I like the proposed solution. Let us go with it.
Jonathan.
Posted by Jonathan at June 3, 2005 04:36 PMI like it, but I fear that as soon as it's proposed, Biden and Lieberman will go on the Sunday talk shows and denounce the idea.
Joe is right that a big threat to Democrats on this proposal would be the Biden/Lieberman crowd that would attack it in public. Which is why we cannot adopt this proposal until a good faith effort is made to get as many Democrats on board with it as possible.
After all, we won't be able to convince the voters that we mean it if we are undermined by members of our own party.
Posted by Chris Andersen at June 3, 2005 04:52 PMGood point, Joe Buck. Harry Reid needs to get all the Democrats together, and ask anyone if they have a better plan. Not if they like this one, but if they have a better one. Lacking a better plan, he needs to enforce strict unity like the Democrats have managed on Social Security. Then he should specifically remind Lieberman he has a primary in '06.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at June 3, 2005 04:54 PMConsidering that nobody of stature in the elected Democratic Party, not Hillary, not Bill (former office-holder), not Gore, not Kerry, not even freaking HOWARD DEAN, was willing before to call for withdrawal at a time certain, it would appear to be a big hill to climb to get to this position for the party.
Why? Because the neo-con vision driving the current engagement in the Middle East is predicated on the security interests of Israel, and the Democrats are not going to cede an inch to the GOP on backing Israel. Cf: Nancy Pelosi's address to AIPAC.
Posted by sofla at June 3, 2005 05:51 PMPlease run on that PLATFORm!!
John Kerry already lost on that issue. Please ensure the Republicans pickup 2 to 4 more seats in the SENATE!!!
Posted by ROOF at June 3, 2005 06:16 PMWell, sorry - but I think that plan stinks. It seems like that plan is designed to allow Iraq to completely fall just so it can be blamed on Bush. We cannot do that, and it would fly back in our faces anyway. Imagine how much raving would be going on among Republicans and the public if Democrats blocked funding to our troops (as it would likely be characterized).
I do not have an answer, though. What I think we need is a plan that will generate success in Iraq. (I think that most people would recognize that cutting off the money would cause failure.) That will not be easy to come up with, which is why this is such a big problem.
Posted by Andy at June 3, 2005 07:59 PMTerrible idea - both on practical and political grounds - and for the same reason. Giving a 2-year ultimatum on getting out of Iraq just signals to the insurgents that their day of taking over the government is officially on the calender. Look, the situation is a disastrous quagmire and was a catastrophic decision to begin with. But giving advance notice of the date when we'll pull out is precisely the wrong signal to send. The insurgents don't JUST want us out. They want to take over the government and create either an Islamist or neo-Baathist state (or some strange concoction of these normally, mutually-opposing ideologies). Without US support they would do it within weeks. The Iraqi army is a joke and will be for a long time. And you better believe it: Republicans will say exactly what I just said.
Posted by Elrod at June 3, 2005 08:12 PMElrod, the only way Iraq will become a stable democracy is if Iraqis are willing to defend it. Otherwise, we will be there literally forever. What is worse is that the longer we are there propping up the government, the less legitimate it will be, and the more Iraqis will want us out. I agree with Wesley Clark, that we should consider that our presence in Iraq could be a hindrance to our goals there.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at June 3, 2005 08:27 PMI love the idea, but I'm not sure of the feasibility. It's not just that the Republicans will call the Dem's cut & runners or cowards or worse, it's that many of the dems themselves cannot admit error on their Iraq views (*cough* Kerry).
Unfortunately I do think there are no good plans for Iraq out there. I suppose the only solace, if it even is one, is that the Republicans have no plan at all either. Well, unless you count wishful thinking and navel-gazing as a plan.
If I were to suggest a plan for the dems, it would be one of where...
1) We would hasten the Iraq military training so they can protect themselves.
2) We would suggest that we could get the troops out, but not a specific or short time frame such as two years, but at least guarantee we're not in the quagmire that the Reps put us in
3) We would guarantee no more Abu Ghraibs and Gitmo scandals with some sort of bottom-up reorganization of our military. Accountability!
4) We would guarantee that our troops are adequately safe with better armor and supplies, and do this by killing uselss things like new SDI's or stupid Halliburton no-bid contacts. Fiscal responsibility for monies allocated to Iraq.
5) We would help our veterans with the things they need like Health Care, education, and housing.
Unfortunately it's expensive, and I'm not sure how to sum it up into short sound bites. And when I think about it, it sounds a bit like Kerry's plan back in November (though obviously he didn't make enough of it to stick in anyone's head).
Whatever the Dems do, it has to be something that provides an alternative to the status quo, but something that makes them look stronger and more serious about Iraq. It also doesn't hurt to point out the failures of the Republicans while they're at it too.
Posted by God of Gamblers at June 3, 2005 10:20 PMGod of Gamblers, your (Kerry) plan is entirely reasonable, and really hard to put in a soundbite! Certainly expediting the training of Iraqi security should be a priority under any plan. There are certainly tradeoffs between a non-specific time frame and a specific one. Politically, the specific one is better, which means it's more likely that any action toward withdrawal would actually get implemented.
It sounds icky to base decisions on another nation's future on domestic political considerations, but the prime directive right now is getting political power. The details can be fudged later if need be.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at June 3, 2005 10:30 PMSee this post at Left I on the News for something to think about. If you propose to be in Iraq for three more years, then the corollary is that YOU ARE WILLING TO GIVE YOUR LIFE for that cause. Because if you are not, then how on earth do you have the chutzpah to tell OTHER people that THEY should give up THEIR lives (another couple thousand of them in three years)? Put up or shut up. If you think this "cause" is worth dying for, then feel free to volunteer to put yourself in a position to go die for it. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite. It's really that simple.
Posted by Eli Stephens at June 3, 2005 10:52 PMDamn,this is sooo Vietnam.Lets take a page out of the Nixon playbook call it a "Secret Plan",not that he ever had such a thing.Who knows maybe by next year the populace will come to their collective senses and admit this little oil fiasco has no endgame and start thinking about a withdrawal.
Posted by DEEPGHETTO at June 4, 2005 02:27 AMUnfortunately, it's just too late. Certainly, taking up our NATO allies offers to train troops and police OUTSIDE of Iraq should be accepted immediately. The problem is that we're careening toward all-out civil war. We don't have three years, or even one more.
The pathologically venal, neoclown parade of inexperienced and unqualified children of AEI vipers thoroughly missed every chance we had to establish order and legitimacy. Continuing search and destroy missions, as in Fallujah, the Syrian border and most recently in Baghdad itself just creates intense hatred of American troops and meanwhile, the war crimes just keep coming. High altitude bombing of densely packed residential neighborhoods have reportedly, been responsible for twice as many civilian deaths as the insurgency.
We cannot afford to keep even the 70,000 or so combat troops e currently have in Iraq. The military is shredding with every month we stay. There are 80, to 100,000 experienced Pesh Merga fighters in a Kurdistan that will refuse to give up power without solid guarantees of at least loose autonomy. The Badr Brigade can field at least 15,000 well equipped militia. Muqtada al Sadr demonstrated he can call on many thousands of passionate followers in a moment. The insurgency has been estimated to number as high as 40,000 fighters and supporters. And don't forget the terr'rists!
The largely Shiite "New Iraqi Army" is being slaughtered like turkeys before Thanksgiving because the US won't equip them. Everyone in Iraq is rightly concerned that the massive infiltration of insurgents would mean that they can, and do, just turn their weapons on the "good guys". They certainly keep the other insurgents wlee informed. One Police Chief last week complained that he could only trust about 25% of his "forces".
The insurgents learn form their experiences and Rummy's agents don't. Iranian hit squads are rumored to be helping the Shiites target Sunni clerics. Clerics of all faiths, governors, Army commanders, and "elected" officials are being killed and kidnapped. Not ONE single road can be traveled in Iraq without threat to life and limb. Power and vital utilities are available less than 50% of the time and many of the most capable doctors are fleeing Iraq for their lives. As soon as US troops sweep through an area, they return to base and the insurgents return. Our troops can do no more than defend themselves, while life for the people is sheer hell. With often misdirected US troops, criminal gangs, jihadis, and up to 20,000 unrestrained foreign mercenaries roaming the streets. Iraqis live in terror that, even if they can get gasoline for their cars, they may turn a corner and accidentally be too close to a trigger happy US patrol and see their family slaughtered. Unemployment is reported as high as 70%.
What the Hell are we supposed to be able to do at this stage? Soon enough, either the insurgents will finally get al Sistani, or the low level ethnic cleansing by the Kurds of the ethnic Arabs translpanted by Saddam in Kirkuk, will boil over, or the more than 150 engagements the Kurds have had with the Turkish army in just the last year will escalate, or, or, or: something will happen to bring the war to a new level. At that point, the US will have no more role to play besides survival.
Posted by DeminNewJ at June 4, 2005 04:54 AMSorry to dissent, but it isn't going to be up to the US when we pull out. Your scenario of 'Elect Us!' isn't going to play well in the precinct that really counts - Iraq.
It isn't going to take a plan to get the US out of Iraq. Events are already progressing outside of Coalition control, and when the chaos erupts, the US military will be setting land speed records pulling out - think Saigon's final days. I don't say this to impugn our military personnel, for they are doing the best they can with the parsimonious Bu$hCo supply system that can only care properly for Halliburton. It would be wisest if they come home as fast as they can once it's clear that there is nothing more they can do in Iraq - and that time is coming.
Posted by pessimist at June 4, 2005 05:27 AM"At that point, the US will have no more role to play besides survival." Posted by DeminNewJ.
Haven't we arrived at that destination already? We are treading water with no life boat in sight.
Posted by Judith at June 4, 2005 05:29 AMThis situation is classic Bush. Get into trouble, and have someone else bail you out. Instead of accepting the responsibility for getting us out of Bush's War, Democrats should be pounding this WH for their lack of a plan. When I hear Bush say we will get out when the Iraqis can defend themselves, I want to scream. No one holds his feet to the fire on that kind of simple inexcusable response.
Democrats are in a lose lose situation. Any plan that we design will be used against us by the the Republicans, this WH, and the Wrong-wing fascists. It is not our responsibility to get Bush out of this quagmire. However, it is our responsibility to DEMAND from Rumsfeld, Bush and the rest of the lying bastards to give us a concrete plan immediately. No more simple answers for a complex problem.
Posted by Judith at June 4, 2005 05:55 AMi'm inclined to cut 'n' run, but despite eli's reductionism, we should consider the possible costs of civil war when we leave. that blood would be on our hands as well. OTOH, our military isn't protecting a lot of iraqis when they're holed up in the green zone.
politically, maybe all we can get out of this is to differentiate ourselves from the Rs, ie, point out bushco's "permanent bases" and how much body armor you could buy for the missing $8B.
all right, due to the lack of good options, i'll think out loud here:
how about a regional security plan for iraq? starring all the bordering countries:
jordan
house of osama, i mean saud
iran
turkey
syria
kuwait
with supporting roles for us, NATO and the UN. we would put in writing our lack of interest in long-term occupation, delicately esconsed in a more general "hands-off" clause that all parties would agree to. we'd have to do business with some bad actors (what else is new?), but there are so many people, iraqis especially, who would like to see our backs that it could get some support. sistani might like it.
of course, commander codpiece would never consider something like this. he holds hands with prince bandar, but wouldn't give khatami the time of day. and no one likes bashar al-assad.
OT, didja ever notice that john bolton is the michael bolton of diplomacy?
Posted by benjoya at June 4, 2005 06:29 AM"ensconsed"
Posted by spelling nazi at June 4, 2005 06:50 AMDems are still blamed for 'loosing Vietnam' because Congress cut spending for the war. Actually Nixon wanted (and got) reductions from about 500,000 to about 50,000 in his first term.
So, Dems must be very careful to avoid being blamed for Bush's stupid war.
Nixon was elected on "I've got a PLAN" for Vietnam. (The secret one, that ended up with US progressively withdrawing after secret negotiations with the Viet Cong).
Eisenhower won by saying "I'll go to Korea" (to end the fighting).
We Dems need to make clear that Iraqis must protect their own security. They had a world-class army in recent times - holding off the Iranian army for years. We expect them to take responsibility.
So, perhaps the best Dem. plan is to call for a plan (ala Nixon, Eisenhower), but recognize that Bush won't propose a plan, and insist that the Iraqi's propose a plan to assume security responsibility. If the Iraqi's don't produce a plan, then the fallback should be a firm timetable of division-by-division reductions in US forces starting mid-2006 (6 months after the new constitution is supposed to be voted upon) and ending up with perhaps a couple divisions (20-30,000) ONLY if requested by the government and approved by the new constitutional parliament.
Posted by JimPortlandOR at June 4, 2005 08:54 AMbenjoya, can I take it from your response that you'll be volunteering? You can consider the "possible costs of the civil war" if you like, that's your decision. But when you consider it, you must decide if they are worth YOUR life. Are you? Or is it just worth someone ELSE's life?
Posted by Eli Stephens at June 4, 2005 04:25 PMgo fuck yourself eli. i did everything i could to stop the war. do thousands more dead iraqis not matter to you cause they're brown or something?
Posted by benjoya at June 4, 2005 07:19 PMor to put it another way, if pulling out means more dead, are you okay with it cause you've washed your hands? idiot.
Posted by benjoya at June 4, 2005 07:20 PMwhile i'm at it, my painfully evenhanded comment began with "i'm inclined to cut 'n' run" but i guess you don't do nuance. (why not join the other side? and look up "reductionist" while you're at it.)
Posted by benjoya at June 4, 2005 07:24 PMalso, since you seem to be a bit thick, OTOH stands for "on the other hand", the use of which is a sure sign of someone who's not quite sure of his rightness and righteousness, unlike your fundamentalist certitude.
Posted by benjoya at June 4, 2005 07:29 PMYou can consider the "possible costs of the civil war" if you like,
and you can ignore them if you like. you can stick your fingers in your ears and go "neener neener neener" if you like. you can take a flying fuck at a rolling donut if you like.
Posted by benjoya at June 4, 2005 07:31 PMdoughnut
Posted by spelling nazi at June 4, 2005 07:32 PMWow...
Posted by Andy at June 4, 2005 07:44 PMFor all your ranting and raving, benjoya, you have YET to answer the simple question. Are you willing to give up YOUR life or not? Because, after you say "I'm inclined to cut and run", the rest of your comment sure sounds like you intend for U.S. troops to be there for quite some time.
Am I happy that Iraqis will die after U.S. troops leave? No, of course not. I'm not happy they're dying now either. And, personally, I believe that a lot fewer of them will be dying after American troops leave. But even if that prediction is wrong, it doesn't change my opinion. The U.S. never belonged in Iraq, it doesn't belong in Iraq now, and it should get the hell out. NOW. And if the Democrats aren't willing to say that, to hell with them too.
Posted by Eli Stephens at June 4, 2005 10:49 PMAnd, personally, I believe that a lot fewer of them will be dying after American troops leave. But even if that prediction is wrong, it doesn't change my opinion.
of course it doesn't change your opinion, it's not your life. you mean well, though.
steve, can you delete all this crap?
and by crap, i mean my own. this blog's too good for such petty invective and i apologize. a little.
Posted by benjoya at June 4, 2005 11:12 PMEli Stephens,
I think that there is some logic to your question, but it is off a bit. It seems that your question should be: "are you willing to go there and face the risks to make things better?" I do not think that anyone that goes there is ready and willing to die for it, but some will. Most are ready and willing to face the risks - even if logic tells them that it may not be worth it. I haven't addressed whether I think we should have gone there or not, but as I said earlier, we cannot leave now. Even if we should not have gone in there in the beginning, we can't quit without cleaning up the mess we made. One of the biggest problems many people see in the Bush administration is that it has caused world relations to deteriorate. Imagine if we pulled the plug now what the world would think. I know that some people think that if we left, things would improve, but I am not convinced. The government in place now is despised by many there, and if we were not there, it would be quickly over-run. Well, I've rambled on enough....
Posted by Andy at June 5, 2005 12:35 AMIt always amazes me that someone will bring up the 'willing to die for one's country' instead of bringing up Gen. George Patton's infamous comment:
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
- Attributed to General George Patton Jr
(from A Genius for War by Carlo d'Este)
Click here to read the whole monologue
And here for the Patton Speech (Thanks to Mr. Scott Hann)
[links and quote from General George S. Patton Quotes]
Posted by pessimist at June 5, 2005 06:57 AMIraq is FUBAR.
Posted by rlprather at June 5, 2005 07:36 AMI think the U.S. should cease all offensive military operations, withdraw from population centers, and announce that it plans to depart in six months. Other related measures would of course also be necessary. But here's what we're looking at:
The sobering reality of the Iraq war
by Steve Chapman
The dilemma the U.S. faces in fighting the insurgents is that military methods are not enough to solve the problem and may make it worse. If the movement is a reaction to the U.S. military presence, keeping American troops in Iraq amounts to fighting a fire with kerosene.
That explains why the longer we stay, the more suicide attacks we face. And it suggests that the only feasible strategy is to withdraw from Iraq and turn the fight over to the Iraqi government.
The alternative is to stay and keep doing what we've been doing for the last two years. But that approach has shown no signs of fostering success. It only promises to raise the cost of failure.
----------
Steve Chapman is a member of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board.
It's been an interesting discussion. We should differentiate what we think should happen with what could possibly happen. There will be no change in policy until, at the earliest, January 2007. I am very practical about these matters, as the situation hardly calls for ivory tower thinking. Such thinking is part of how we got into this mess to begin with.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at June 6, 2005 09:19 AM