The Democrats have consistently refused to think coherently about the war unless and until we put them in charge of it.

It’s been argued that that a successful President has to put together a necessarily “broad but shallow” coalition to win a long war. In order to maintain political support the President’s policy aims might have to be suboptimal. I think part of the antipathy of the Democrats to the war stems from the feeling that it’s not “their” war; “not invented here”. Because even a President Obama can’t walk away from the challenge of radical Islam, it will eventually involve him. So the argument goes, it is better to put the Democrats in charge for a while in order for events to drag them in.

But if you look at the Olmert experience in Israel, this is not necessarily the case. Sometimes a muddled leader simply makes a mess of things, not broadens the coalition. That being said, I think it is self-evident that unless the Democrats, who make up about 50% or more of the political population are somehow brought aboard, it will be a hard road. So whether it through a President Obama or some other means, a coalition has to be built.

GWB never managed to build a coalition. My guess is that a President Obama will similarly fail. A conservative Republican and a liberal, even Left Wing Democrat is handicapped because he alienates the other side. Perhaps a conservative Democrat or a liberal Republican might succeed.