Triumph's Turning Point

By: E.J. Dionne Jr.

Triumph in war breeds triumphalism in politics at home. Victors see their successes today as heralding their mastery far into the future. Their critics are written off as permanent losers with little capacity to regroup, rethink, or recover.

There's a lot of triumphalism in Republican circles these days, particularly among those who preached most fervently in favor of the Iraq war. They are certain that we stand at one of history's pivot points and see Democrats as a confused, divided lot discredited by the efficient achievements of American arms.

The triumphalists have one incontrovertible fact on their side: The initiative in politics now lies with President Bush. From the moment a bipartisan majority in Congress gave him the authority last fall to wage war, Bush has enjoyed a sweeping mandate to change facts on the ground to suit his ends.

The result? Whether they see him as bold or reckless, the President's critics are forced to deal with the world as he has remade it. They will be required to contemplate policies designed to ensure a satisfactory outcome in Iraq for the long haul, even if doing so helps Bush.

"There really isn't an option to sit and sulk", said Jessica Matthews, the president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who proposed alternative ways of disarming Saddam Hussein short of an invasion. "What we have to do is make the best of it, and it isn't going to be easy", she said. "There are policy options that are either good or bad or awful. We just have to push for the best policy."

Matthews speaks from a position outside party politics, but few Democrats quibble with her view. "You can't walk away from this thing", said Bob Kerrey, the former Nebraska Senator who is now president of the New School for Social Research in New York. "We're in it for the long haul. We're running two countries."

The irritation so evident among rank-and-file Democrats reflects their frustrated acknowledgment that a President so many of them despise, carrying off a policy so many of them opposed, created a new commitment from which neither party can walk away. No wonder the Republican triumphalists are chortling.

They should enjoy their laughs while they can, because in democratic politics few victories are ever final. And the victory in Iraq has only forced to the forefront the pro-war camp's own divisions and contradictions.

From the beginning, advocates of war advanced competing rationales for waging it. Some said the war was primarily about removing Saddam Hussein, others that its main purpose was to rid him of his dangerous weapons, still others that the war was a chance to change history by bringing democracy to Iraq and transforming the Middle East.

The American public was always more certain about the first two goals than about the third, and for reasons rooted in common sense: Knocking over a dictator and taking his weapons was always going to be an easier job than revolutionizing a society and its politics.

Already, as Jonathan Weisman and Mike Allen put it in the Post, senior officials in the Pentagon and the White House "are questioning the Bush administration's most ambitious, long-term plans for Iraq's reconstruction" and are pushing for a "quick exit" of American military forces.

It was inevitable that this argument would break out - and that when it did, it would alter the political debate. The prewar dividing lines are blurring as liberals who had doubts about the war in the first place find themselves in partial alignment with hawkish neoconservatives who view too rapid a withdrawal from Iraq as a recipe for chaos.

"The most fundamental choice is to stop pretending that this is a short-term endeavor, that we can get out of there in six months", says Matthews. "Building even a stable, pluralistic society, let alone a fully functioning democracy, is an enormously challenging proposition."

And Kerrey, who supported the war, noted that the administration's domestic policies will leave it in a weak position to sustain such a commitment. "I do not believe you're going to be able to make the case for long if you're going to be cutting taxes and won't be able to provide a safety net for working people or for productive investments at home."

Yes, Bush's opponents have to deal with the realities he has created - but so does he. The triumphalists should hold the champagne. The fall of Saddam Hussein did not end history or close the debate over Iraq. And it hasn't yet transformed American politics.