoint judges who will throw legal roadblocks in the way of our struggle against Muslim crazies.
Just a slight update – do not mistake a prediction for support of a candidate. These are two entirely different things.
Dear Mr. Simon,
Your statement that the surge strategy should have been pursued long ago appears quite frequently in other venues. I believe that this statement is flawed.
The success of the current strategy depends upon:
1.) A large number of Iraqis disgusted by the actions of the insurgents.
2.) A competent and willing ISF.
3.) A recognition by the various factions that armed resistance is a loser.
4.) Battlefield preparation: 20,000 insurgents killed or captured, logistics and communications disrupted, cumulative intelligence and financial disruption.
It took four years to get to the point where the COIN strategy would work. I believe that history’s judgment, based upon experience with other insurgencies, will be that this was a notable and remarkable achievement.
Regards,
Roy
There are some comments that are just unassailable. Roy, yours is terrific.
Can you apply your incredible logic to Roger Simons acceptance of the inevitable Hillary ?
I believe you have a 50-50 chance of being right predicting the future. So you win in “winning in Iraq”, lose in “Hillary becomes next president”. Not bad.
Dear Mr. Jonas,
I’ll try. Except in dire and unusual times, we elect the guy we like.
Let me reminisce.
Truman beat Dewey in 1948. The most memorable line from that campaign was “Dewey looks like the little guy on the wedding cake”. There were many reasons for Truman’s victory, but that is the one that sticks.
My first real political memory is of watching the 1952 Democratic National Convention. At the time I was puzzled as to why Truman was denied the nomination. That election was the last one before television took over the nomination from the parties and threw it to the primaries. The Henry Wallace wing of the party made their putsch and nominated Stevenson. Aside from almost god-like stature, Eisenhower was a very likable guy. When my father, a life-long Democrat, saw that famous photo of the hole in Stevenson’s shoe he said that Stevenson was as phony as a three dollar bill.
The 1960 election was the first TV election and the first in which primaries became a big factor in determining the nominee. Kennedy was certainly not the choice of the old pros in the party. Nixon should have won. Some say he did except for the big turnout of dead people in Chicago. It was a time of peace and prosperity and “Tricky Dick”‘s appearance on TV with a five o’clock shadow.
In 1964 we were in the middle of a war and had a martyred president. No way any Republican could have been elected.
In 1968 we had a failed Lyndon Johnson and the riot at the DNC in Chicago. Nixon by default.
In 1976 we had Watergate and the “amiable dunce” Jerry Ford (I know they transferred that one to Reagan). I remember watching “I’ve Got a Secret” on TV the night Jimmy Carter revealed his secret: “I’m running for president”. Talk about a venue for an announcement!
In 1980 we had Jimmah. Nuff said.
In 1988 we has HGWB against Michael Dukakis. I’m sure his mother loved him.
In 1992 we had Ross Perot. Remember that Bill was elected with only 43% of the popular vote. In 1996 Clinton faced Bob Dole, a great man with all the charisma of a dead mackerel.
2000 looked like a shoo-in for Gore. It was a time of peace and prosperity. Al Gore stumbled in the debates with his “lockbox” and his stage mannerisms. He did win the popular vote. I think that people just liked GWB better. That was enough to pull out an unlikely victory.
Thus the only “normal” elections (Truman/Dewey, Eisenhower/Stevenson, Kennedy/Nixon, GHWB/Dukakis and GWB/Gore) went to the more likable guy. 2008 is shaping up to be a normal election. If things continue the Iraq war will not be a critical situation. The people will be catching their collective breaths and praying for normal times. The major factor will be “who do I want to see on TV every week?”. I doubt that it will be Hillary.
I know that this analysis would maybe get a D+ in poli-sci 101. But then again I have a pretty good batting average over the years.
Regards,
Roy
“Hillary Clinton will be elected our next President.”
Well, I guess I better get my passport and find a new place to live…
No, I won’t be moving out if Hildi wins, I made it thru 8 years of Slick Willie after all…
But I will be buying more guns before she gets sworn in. If the Republicans aren’t trustworthy on the 2A, Hillary is a nightmare.
We’ve won the war. The Dems had their chance this past spring and blew it. In Iraq, AQI just couldn’t hold on any longer, and they now understand America is never leaving Iraq.
Rudy is going to win, but not by much. Congress will remain with the Democrats. Bobby jindal is warming up in the bullpen.
Oh, and I’m not a republican, I’m a liberal capitalist.
yours/
peter.
Adding to Roy Lofquist’s excellent analysis about Iraq:
One of the reasons the vast majority of Iraqis didn’t take up arms against us was precisely because we didn’t invade with 500,000 men.
For all the “We never had enough troops!” people, just look at the French in Algeria. The French had 500,000 troops in a country with a population of 9 million. That’s the equivalent of 1.5 million U.S. troops in Iraq.
The French also killed between 350,000 and 1.5 million Algerians in a savage counterinsurgency that included leveling entire villages with artillery and air strikes, mass summary executions, torturing prisoners to death, and putting 2 million in concentation camps.
With all those boots on the ground, the French still lost. They also lost an average of 2250 soldiers per year, compared to our rate of about 800.
The surge wouldn’t have worked unless the Iraqis finally accepted that we weren’t there to conquer them after all. They had to go through four years of self-inflicted hell before they saw the light.
As for Hillary: Wait until she’s officially the nominee. The GOP gloves will come off, and you’ll see attack ads and articles that’ll blow your mind.
This is all too much to conetmplate. When Hillary gets elected, will Alec Baldwin, Robert Altman, and Eddie Veder (of Pearl Jam) move back to the U.S.? Let’s hope so. Their absence has been utterly devastating. And can anybody possibly fathom Bubba in the White House again -jobless? He will have nothing to do but to try to bonk vacuous twenty-somethings while Hillary dizzyingly basks in her long-sought-after role. Who will keep him chained in the doghouse while Hillary is making history?
Maybe I’ll move to Iraq.
If the war is off the table as a major issue, and ignoring the “likability” effect, I have difficulty believing that the Dems will have any more luck gaining traction with their “traditional” welfare state issues than they did in 1988. Let’s face it — libertarianism (small “L”) has been the defining political philosophy of our age at least since the utter demise of Great Society liberalism during the feckless Carter administration.
Prediction: At some point Bill Clinton will destroy Hilliary’s candidacy. A huge scandal will erupt. He’s just much too narcissistic to allow Hillary center stage. Besides, I’m certain he truly despises her, albeit without knowing it.
Roger is most likely correct. Hillary in the White House – because the Republicans are in disarray. They couldn’t even pull a majority in Congress last election.
Unless the press runs with the Hillary campaign donation stories – all of them – she’ll have no serious competition. And the press being what it is, we’re not likely to see that happen.
It will be just wonderful to have Bill back in the White House (As “First Mister”[?]), where his first job will no doubt be Chief Interviewer of Interns.
As far as the war in Iraq goes, whatever happens, the Democrats will declare it a victory, and a victory on their watch, that only they could have possibly brought about.
I definitely don’t endorse scoping out another country (Canada used to be a favorite, but nowadays you have to come back here for major medical care). That’s a tactic for folks like Ben Affleck (still here). The best outcome is that people will be smart enough to vote for local candidates, so we might be able to get back the Congress and a few more state governors. (Congrats to Bobby Jindal.)
Failing that, 4 years of Democrats in charge should be enough to show the People what a grave mistake that was and come up with another Republican victory – as with Reagan over Carter. But I wonder if 4 years is going to be long enough for them to get their act together.
If Hillary gets in she will enact measures that will irreversably ensure the downfall of our great nation. Nothing will be able to counter it short of a second American Civil War dwarfing the first.