"Surging" is No Plan: Concerned Americans Plan Picket Action at McCain/Lieberman Appearance
There is a peaceful picket protest tomorrow -- Friday -- at 1150 17th Street NW, Washington DC that you should know about -- and perhaps make some time to visit at noon.
It has become a sad cliche that Americans deserve better from their leadership than they are getting.
The President and some Members of Congress are calling for an increase in troop levels in Iraq to attempt to keep implementing the same domestic security and training plan for Iraqi police and militia units that America has had in place all along.
The plan has not changed -- just the call, finally, for more forces. But it’s too late for 20,000 -- 30,000 -- or even 40,000 -- troops to matter.
I'm not sure that several hundred thousand troops would make a difference, but all bias aside, Iraq and the sectarian civil war that is erupting calls for a much bolder, bigger action than a simple "surge" in U.S. troops.
Solving Iraq, if it can be solved, now means getting real about and engaging in a broad range of Middle East dealmaking between internal groups inside Iraq as well as among its neighbors.
It means working to establish the State of Palestine in a manner that maintains the viability and security of both Israel and Palestine. It means offering Syria a Libya-like arrangement out of the international doghouse. It means massaging Iran's ego in the region without handing the entire Middle East over on a golden platter -- which America seems to be doing with its counterproductive strategy. It means figuring out what China and Russia want most in their foreign policy objectives and doing what we can to trade their needs for our own.
This all means that we must have an end to diplomacy on the cheap -- and national security on the cheap. And a surge in troop levels without a plan, without the other component parts of a credible and believable grand strategy -- is sending more soldiers off to die unnecessarily -- or to kill Iraqis, many who are absolutely innocent in all this mess and who will no doubt hate the United States for a long time ahead.
I cannot attend tomorrow as I am traveling, but there is a picket action that is taking place on Friday at noon in Washington at 1150 Seventeenth Street (near 17th and M Streets) to protest the campaign that Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman are launching tomorrow to support President Bush's call for more troops in Iraq.
This peaceful picket action is called "No Iraq Escalation" and folks will have colorful signs and other material to carry around if you wish.
I know both Senator McCain and Lieberman -- and I know that both think that this "surge" is something that they have to support. My response to them -- if I was discussing the matter privately -- is that they are not asking the tough questions of the President and of our nation's top strategists. They are not thinking this through well enough or fully enough and are calling for an "escalation" of an already terrible situation.
They need to hear some alternative voices out there. That's what our democracy is about.
Feel free to send this post to others in the DC area, or to other blogs, or email lists.
I hope that those of you who can will share your views tomorrow at 1150 17th Street and give our elected representatives a sense that Americans are sick of being asked to send young men and women into a war that has gone way off the rails.
Bush is cherry-picking the Iraq Study Group report -- cherry-picking what he wants to continue a failed four year plan. But without the big deal and the other important parts of the ISG Report, Bush -- and enabling Senators -- are making America's situation even worse.
-- Steve Clemons is Senior Fellow and Director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation and publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note















does anyone believe that this "more troops" thing is simply political theater that will be used to justify the expansion of military spending and the contraction of domestic spending?
January 4, 2007 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know about that, but I believe it is a prelude to attacking Iran. Wesley Clarke evidently does too. Over in our "other country," Israel, they are expecting it and beating the drums in anticipation.
Jan Knaus
January 5, 2007 6:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting post Mr. Clemons.
One of the more difficult strategic problems of the anti-war movement is it's lack of a coherent leadership structure, which given the history of the anti anti-war movement of the sixties is not an altogether unexpected development.
I may have underestimated the usefulness of demonstrations as a legitimate outlet of public frustration with an unresponsive government to the will of the people.
I would encourage people to participate in these activities once again for that purpose, as a vent. I also concur with Mr. Raimondo's post today calling for millions to descend on DC and make the life of our elites a little more unbearable.
It is not something the current generation of Americans are comfortable with due to the change in our culture from production to services, which leaves most of us inclined to blog, I suppose. Hardly as effective as unloading garbage trucks on Pennsylvania Avenue to be sure.
However I remain optimistic that the political leadership has got the message, although I am unconvinced that they will address it in a way that comports with the will and needs of the people, so much as it comports with their own need to maintain power.
I would encourage one and all to read Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" prior to confronting the authorities on the streets, and to learn the lessons of the past prior to repeating them.
January 5, 2007 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Surging is semantics for stay the course.
January 5, 2007 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just out of curiosity, does anybody know who's organizing this picket? It would be very helpful if it weren't ANSWER or another fringe socialist group.
Having been to a few Iraq war protests here in SF, I can't help but wonder if they're easier for the media and general public to disregard because of the people who put them together are readily marginalized as being anti-American.
January 5, 2007 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
Have forwarded to your colleague Tim Roemer. Let me know if you run into him!
January 5, 2007 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
Chris Mathews reports that Krauthammer and Oli Morth will be out this WE with Surge Oppo Op-Ed.
mmmm...not sure I want those bedfellows...I am strange but not demented
January 5, 2007 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
Dems - Listen to Amy Stoddard!!
That must be the UFPJ event. Wish I were there. Wish the ANSWER 3/17 narch on the pentagon had similar follow up planned.
Hope the Demos come away with a long view. Opposing the McCain/Bush/AEI escalation is step 1 and there isn't much time for effective legislative action. Hope they read the Hill
Amy Goddard, "The Hill" today on Hardball discussion of Dem legistive opportunities WRT Iraq:
"appropriations control the Dems know to be too difficult' There is talk emerging about revisiting the War Powers Act and that would put incredible pressure on Bush" (paraphrase)
Revist? No..no...no
REPEAL it
Coincidentally this email exchange today....same concept, more developed than Hardball segment would permit.
Unedited Email exchange follows...apologies for the back of envelope quality.
Ascending order
-1. ------------- Original message from john mccutchen --------------
The problem with an appropriation cut off or even reduction is that the Congress cannot sufficiently restrict the President's spending discretion nor can they legislate through an appropriation bill the incredibly complicated task of stopping a war, at least not competently.
But the DEMS CAN affect troop levels. They can appropriate for 100,000 then 50,000 ...
They also have another, extremely powerful tool (short of impeachment) and it was none other than John Warner who showed the way. They authorzied the war and they can de-authorize.
Simple as:
"The War Powers Resolution of 2002 is hereby repealed effective 1/1/08"
There are some bells and whistles they might add but essentially that is it. Bush figures out the timing because Congress can't appropriate that which isn't authorized.
Should get some attention from Republicans running for their lives next year.
2. [Republican scoffed that War Powers approach as idle an exerciase as was Church Amendment appropriation control}
4. William Neyman wrote:
Your scalpel idea is interesting, but two questions occur to me:
1) In the absence of the War Powers Resolution, how much authority might the president have to continue operations already underway? The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was repealed in 1970, but Nixon was able to continue in Vietnam for the rest of his term, despite enormous opposition.
2) How much support do you think there is in Congress for setting a date certain for withdrawal? So far I haven't seen any public discussion about revoking the resolution, which, under the War Powers Act of 1973, would require withdrawal within 60 to 90 days of expiration of Congressional authority.
January 5, 2007 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to Senator Mitch McConnell today, Mr. Bush is in charge of Iraq war tactics. WHO? Mitch went on to say that whatever those tactics may be, Mitch supports them. That should spoil your weekend.
Nobody talks about the 100,000 contractors in place or the 20,000 military contractors or the companies which have signed contracts awarding them $300 million a pop. Do they stay if the military leaves? What affect would it have on our economy should the $100,000 per/minute we're shelling out in Iraq suddenly be stopped?
The only hope in all this mess is a House committee dedicated to oversight of this dreadful mess. If feet are held to the fire, some very revealing information should be forthcoming.
January 5, 2007 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 100,000+ mercenaries who are doing jobs formerly done by the military, only without oversight and at exorbitant cost, are almost never mentioned, as you say, Phelicity, just as the 25,000 wounded American soldiers are almost never mentioned. We don't hear how many mercenaries have been killed or wounded. We don't hear how many of the coalition of the willing have been killed or wounded, or even how many are left in country. We don't hear the truth about how many Iraqis have been killed or wounded, except that the number of dead, alone, might be somewhere between 50,000 and 650,000.
We don't know what the mercenaries are doing, do we? We remember that four of them were killed and horribly mutilated in Fallujah, so we destroyed the city. We know they provide critical security protection -- to someone or several someones. We know they cook and wash dishes and drive trucks. Beyond that, it's a black box. Something's going on in there, but we don't know what. But we should have expected that. Dick Cheney told us that most of the important work would have to be done on the "dark side."
We don't know how much it costs, either. In January, 2003, the White House chastised Larry Lindsey for saying it might cost $100-$200,000,000,000 and announced instead that it would cost $50-$60,000,000,000. Some say now the number is $300,000,000,000. Others say almost $1,000,000,000,000. (Forgive me, I love seeing the actual zeros.) But the cost doesn't matter because we're not paying it. Our grandchildren are.
Mitch McConnell is right, this is Mr. Bush's war and it is being fought by his tactics and will continue to be, unless he is impeached and convicted. The likelihood of that is vanishingly small, and in the time required to do it, if it could be done, things would likely get much worse in Iraq.
McConnell hasn't been very visible on the national stage in a while and I've kind of missed him, because he can be counted on to officially state the Wing-Nut position on almost everything. It's refreshing to hear it straight from the mouth of the Senate Minority Leader. Let's you know where things stand with those folks.
January 5, 2007 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Emphasizing how empty the concept of "surge" is, consider McCain's two prerequisites--it must be large enough and sustained.
How much is enough? Not explained. How long is enough? Ditto. Except I did read somewhere the number 18 months. That's not a surge, that's an escalation.
This is not strategy, it's hand-waving.
January 6, 2007 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of our children, NBC reported (yes, really the MSM), that we could vaccinate every child in the US for the amount it is costing us every 16 days in Iraq but the Congress has refused to fund that.
The Democrats need to relentlessly hit home how much the war is costing and what is being traded off. If they do, old Hillary might even find herself back in that village.
January 6, 2007 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Vaccinations, just one of the opportunity costs of the war in Iraq. How many more are there?
Afghanistan. Global warming. Universal health care. Education. Environmental protection. Investment in infrastructure...
January 6, 2007 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously an immediate withdrawal from Iraq is not the proper course of action. Similarly, promoting the status quo is also not an option.
What does that leave us with? The Surge campaign seems to be less about Iraq and more about Iran. Granted, the eradication of Al Sadr's army (which is more or less the mission of the Surge) will bolster the depleated Sunni's, but it is more of a shot at Iran.
It almost seems as if the Bush administration has admitted strategical defeat in Iraq and is now using that country as a catalyst to deal with Iran.
January 6, 2007 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just came across the best analysis of where the US is and an evaluation of what's to come. Written a Scotish newspaper editor, the overall conclusion is a criticism of the Administration's postion but the assessment is balanced and comprehensive. He also provides some information I have not seen elsewhere
January 6, 2007 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just want to tell you that I rated you a 4 and, as is becoming usually the case, it didn't register. Very frustrating.
January 6, 2007 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Phelicity.
January 6, 2007 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
Ladies, Gentlemen, Boys, Girls, CafeDenizens, My Fellow Americans...
What if "Surging" is a Plan???
Lest you forget = The Game is Three Card Monty, The Man From Texas is still your Dealerget the Dealer is still The Man from Texas...
Place your bets watch your wallets...keep your eyes on the cards..T
wo weeks ago, I warned the Cafe..Things are never what the they seem.... Perceptive Analysis-White House Rhetoric
Could Bush really be so dense, insane even, to believe that the Surge will bring victory, stability? What if he's sharper than his critcs give him credit for?
Joe Biden gets it. What if the Surge makes some plausible sense - Leave the helicopter skids to the Successor? What if the real goal is NEast of Baghdad - Divide and Conquer the Shiites in IraQ, Good Morning Tehra?
Testosterone surging...policy fixed not made?
January 6, 2007 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden is a weasel. Russert starts out today calling it an escalation. Biden calls it a surge. Biden's "plan" is going to keep us in Iraq indefinitely too. It's all political chess with the pawns our troops. Neither party is looking out for them. Neither party is looking out for the public. Boths sides are so afraid of being accused of losing an already lost war that they are going to keep kids on the line dying for the egos of both parties.
Sheesh, I neve thought I'd see Russert posing questions to the left of both parties.
January 7, 2007 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. Don't miss the MTP Iraq "debate" which closes with Biden announcing for President. All politics all the time.
January 7, 2007 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the New York Times, January 8, 2007:
...
Proposed slogan for new Bush war strategy: As Iraqis stand down, we'll stand up.
January 8, 2007 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tom Paxton
From the album: Ain't That News
I can't recommend it highly enough.
January 8, 2007 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
Death Throes on the Death Star
US twists civilian arms to fill Fortress Baghdad
FT.com
Construction of what critics call “Fortress Baghdad” has led to arguments inside the State Department amid fears that the overwhelming diplomatic presence will perpetuate a sense of US occupation and become a focus of local anger.
US diplomats say that just as the armed forces are being stretched to breaking point, the US foreign service is suffering from low morale and operations in the rest of the world are being damaged by the diversion of resources to Iraq.
Officials are also questioning why the Bush administration is sending more civilians into a deteriorating war zone, and the effectiveness of the work they can do.
January 8, 2007 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the link to the Burns article cited.
January 9, 2007 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink