Answering M.J. Rosenberg
Updated
The reason that the Democrats are not coming out forthrightly against the war is precisely because of MJ's attitude ( Where's the outrage?), which is nearly unanimous in the left blogosphere, very widely shared in the Democratic electorate and widely shared in the country as a whole.
Just get out. The US has been placed into a disastrous war by an incompetent. We're enduring the worst foreign policy debacle since 1812 and tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people have died, needlessly, treated as if their lives aren't worth a broken stick.
This is the electorate's consensus.
The Washiington consensus is very different. The Washington consensus is that the US will be in Iraq for at least five more years, probably longer. The permanent bases were the actual motivation for the war, and they will be filled up with 50,000-75,000 soldiers for some indefinite period of time.
Now you can rail away at that consensus, but consider what motivates it.
Iraq has no national defense force. It has no air force. It has no armor. It has no logisistical capability. There is no functioning chain of command. There is no cohesive Iraqi army. Hell, the country doesn't even have reliable access to electricity. What it has is a collection of loosely organized militias with access to small arms and explosives.
This will not defend the country from incursions from Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia or Iran, whether covert or overt.
Washington's FP and military community looks at this situation, and sees no alternative but to remain. If you saw Taylor Marsh at YKos, you heard a clear delineation of this DC consensus. This isn't a matter of reflexive use of force as the only solution by crazy neocons. This is a recognition that Iraq is a failed state without a sovereign government and without the capacity to defend itself. The US Congress passes resolutions declaring what laws Iraq must pass, while the Pentagon makes all military decisions. Iraq's government plays no role other than certifying US policy. And, these days, we're hearing talk of changing the government. That talk is taking place in Washington. And there can be no freely elected, sovereign government in Iraq, because, in the Washington consensus, those bases are more important than a reprentative government--and no represesentative government would permit military bases defending Israel and threatening Iran.
This leaves the Democratic candidates in a very difficult position. They are part of this Washington consensus. Their staffers tell them that it is irresponsible to call for a rapid withdrawal, and that it would be a disastrous policy. So they don't talk about withdrawal. They talk about redeployment. They leave room for those 50,000 soldiers to remain there for, variously, border protection, force protection, pursuit of terrorists, training. None of these candidates intends to leave. And none of them can say so. (Nor, you'll notice, will the gutless VSP say anything. They know how unpopular this will be. Hence all the bafflegab.
As for Richardson, I did not see the last debate. But he has, in the events I have seen, always couched his no residual forces position in arriving at a regional security agreement. Like MJ's cry for an international force to replace the US force, as in the Balkans, this is a pretty big instance of wishful thinking. Iraq is not the Balkans. It's bigger. There is oil involved, and it is surrounded by well-armed, mutually hostile neighbors who are very unlikely to quickly reach a security accord. The coalition forces are getting out, not coming in.
IMO, what the Democratic candidates need to do is stiffen their spines and tell the truth about this. They need to say "Bush has created a situation that cannot be unwound in a short space of time. We need to start unwinding it now, by ending the escalation and taking an honest look at what it will take to prevent a war that draws in every country in the region." Challenge Congress, particularly Senate Republicans, to face reality. But to do so effectively, they also have to face reality publicly.
Edwards is right when he says that the "war on terror" is a bumper sticker. But so are Democratic declamations that they will end the Iraq occupation. One reason this war happened is that it never left the bumper sticker level of discourse. The occupation cannot end unless the discussion of its end rises above the bumper sticker level of discourse.
UPDATE
Just so you don't think I'm just making all this up, Kevin Drum reads today's NYT:
The New York Times reports that the intelligence community will release a new assessment of Iraq's future on Thursday:
"The report says that there's been little political progress to date, and it's very gloomy on the chances for political progress in the future," said one Congressional official with knowledge of its contents.
....The report, which was intended to help anticipate events over the next 6 to 12 months, is "more dire in its assessments" than the administration has been in its own internal discussions, according to one senior official who has read it. But the report also warns, as Mr. Bush did on Wednesday, that an early withdrawal would lead to more chaos.
"It doesn't take a policy position," one official said. "But it leaves you with the sense that what we've been doing hasn't been working, but we can't let up, or it'll get worse."
The last paragraph is what this post is all about. I believe that is the Washington Consensus of the result of withdrawal, and that therefore, the WC continues to favor occupation for another FU and then reevaluate, with the eventual desired outcome of a friendly Iraq state that permits a permanent base of about 50,000 soldiers. And ponies for everyone.
My larger point is the real debate should be about whether temporizing in this way has been and is making the aftermath still worse than it would have been. Democrats have been avoiding laying out the issues in such a debate, because they, imo, largely agree with WC.
Oh, and note the frame: "an early withdrawal." Not "long-overdue." Not "as promised at least three years ago." "early." One more FU, coming up.
