I agree. Recalling Vietnam, it takes a while and a lot of effort to wind down a debacle as extensive as Iraq; and from a political point of view we on the left have not only the high moral ground, we have as well the passion, the intensity and the energy to take this issue and use it to change the way the US functions in the world and at home. One does not in a lifetime get many opportunities like this one to change a nation. (Please do not think I am happy about the chain of events that have led us to this point. But even disasters have opportunities embedded in them. ) Yes we must keep the pressure up to end the disaster as soon and as entirely as we can; and of course we must prevent the spread of this conflict to Iran. The war is lost and has been lost for a good two years at least; the troops will be brought home; and every step along the way is an opportunity to consolidate our position and put out a view of a changed America and a changed world; the overreach of the Bush gang gives us a great chance to roll back all of the rotten politics of the right.

Let's assume this non-binding resolution had actually squeaked thru the Senate. The effect would be almost exactly the same as the effect of a majority of both houses favoring it. It is nothing more than a symbolic slap in the face to Bush. No effect at all on Bush's war.

It would be very nice if someone in Congress could come up with a funding freeze that could pass Congress. That would then be a big kick in the butt to Bush. Still no effect at all on Bush's war, since he could just veto it.

The only Congressional action that affects Bush's war is impeachment.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Agree, it would have been great to have passed the resolution in the senate but it still got the desired effect of putting on record those who support the escalation and those who do not. With the numbers as they are in the senate this is where the dems will earn their money by having to have some political savey to win any battles.

Jon

As I read the out-state town meetings and forums our DFL and Republican Senators who voted for the Resolution have been doing this weekend, it is pretty brutal out there in the small counties that have lots of guys and gals in the National Guard that should be coming home, but have just had their mission extended. These are not college campuses as in the 60's; these are little bitty farm towns that happen to be county seats and are getting Senatorial visits. They've read the Guard E-Mail from Iraq in the town cafes, and they are not happy campers. I wish the media could take something from the perspective of what is hitting Senators and Reps from both parties as they tour this weekend and next week.

Actually, the Democrats can do something very useful indeed (not to be disagreeable or anthing! :-) :-) ). I favor The basic approach taken by John Murtha.

They can, without rancor or micromanagement, require the emplacement of competent policies for managing the military component of the Iraq situation. Apparently, the administration is unwilling to manage policies properly.

Servicemembers that are properly trained and equipped and properly rested between deployments may be assigned to Iraq. Servicemembers who are not fully rested between deployments, or who have inadequate training or equipment may not be assigned to Iraq.

The goal is simple, and the administration seems unable to achieve it on their own:

1) Prepare the people for their duty assignments, including training in both the door-to-door combat and managing the policing process properly;

2) Equip our military fighting force properly, including both vehicles and armor;

3) Ensure that military members are rested and ready for action (to the extent possible; I don't believe one can ever be fully ready for the sort of action our military faces in that situation);

4) Provide the best possible Information ("intel") to help them perform their assigned duties properly.

An military that is underequipped, worn out or inadequately prepared for their duties has a lower likelihood of achieving tactical goals, and is therefore less likely to achieve the overall goals of success in Iraq, whatever those goals may be this month.

The democrats in the legislature can have a substantial positive impact on this situation.

Thanks for sharing that info Sara. I suspect that similar events are playing out in the other forty nine states and a few Republicans may come back chastened by the experience. Alas my congressman is impervious to any war opinions contrary to those of the Administration.

I believe that having one or more town meetings in every Congressional district, and potentially multiple meetings and even demonstrations, will have vastly more effect than huge demonstrations in DC. These get very personal in the feedback to legislators.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I wish more would read Fred Ikle's Every War Must End, especially the revised edition covering 1991. Ikle, who has served in subcabinet posts in several Republican administrations and assorted Presidential commissions, paints a striking picture of what happens to nations who start wars without clear objectives for victory, and without an idea when they are losing and how to withdraw in that case.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

If anyone thinks stopping this war is easy or that simple defunding is the answer please read a short account in Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals, pp. 120-123. There you will see Congressman Lincoln opposing the Mexican War in a situation so similar to todays, including the almost exact defense of the President, as to be a direct warning.
Murtha's plan is genius. If we stick with that, do not let ourselves get sucked off message, then we should succeed. When the Republicans constantly say," Well, why don't you just cut off the funding" or, as David Brooks said recently, "I'ts dishonorable to take this route" we have to respond with simple questions. "Do you want to send troops into battle without proper armor or uparmored vehicles ? Yes or No ? Yes or No ?" "Do you want to send untrained men and women into battle ? Yes or No ? Yes or No ? Do you want to send troops back without proper R & R ? Yes or no, yes or no."
Brooks is angry because he knows Murtha has him.

...get it right when they caution that the Democrats must be careful not to "own the war."

Yes, but the Dems took it further. They were afraid if they disowned the war and we were hit with another 9/11 terrorist type incident, they would forever be history.

This would not have been a problem if the Democrats had not allowed 9/11 and the Iraq invasion to be conflated in the first place. They were too afraid to confront a popular president with the reality that a majority in the world understood. And once they fell in line and voted for the AUMF, their ability to influence was lost, and the war OWNED them.

Salvation was gained through the incredible aptitude of the Repubs to screw up so badly that even the MSM had to report their corrupt activities.

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell

Gettysburg, could you please say what you think the Democrats SHOULD DO, rather than just this:

"The Democrats, to be successful, must attempt to beat the president at his own game, not by waging an all out war with the policies of his administration. That tactic, like that of our military in Iraq, is destined to fail. "

What... other than trying to capitalize on fear; stoking that fear; taking credit for his most horrid failure (911) and conflating it with a country that had nothing to do with it; starting a pre-emptive war based on lies; lying and rewarding his oil cronies... is the "president's game?"

And how, I humbly ask, do you suggest we "beat him at it?"

Jan Knaus

So then what? The Republicans hit the road with we agree we need to fund the war. The Republicans will say we've never thought about not funding the war, but the Democrats have threatened. We'll train, we'll provide more armor, give us the money. WIN WIN WIN, FOR REPUBLICANS, Win Win for the military/industrial complex.

I think the issue is the war was unnecessary, why are we there? Because the President stepped in crap, we have to clean his mess up? He designed this entrapment of Americans to support his goal of militarism.

How about, we tell it like it is, America is sick and tired of those who think Americans should support a militaristic and expansionist Government. Because of this President's overreach, we begin to think outside the box the President has forced us into.

We will no longer be the policeman of the world, expending our son's and daughters and our treasure for whomever bribes our officials. Or allowing foreign Governments to enslave or leash us to accomplish their own goals.

What price does Bush and his supporters pay for this attack on what the American people thought was sacred. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, killing innocent people, with bombs in the name of some preemptive strike.

What price does he pay for opening Pandoras Box?

When other nations will claim the same right, of premption? Which in turn feeds the monster of militarism and expansionism

There was/is no penalty for forcing this doctrine on the people, so why not force AMERICANS to become a nation of Expansion and militarism.
They had every thing to gain but NOTHING TO LOSE.

We need to cleanse ourselves of these parasites.
They've got to have risked something, and they should lose it; not the good people. We have to counter this doctrine.

Think of the poor peasants of Japan, who when the nation went militaristic, the peasants eventually suffered the dread of Nuclear bombs.

Maybe a new direction for America, one of Neutrality, maybe we revoke the trade agreements, forcing Commercial interests into stepping up.
I want to reflect more on the matter, but for sure the Neocons and the Expansionist and military regime should be made to pay for the overreach, the usurption of civility.

What short window? The Republicans have until the next election, Plenty of time to make more mischief.

Six months from now Mitch, Bushes bi... will still be blocking the vote to withdraw. Until we get more Democrats in place we can't force didly, without looking like Cut and run, slow bleed, under cutting the war on terror, or what ever slogan the Republicans paint us.

Think how stirred up the population would become if some major incident occurred on the scale of 9/11.

Remember the line "We have to be right all the time, they only have to be right once" Republican party line. Can you trust the Democrats to get it right. "Appeasement didn't work, remember.

What if the Spring, brings a lot of casulties in Afganistan, Republicans bringing out the ghost of Bin laden, telling us their close to getting Bin Laden, give us more troops, Hurry, hurry the window is closing. Then who gets blamed for not getting Bin laden? For not providing more troops for the war on terror?

I don't really trust the Democrats any more than the Republicans, when the rubber meets the road, they'll say anything to get elected. They're politicians.

You ask where they'll get more troops? How else can proponents of war, having come to power, force a nation, into a war machine? Patriotric Fervor. Attacking the peace movement, turning a blind eye when American Legion or VFW flexes it's muscle against Peaceniks. Claims of Unamerican activities, can silence critics. jingoism,

Those who advocate militarism, have years of experience and many tools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingoism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 During the 19th century in the United States, journalists called this attitude spread-eagleism. This patriotic belligerence was intensified by the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana harbor that led to the Spanish-American War.

One of those frequently accused of Jingoism was Theodore Roosevelt, who answered in an October 8, 1895 interview in the New York Times, "There is much talk about 'jingoism'. If by 'jingoism' they mean a policy in pursuance of which Americans will with resolution and common sense insist upon our rights being respected by foreign powers, then we are 'jingoes'."

Chuckie: You are just missing my point. The Murtha approach doesn't deny any troops that are ready. " Then who gets blamed for not getting Bin laden? For not providing more troops for the war on terror?" Not us. We'll send any as long as they all have the minimum military R & R requirement, full body armor plus trauma pads for every soldier, all uparmored vehicles, full training , etc. After all, these Good Christian Folk are not about to say to the fathers and mothers and husbands and wives of America,"Too bad, we're sending in your sons or daughters without the above." To repeat once again, the Repugs will have to start stripping Marines off embassies around the world or scaring the shit out of the South Koreans, the Japanese, possibly the Chinese and certainly Americans by removing some troops from South Korea.
If in their anger the Republicans say, This is just a game, you just want to cut and run." we calmly say " Not at all, just answer the question , "do you want to..." ." And we never deviate until we get an answer. Always maintain the frame, always maintain the focusl

"That's my point,are we going to tell the Republicans , No we're not going to do these things. Are we going to cut the funding to accomplish these things? " WE DON'T HAVE TO CUT THE FUNDING TO STOP THE 'SURGE'. THEY CAN'T GET ALL OF THIS DONE WITH THE MEANS THEY HAVE NOW.

"Do you think this will end the conflict, the debate?"NO, NOT AT ALL. BUT ITS A BEGINNING. AFTER WE USE THIS TECHNIQUE ON THE 'SURGE' WE TURN IT ON THE REMAINING TROOPS. "The Democrats are not going to pull the troops out, they say their against the surge, because of the grievances you mentioned. Satisfy the grievances and what issue can you win ? " THE GRIEVANCES CAN'T BE SATISFIED. MILITARY LAND FORCES ARE CLOSE TO BROKEN NOW. THERE ARE SIX MILLION PEOPLE IN BAGDAD, 28 DISTINCT FACTIONS, A CIVIL WAR AS SAVAGE AS "BLOODY KANSAS" DURING OUR CIVIL WAR WHERE THE SOCIOPATHS AND PSYCHOPATHS ROSE TO THE TOP. 20,000 TROOPS, 40,000 TROOOPS, MAKES NO DIFFERENCE, GRAINS OF SALT TOSSED INTO A FURNACE, AND THE MILITARY KNOWS THIS. WE FORCE A PULLOUT TO PROTECT THE REMAINDER OF THE AMERICAN MILITARY, TO PROTECT AMERICAN SECURITY INTERESTS FROM THE " ideological grandiosity and historical narcissicism' AS JOSH PUTS IT. THIS KIND OF CHESS IS RELATIVELY NEW TO THE PEACE MOVEMENT BUT IT HAS TO BE DONE FOR OUR AND THE COUNTRY'S LONG TERM INTERESTS

"In the mean time the troops that are there presently will be asked to do more? Okay you give longer time for R&R. Less soldiers, doesn't mean alleviating the attacks on the remaining." NO, IT DOESN'T.

"To use TJKINGS sports analogy, If you want to take the field with less men, the offense just kicks your butt worse. Who loses? "DON'T BUY INTO THE ARGUMENT THAT THE EXTRA 20 OR 40 THOUSAND WILL MAKE A SERIOUS DIFFERENCE. IT WON'T. WE ARE, IN FACT, RIGHT. THEY ARE WRONG

The Democrats have been snookered, and they just keep digging deeper. Get control of both houses and then you'll have a chance. THE LATTER IS THE GOAL OF ALL THE ABOVE.

History has proven time and again, all it takes is one event, and the fervor for revenge will overtake the peace movement.