from today's Wall Street Journal
The large American military presence in Iraq "feeds the notion of occupation" and "extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant," Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Congress last week. Gen. John Abizaid, a fluent speaker of Arabic and the top American commander in the Middle East, said at the same hearing that it was vital for the U.S. to gradually "reduce our military footprint" in the region. "We must make clear to the people of the region that we have no designs on their territory and resources," he added.
THEREFORE, the DLC position on Iraq is untenable. The Democratic Senators calling for more troops are going to have to reverse that direction 180 degrees. The Administration will start withdrawing troops in 2006, probably too few and too late, but some surely before the election. For Democratic elected officials the failure to have espoused a sensible course of action in Iraq will, in their view, be a wise exercise of discretion, since they will have avoided being stigmatized as weak on security. I think it will be fairly judged as a tremendous missed opportunity. "L'attaque davantage," said Napoleon.
It may well be that Bush will try to declare some sort of victory and start to bring the troops home before the next elections. But what happens if when he does that the bottom falls out and things go totally to hell in the whole area? If the Democrats had been demanding a withdrawal, the Republicans could blame the Democrats for the failure. At this point I just don't see what Democratic leadership gains for the party by trying to take the lead in withdrawal. It is the President's war to win or lose.
October 5, 2005 7:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't all or nothing-
In response to the "stay the course" BS, Dems should be demanding a "date certain" withdrawal. Contrary to the BushCo line of allowing terrorists to sit back and wait, this forces the Iraqi government to put up or become a colony shut up. If the terrorists DO sit back and wait, SO MUCH THE BETTER! That would give the Iraqi's the breathing room to get to work! The elected officials would then have no excuses for the Iraqi people as to why the power doesn't work, or there is no water. When the Generals start to say that we are enabling Iraqi dysfunction by our presence, we need for Dems to call for concrete milestones to be reached by the Iraqi government. As long as we continue to make the excuses for them, they will accept their failures as ours.
In any business negotiation, to reach a successful conclusion you have to be willing to walk away from the deal. Only then can you cut through the side issues and negotiate on the real sticking points. No deal is ever as bright as a "Win-Win" label would characterize it to be. There are always downsides that you agree to accept in order to get what you wanted in the first place. Since BushCo has changed the reasons for this deal as each stated result has proved to be another lie, Dems should have no trouble in saying anything.
October 5, 2005 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see what sort of 'opportunity' there is here except a chance for the Republican to blame Democrats,
First, it has to be assumed that Republicans will always blame us. You don't go into politics in this day and age just trying to avoid blame. That's been the Democratic recipe for failure for years now.
If the Democrats had been demanding a withdrawal, the Republicans could blame the Democrats for the failure.
That would then mean that the Republicans would be admitting they listened to Democrats and withdrew because we said to??? That's not realistic.
There are only two options for Democrats right now: Accept Bush's plan, or call for withdrawal.
There is no middle ground, because the middle ground requires Bush to change course -- and he will not.
October 5, 2005 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fred in Vermont you see everything through the prism of what the Republicans will do or what they say. So it always is with people who do not know how to win. Whatever you do the Republicans will find a bat and try to beat you. If you want to "win", you must find the right policy and position (morally right and right for the country...hopefully the same thing) and state it and fight for it with the intensity of conviction. General Grant when warned repeatedly about Lee, told his subordinates that he was not going to worry about Lee but he would give Lee things to worry about. Democrats could, if they believed it, tar this whole Iraqi venture with the scathing criticism it deserves, not tiptoe around the periphery of the issue.
October 5, 2005 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
For Democratic elected officials the failure to have espoused a sensible course of action in Iraq will, in their view, be a wise exercise of discretion, since they will have avoided being stigmatized as weak on security. I think it will be fairly judged as a tremendous missed opportunity. "L'attaque davantage," said Napoleon.
Democrats will be attacked as weak on national security no matter what they say. But they can reduce the degree to which the issue works for Republicans.
The problem with Iraq is that the status quo isn't working and the alternatives all seem likely to make the situation worse. Put in more troops and you put off the day when Iraqis can take care of themselves. Pull out troops too soon and the country will descend into civil war pretty quickly. But this is if you judge everything in terms of whether there are more or less American troops deployed.
Democrats have an opportunity to change the nature of the debate to one that gets out of the more vs. fewer troops dynamic. There is an opportunity to talk about other aspects of the military presence that reinforces the hidebound nature of the Bush strategy and stops putting Democrats on the defensive about an issue of national security.
What I'm talking about is an alternative to the countrywide search-and-destroy tactics currently being used. Democrats should propose an alternative strategy. Concentrate on a few geographic areas, focus all forces there, secure those areas with Iraqi troops after a while and back them up with US air power. This reduces the overall footprint of the US, allows Iraqis to take over with their limited resources sooner rather than later, yet still supports them with the US presence. It is clear that the convoy patrols, where more US soldiers get blown up, don't accomplish anything.
Democrats cannot afford to make themselves vulnerable to the "cut and run" argument. They need to be seen as willing to use force but be much smarter and more effective than Republicans. Make the national security issue work for them. Call it something snappy like "Secure and smart". Don't be defensive.
October 5, 2005 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
One consistent difference between the democrats and the administration has been that democrats (Kerry, for example) have consistently been willing to make the pledge that there will be no long-term US military bases in Iraq.
The administration has failed to make this pledge, largey, I believe, because they intend to have a permanent occupation by means of huge military bases.
For some strange reason, the pundocracy has paid no attention to this. In the rare opportunities to question Bush and other members of the administration, they've never been asked about long-term base commitments.
Now that even the Wall Street Journal is saying that the appearance of occupation is part of the problem, wouldn't a commitment to removing bases be an obvious part of the solution?
October 5, 2005 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, the old "hamlet" ploy- c'mon BTD, are you suggesting assisted suicide for the Dems?
It didn't work any better in Vietnam than it would work in Iraq. If it was working, the "Green Zone" would be a much safer place than it is.
October 5, 2005 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
That plan's been tried, and failed. Trying to control Iraq is like making a balloon animal -- squeeze one area, and another pops out. The insurgency, like any homegrown militia, is more nimble than the occupying force. They don't stand for pitched battle against bad odds, they simply remove to another place, then come back when the coast is clear. (Shouldn't this tactic be familiar from our own country's history?) They know the countryside, they have supporters to shield them, and they're fired by religious and tribal enthusiasm, so they won't be quitting anytime soon.
There is no "Iraq" anymore (if indeed there ever was), which is why putting in Iraqi troops does no good. It's not like those people don't know how to fight -- quite the contrary. It's that they do not see themselves as fighting for a common good. Every one of them has a commitment to a religious, tribal, or family group that supercedes their commitment to their "country."
I think civil war is inevitable if we leave, and merely slowed if we stay. It makes me sick to my stomach to realize the enormity of our failure. We have essentially handed most of the oil fields to Iran. We've essentially created Kurdistan, which may precipitate a war with Turkey and/or Syria in northern Iraq. We've radicalized the Sunnis, who while a minority, are far from powerless. And we've screwed the Christian minorities once again. We couldn't have done worse if we'd tried. And the DLC thinks this is all fine.
October 5, 2005 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
THEREFORE, the DLC position on Iraq is untenable.
Maybe, but the conclusion hardly follows from the premise.
The Bush Administration has been very good at getting its military advisors to say what it wants to hear. Generals who seem to contradict asserted policy are more likely to be foreshadowing a change in that policy. The "therefore" that should follow is: THEREFORE, the Bush Administration has decided that it wants to renege on its commitment to nation building.
As to "the DLC position," many Democrats never bought on to the nation building concept that rose to the fore during Clinton's second term. Many more threw it overboard when Bush signed on to it in the months following 9/11. Still more simply think that it's a fine thing for small European countries, but misplaced among cultures as backward as that of the Arabs.
Perhaps they've been right all along. But I don't think so. I think that we were right for decades when we shouted that human rights matter. I think that we were right when we screamed about American support for brutal dictators in the name of expediency and stability. I think that Clinton was right to explain why nation building, though difficult and expensive, was in America'slong term interest. And I think that Bush was right when he became a belated convert to these themes, as articulated in a series of speeches and documents between Sept. 20 2001 and Jan. 20 2005.
My primary complaint has long been that this administration never allocates the resources needed to achieve its lofty goals. Overwhelming evidence shows that the Bush Administration has, indeed, abandoned the "Bush Doctrine" favoring support for dissidents, opposition to tyranny, and the promotion of liberal democracies abroad. Perhaps those of us who cheered his rhetoric while challenging his actions were misguided in our idealism. Or perhaps now that the Republicans have abandoned many long-held Democratic positions, more Democrats will rediscover them.
But in any event, the proffered conclusion just doesn't follow from the evidence.
October 5, 2005 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
A while back Reed Hunt posted a call for withdrawal timed to meet the 2006 election cycle. He based this logic on polling numbers showing the public disliked the Bush's handling of war, opposed imediate withdrawal, but did not want to stay in Iraq indefinitely. At the time, I thought this was exactly the kind of poll-driven politics that led Democrats off the cliff in the last two elections.
However, in light of elected Democrats' continued quiescence on Iraq, Hunt's case that they at least listen to the polls and start talking about how to get out is better than nothing.
October 5, 2005 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://xpatriatedtexan.blogspot.com/2005/08/unpopular-with-right- unpopular-with.html
I think it's worth kicking around some more.
dlw
October 5, 2005 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
- Dwindling numbers of trained & battle-ready Iraqi Army battalions.
- Abizaid's senate testimony estimates of insurgency continuing another decade, should the US choose to remain.
- Ever-increasing Iranian influence with the majority Shi'a population.
Who are we trying to fool here? The public knows that Iraq has been a fiasco, and is ready for leadership to announce that we're not going to chase bad money with good.
October 5, 2005 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
at the foreign affairs table - it is entitled "A Simple Exit Strategy" and is by far the single best solution to this tragedy. As it says in the post, put it on the Iraqi December ballot and allow them to vote for a timeline for U.S. forces to end the occupation. This allows the U.S. to leave with a shred of dignity still intact, and promotes democracy and control of affairs to Iraqis.
October 5, 2005 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ever since the 2004 presidential primaries it has been clear that Republicans' support comes more from Democratic weakness than from their own strength. Specifically on the Iraq war and occupation: the Republican goal is greatly expanded US control over Mid East oil; the Democratic party, judged by its actions, agrees with this goal; the only differences concern method and style. Therefore, despite overwhelming voter support for US withdrawal from Iraq, the Democratic leaders, including many who post at TPM Cafe, become apoplectic over Bush's 'mistakes' without giving a clear alternative.
May I suggest to anyone who actually opposes the Bush administration on Iraq:
1. come out clearly that the Iraq invasion was wrong, not just a mistake. The unprovoked invasion of another country, as virtually the entire world recognizes, is simply wrong. More troops, better planning, etc etc, do not change this fact.
2. clearly declare that the primary source of instability, savagery, and so forth, in Iraq, is the US/UK occupation. Therefore, the best thing the US can do for the Iraqis is to leave immediately. If anybody doubts this and thinks it would be 'irresponsible' or something, they can call for an Iraqi vote (of people, not officials): should the US leave immediately? Only imperialists decide what is best for their colonies; democrats let the 'colonies' decide.
Within these two basic guidelines, the Democratic party has lots of room to sculpt messages to appeal to voters without fear that the Bush administration will coopt them. If the Democrats aren't willing to take these stands, they're just advocating Bush-lite policies, and the American electorate understands this.
October 5, 2005 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree, however, that the occupation is the reason Iraq is in turmoil. The invasion just took the lid off the pressure cooker. Saddam's repression, though odious and immoral, was also the only thing holding the place together. Now it's every group for itself, and all they're waiting for is for us to get out of the way so they can start grabbing what they want. They'll play nicey-nice and hold elections and go through the mummery of putting together a constitution while we're still there, but what they're really itching to do is start killing each other.
The Democrats need to realize this before they start pushing for all-out withdrawal, because once the ethnic cleansing begins, they might have to come up with some explanations for why they didn't stop it. Or maybe not. Americans might just forget about Iraq once we no longer have a stake in it.
October 5, 2005 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Call an election or a plebicite in Iraq: do you want the US to stay, or not? If they say we should go, which I think they would, then on what basis can you argue that we should stay?
October 5, 2005 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
No Democrat in Congress, with the possible exception of Feingold, is going to get any traction out of Iraq. They've all been too busy thumbing their noses at their Base and -- hilariously -- sucking up to voters who don't even exist outside of Tim Russert's and Alan Colmes' households. The wisest strategy for them is to continue doing what they do best, being loyal lapdogs to the Preznit, and hope, as he does, that Americans will have forgotten about Iraq by November 2006.
October 5, 2005 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The best we can hope for at this point is that when we've left Iraq and the civil war dies down, we can negotiate with whatever collection of petty tyrants is left standing so we can get some access to the oil again, which is mostly what the whole damn thing was about in the first place. That, and establishing permanent military bases to control the rest of the Middle East -- another plan gone down the toilet.
The politicians on both sides will decide when and under what circumstances we leave, and how best to whitewash it so they won't pay a political price. I'm too disgusted and ashamed to be interested in their sordid, morally bankrupt manueverings.
October 5, 2005 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
In general I agree with that. I think that with economic and social issues that is exactly the way it should be and I wish the Democratic party was much more that way.
But this is something different. The country is at war, our troops are committed to the battlefield with no real prospect of a good outcome. An opposition party that even appears to attempt to wrest control of a war away from the commander in chief at a time when he is not ready to admit defeat (or even claim a bogus victory) risks being blamed for the defeat. It is not just a mater of what we can expect the Republicans to say.
The idea that we must have been "stabbed in the back" will resonate naturally in the mind of every American who does not understand things well enough to see that it was in the cards from the start that we would win the war with ease but then lose the aftermath. Such Americans, the salt of the earth, will be looking for someone to blame and we want them to blame Bush and the Republicans, not the Democrats.
There is no problem with being scathing about the Iraqi venture and the way the Bush administration has conducted it and to call for him to tell the American people how he is going to conclude it. I just heard Howard Dean do a good job of it on the Chris Mathews show. But he didn't push for immediate withdrawal. He just called for Bush to find a successful way to finish up our involvement. That is the right line for an opposition party to take in such a situation.
October 5, 2005 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
No all they would have to claim would be that the call of the Democrats demoralized our troops and also gave aid and comfort to the enemy at a critical moment thus causing a sudden collapse in the situation (not hard to find) and making a withdrawal necessary.
Not true. The line has to be that he has no plan and so he needs to get one and share it with the American people.
If he does not change course we are headed of some sort of Dunkirk in the Desert and that is all the more reason not to be in a position to be blamed for it.
October 5, 2005 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
October 5, 2005 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Fred, the polls suggest that the majority of Americans think that we're off course in Iraq. Granted, a slice of them might think that we've not sent enough troops, but given the other results on the direction of the country, Dubya-approval, etc., it sure looks like a majority of Americans do already "get it". How much longer will it be until the Beltway Dems do?
October 5, 2005 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that they do get it, and get it better than a majority of Americans, and that is why they fear being blamed for a coming disaster if they are seen as undermining the war by being willing to declare it lost before the president declares 'victory'.
October 6, 2005 5:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
timeline focuses the Marmot's Mind and strengthens the Marmot's Spine!
Sen. Carl Levin, WaPo 10/12/05:
Edward Luttwak, Foreign Affairs, Jan Feb 05:
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI PBS NEWS HOUR June 28, 2004:
October 10, 2005 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink