The problem as I see it is the D's are looking for the moral high ground, while the R's are laughing at them and taking over the simple ground.  "If you are against the war, you think Saddam in power was a good thing."  That statement is nonsense, of course, because it logically leads to invading a couple dozen countries, some of which actually have effective defense resources.  But the counter argument is not simple, and is ineffective in a world where public opinion sways to the shortest soundbite rather than the soundest one.  So everyone backs away from the issue and the simple message wins.

The polls about how many people still think there are WMD's (though at last that number is falling), and the very large group that still think Saddam was connected to 9/11 shows that simple messages work, even when untrue.  It might be time for the D's to get their message into simple mode, too.

And here's a way to articulate how to do that.  See Harold Ford's Senate campaign ad, airing across Tennessee now:
http://www.haroldfordjr.com/?option=com_content&task=view&amp
;id=62

At the risk of seeming contrarian, I'd say that the best thing for Dems to do here is stay quiet about Iraq and focus on the good they would do elsewhere.  Domestically and internationally.

People are making their own minds up on the Iraq war based on news reports.  Having the dems try and spark anger isn't necessary and allows the pubs to divert the issue to "whether the dems will support the troops this time, unlike in Vietnam."

Based on the way the pubs have talked for decades about the left wing "losing" Vietnam for the U.S., I'd say it's important to let the pubs hang themselves in Iraq.  And they WILL hang themselves.  They don't understand insurgencies, they don't understand strategy,and they can't think rationally about warfare- so what are they left with except their own incompetence?

I took the time to follow the link at watched the ad. I fail to see how Ford articulated any way to do anything.

What I heard was just more hot air and platitudes about honoring our troops and trying to find a way to bring them home with dignity and honor. Unfortunately, exactly how to do that, which is the crux of the problem, was no where in evidence.

If the U.S. were to stop acting like the big bully, needing to control everything – and profit from everything – if we treated other countries as our partners instead of as our lackeys, then maybe we could actually assemble a huge international force to pacify Iraq.

First off, leadership is not about doing what most people want. It is doing what you consider to be best, and convincing others to follow.  That is why it is called leadership.

With that off my chest, most Americans want two things. One, they want us out of there.  The want an end to the killing, the violence and the waste. This is perfectly reasonable. Two, they want Iraq to be a "success" whatever that is. I presume that means they do not want us to leave a failed state in our wake, a civil war, or a humiliating defeat for us as epitomized in the derisive phrase "cut and run."

The difficult part is that these two objectives seem to be at odds with each other, and no one has yet been able to explain clearly how to reconcile them. My opinion is that this is because of a fundamental flaw in the thinking of most so-called "war critics." I am thinking here specifically of Joe Biden, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Joe Corzine and even Chuck Hegel. Each of these decries the war, and our truly bungled efforts, and then says "but we can't just leave now."  Yet they seem to have no solution to offer except more weak posturing, calls for more (or less) troops, better training of Iraqis, etc. In other words, pablum. Why? Why is it so hard to come up with a plan that will get us out of Iraq and salvage our honor?

In part it is because these people have no intention of "getting out of Iraq."  If our intention was to get out of Iraq then why are we building a billion dollar embassy?  Why are we constructing many vast and expensive permanent military bases? Why are the politicians - and I'm speaking directly to Democrats here - not pointing this out, and exposing what are clearly long term plans for, if not an occupation, at least the setting up of a puppet client state with huge foreign bases (ours), and a concommitant significant number of foreign forces (ours), on its soil?

All these plans, if they are actual plans, seems weak because they are weak. And if Dems are criticized for "not having a plan," it is because they, in truth, do not have a plan.

The reason is simple. There is no possible plan that includes our staying in Iraq that will lead to "victory." 

And the reason for that is equally simple, and should be obvious by now.

We are the problem. As long as we are the problem we cannot be part of the solution. 

The insurgency is not so much about fomenting a civil war, or gaining the upper hand in a new government , it is about getting rid of the occupying American forces.  That is why it has widespread support. That is why it targets police and Iraqi guards, who are seen as puppets of the occupiers, whether they be Sunnis or Shias. The insurgency will not stop until we leave.

This is not to say that if we leave everything will immediately become peaches and cream. There has been a lot of damage done to that society and it will take some time, and perhaps some bloodshed, to restore a functioning society. But Iraqis are not stupud, they are not uneducated, they are not crazy. They want a decent life like anyone else.  They just want it on their own terms, in their own way, without foreign interference from infidels. Does that seem unreasonable?

If we set up a program of restorations/reparations, a real program of tens of billions, (less than what we are spending now, by the way) and a phased withdrawal, perhaps with the addition of UN or other international peacekeepers for a transitional period, the back of the insurgency would be broken.  They would have nothing to be insurgent about. They would have the perfect right to fight among themselves to hammer out a new government. I don't know exactly what that would look like, and maybe neither do the Iraqis. But it would be theirs.
 

As long as we stay we make trouble. To claim that if we leave Iraq will descend into chaos is both counterintuitive and foolish.  Iraq has descended into chaos. Because of us. Our staying won't help stop that.  Our leaving will.  And this means abandoning those new permanent bases, getting out of the green zone, and letting them keep their own oil, which we will be glad to buy. And giving up the insane idea that we can solve their problems when we can't even solve our own.

Who knows? Maybe, if we give them enough actual freedom, an enough help to rebuild their country, by themselves, they may even like us again someday. And maybe a few others will, too.

The alternative to leaving is not some ephemeral "victory."  It is humiliating. costly defeat.

Why supposedly smart people, like Hegel and especially Biden, Ms. Clinton, and so many other Dems who oppose the war but tow the line of "we can't leave now, we must finish the job," can't see this is, frankly, beyond me.

Is it because they are afraid of being tarred as ones who would "cut and run" and being called weak? If so, then they are weak.

We need to start telling the truth, and to start crafting a message that will frame this properly, so that the American public will see the inherent sense in leaving and view it not as a defeat, but as the proper, moral and strategic thing to do, after what we can frame as the successful termination of a horrible regime and any threat it posed. Let's say, "we did what we came to do. Now it's up to the Iraqis, in whom we have every faith in their ability to create a just and prosperous and peaceful society, and we stand ready to help them in any way we can."

Lets say that, and follow up on a commitment to aid, and then GO. 

The post was terribly cryptic, but at a time when the polls show increasing doubt about the war (eg. among the Nebraska American Legion), letting liberal hawks tell us "what the American people want us to do" sounds like the worst choice.

Democratic pros and media pros are very ill-equipped to pick up on American opinion about foreign policy, because almost all of them (Tom Friedman, Judy Miller, the list goes on) see it as their task to keep the American people on board, and to marginalize the doves.

Let's try these on for size. Maybe we should...

Do what most Germans want us to do in France. It's possible -- even likely -- that our countrymen are right.

Do what most Britons want us to do in the American colonies. It's possible -- even likely -- that our countrymen are right.

Do what most Southern slave owners want us to do in the Confederate States of America. It's possible -- even likely -- that our countrymen are right.

Do what most barbarian tribes want us to do in Londinium. It's possible -- even likely -- that our countrymen are right.

What a load of crap. Sometimes the majority is right; sometimes it's wrong. We've agreed that in certain circumstances (e.g., elections) we will live with the majority viewpoint. At other times, we've agreed that the only correct thing to do is fight majoritarian rule.

Besides, is support for the carnage in Iraq a majority view? Just asking.

We broke it.  We have to fix it.

Dems don't need ideas on how to fix Iraq --- and should emphasize the fact that foreign policy and military affairs are the responsibility of the Executive Branch, and that its both impractical and unwise to try and micromanage those areas through legislation.

Instead, Dems should continue to harp on the failure of the current course being persured by the Bush regime, and the need to change course while pointing out that it is up to the President to determine what that changed course will be, and his job to convince the American people that it is the right course. 

Dems can of course offer a few general suggestions, like stop insulting the international community by doing things like foisting John Bolton on the UN, stop antagonizing Iraq's neighbors whose co-operation we need if we are going to stop the flow of money, weapons, and people that are fueling the insurgency, and demonstrate that the United States is serious about the war on terror by doing things like deporting anti-Cuban terrorists to stand trial for their crimes against humanity, and finding a Director of National Intelligence who, unlike Negroponte, did not ignore the overwhelming evidence of state-sponsored terrorism going on in Central America  while he was ambassador to Honduras.

Too late, if it was ever feasible. At this point, nobody is going to send  new troops to share in a shooting war, especially to join the losing side on the verge of ignominious defeat. You made the mess, you deal with it (and so must the poor Iraqis, alas.)

Here's a simple proposal.

Let the World Court handle it. Put our actions, and Saddam's, under the jurisdiction of the Hague.

Then get the you-know-what out and stop killing our children for oil. It's not working, you know. The price of oil went up past $60 today and it's not going down.

A few points.

Votes: You would think, with the bulk of the military being from Southern states, that the folks in those states would be among those calling for a pullout or "phased withdraw". Well, they're not. Majority opinion is still in favor of the war in the electorally vital South and Heartland areas. Whether an imminent pullout is right policy-wise is separate from how it would be viewed there and in the rest of the country, which would be negatively.Bush has tied the idea of victory in the minds of Americans to "a stable, democratic Iraq at peace with it's neighbors". You can't win hearts and minds in the Army Belt (or the Army itself) by advocating humiliating retreat. And no matter how you try to "frame" it that's how it would be seen by many, many people in this country.

Iraq: What would the consequences of pullout be? The risk of a civil war is real and at the moment it's unclear/doubtful the new security forces could handle things without US backup. Should we leave a weak government in place and risk a post-withdrawal debacle? Should the US trade one bad situation for a (possibly) worse one? Realizing that with the current level of forces and other difficulties making an outright defeat of the insurgency unlikely, the US is negotiating, playing for time to get the armies trained and the basic infrastructure in place. Time is the real enemy in Iraq. The more time that passes, the more US morale (military and civilian) erodes, insurgents have more opportunities to recruit, train, and equip, and attack. As time passes the possibility of UN or other military aid dwindles (if it's possible at all by now).

 "We are the problem. As long as we are the problem we cannot be part of the solution."

"The insurgency is not so much about fomenting a civil war, or gaining the upper hand in a new government , it is about getting rid of the occupying American forces."

Is getting rid of US forces the alpha and omega of the insurgents' motives? I'd say it's true that the glue holding the insurgents/rebels/jihadists together is the American presence, but in turn the US presence is also holding the rest of the country together. When the bulk of US troops leave do the Sunnis suddenly show up at the bargaining table? Can the Kurds and Shiites go thru the constitutional process amicably without US supervision? If the US withdraws, who on the Iraqi side benefits? The insurgency does, if by leaving an unprepared Iraq behind we allow it to fall into chaos and emerge as something other than a democratic government. The usual outcome of an internal conflict is that a ... strongman rises to power after besting the opposition. That would leave us back where we started.

"Let's say, "we did what we came to do. Now it's up to the Iraqis, in whom we have every faith in their ability to create a just and prosperous and peaceful society, and we stand ready to help them in any way we can.""

The thing is, what the responsible Iraqis need right now is the protection needed to lay the groundwork for a functioning state. The reality is that the force of American arms limits the insurgent terrorists to desperate suicide attacks to try and make us leave, so they can move on to Phase 2. I don't know what Phase 2 is, but the Sunni and jihadists guerrilas must have a point to making us leave, right?

Summary of my argument: Imminent withdrawal is likely to do more harm than good. For the sake of Iraqis and what's left of our national honor we can't leave Iraq to flounder, even after the titanic blunders of this administration.

All doom and gloom but no solutions. IMO Bush should do this: Stuff the ego and give Condi the purse strings and free hand to get some allies on our side for both training and peacekeeping. Press Congress to increase the funding for Iraqi (read: done by Iraqis) reconstruction and training dramatically. Crucially, keep his blundering self and his political staff away from the decision-making process and let the proffessionals do the job with the resources they need.

With some international help and and a double-strength reconstruction effort we might be able to draw down troop levels in the near future...  

That's not really true. I recommend running for something and seeing if your plan for leadership works.




Ask John Kerry, the perfect example of trying to lead by following. He won, right?




People know where they want to go, it's the job of the leader to find the way to get them there. It's more like consulting -- "if you want this, then this is how you get it"




Only in the most general terms, as in "we want peace, prosperity, security, freedom, etc." That leaves a whole lot of playing field for our political leaders.  After all, isn't Bush, in these terms, convincing he is taking people where they want to go? He certainly managed to do that last November.




Obviously, it is in how the leader intends to achieve these goals, and how he communicates this that real leadership matters.  And that is precisely the kind of leadership I find lacking in so many Democrats, especially Biden and others like him.  Either they do not know what is right, or are too timid to put it forth, and fail either way.




Bush, awful as he is, may not know what is right, but he is certainly not timid about putting his ideas forth.  It is only when they clash too harshly with reality, as in private accounts, and now in Iraq, that he loses his following.  

I disagree. Leadership consists of being out in front of the masses, staying just enough in front to lead, but not so far in front as to be ignored, and leading the masses in the "right" direction towards the "right" goal. Anwar Sadat made the mistake of getting way out in front trying to lead, and was killed. Others have made the mistake of hanging back in the mob and trying to lead from there, thus actually following instead of leading. So, to lead well, you need to really understand those you are leading, knowing their goals, and then figuring out how to nudge them towards the better goal.

In my opinion even if we were to withdraw from Iraq tomorrow the terrorist threat would be as bad as ever. What is missing is open acknowledgment that we did something very bad to Iraq, and justice for those who were responsible. So, I believe along with a withdrawal must come impeachment of the Bush administration, and their facing an international court to determine the appropriate punishment. Only then is there a hope to recover from the Iraq tragedy.

Acknowledge that the sacrifices made by two or three generations of Americains (Korea, Vetnam, and Iraq) where not in vain - the "values" which are sold by George W. are hollow.  Did your brother die,did your nephew die, did your son die so that you would loose your job to a poor working stiff in India or Arkanssas?Sorry you did not have a trust fund - your fault sucker.