How about we begin by finding the breaking point wrt our involvement? Clearly 160,000 troops isn't enough to impose our will but is too many for any less ambitious mission.

So, I have heard numbers like 50,000, 75,000. Why not draw down to that level asap? The long term is now. Iraq is a failed state, and nothing we do is going to change that. It seems to me that 50,000 troops is a maintenance level - enough to defend our real interests (get rid of AQ, prevent massive encroachments by neighbors). Ok, maybe fewer would be needed but I have a hard time seeing the need for more. Realistically, we're talking 30-40 thousand to provide force and supply line protection and 10-20 thousand as a maneuver element.

I'd say the real reasons that this course is resisted are:

(1) The Prez would have to admit that he won't have any real success in Iraq, and that "losing Iraq" isn't the fault of the Democrats.

(2) The enablers would all be gored in various ways - less loose treasure at the Pentagon, fewer juicy contracts, less room for Foreign Policy types to make shit up about the Future of Iraq. In other words, the pro-war lobby would not be excited about this option.

(3) It is a half measure, and everyone knows it. There may be unbearable pressure from the electorate to just get out.

(4) No war with Iran

Why is it, in your opinion, that we are "not willing to push forcefully toward our (apparent) aim, i.e., a Shi'ite government that will not be and Iranian puppet and that will secure the oil flow? And if we were willing what would we be doing differently?

[...] the US is no longer seen as an honest broker....

This is an important point. Eventually there will have to be some kind of international cooperative efforts toward stability, and sooner than in "less consequential" (sorry, don't how else to put it) countries such as Somalia. It is in no one's interest that this fester for twenty years. But U.S. credibility is shot, and we may not be able to be part of those efforts until it is rebuilt.

And conversations about U.S. credibility and the appropriate role of the U.S. in the world are not being held at the moment. If those conversations do not get underway (and I don't think they will), the dialogue with regard to Iraq will be somewhat dissociated from its natural context.

At this point, they're just debating the best plan to get us out.

Well, that's the essence of our disagreement at reading the tea leaves. I do not think that any of them really are trying to figure out a way to get out. I think they are all trying to figure out a way to not have this just be a complete catastrophic loss, with nothing to show for it except a smoking carcass of a country and thousands of lost American lives.

I would say, rather, that they are trying to find a way to stabilize the situation as much as possible, that leaves the US with basing privileges, has a friendly government that is not allied with Iran and is still producing oil that is being sold onto world markets.

And they're also trying to reassure their potential democratic supporters that they are indeed against the war and want to end it. But I really believe that "ending it" includes a very substantial permanent US presence in the minds of everyone running except Kucinich, Gravel and Paul. Richardson may be an exception, but I tend to think he is more like Gravel--stating a policy wish rather than a plan.

I would much rather be wrong. But if I were, I believe they would be speaking much more strongly and forthrightly (like McGovern in 72) than they are. It's a hugely popular issue. Shilly-shallying, to me, is more remniscent of "peace with honor."

That said, we (meaning the netroots) have been vey successful at moving them rhetorically off this commitment. They've become more obscurantist. The next step is get them to forthright commitment for withdrawal. And I still say, that means confronting the issue of the end result being an Iran in a long period of civil conflict, with all actors (except the Kurds, maybe) quite strontly anti-American.

As others have said, it seems to me that that end result is the only plausible one. If they won't face up to it, we're in for a long period of thankless occupation.

Your predictions of what will actually happen prior to the election are dead on but non-Bush is not a policy anymore than not-Clinton was.

These comments by JA are so foolish and any plan based on them will not work.

Yes, I think you're right.

But the point is that this what the foreign policy consensus in Washington is. This is what your democratic candidates are proposing. This is why the Democratic candidates provide incoherent answers to questions about Iraq. This is the policy.

They won't talk about it because 1) as you say, it won't make things better and 2) it will tick people off.

This is why the democratic candidates don't talk about withdrawal, but redeployment. This is why that my Foreign Affairs magazine never acknowledges the plan for permanent occupation. (Although, there's an article in the issue that arrived yesterday that concedes that this whole democracy iniatiive was lie. Paging Peter Baker.)

This is not my idea. This is the program that was put in place in 2003 by Cheney, led to the funding of the permanent bases, and is still the plan going forward.

Yes, it won't work. But that's the plan. And until our leaders will state that plan and defend against criticisms like yours, that's what's gonna happen.

I swear, only the rabidness of this group and it's determination to throw power to more years of GOP madness could get me defend a sell-out like Clinton, but this is plain wrong: "Oh, my, I just got the full Hillary VFW clip. . . ." I mean, not what I just quoted, but the summary of what she said.  She wasn't defending the occupation.  She said, sure, there's good news in that particular region, but let's face it, there's no military solution. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

They are still trying to do it with the army they have. I believe the reason the 50,000 number is there at all is because they thought, from the start, that it is the max sustainable troop level.

As other people have said in different points of analysis, the consensus doesn't make any sense. It's the best way to avoid conceding the disaster, but doesn't make it any less a disaster. Worse, there is no popular support for the situation as it is--without gas rationing, draft or tax increases. That's why they can't talk about it. They're just going to do it.

Yes, I think these are also good questions to ask. How is this 5-10 year occupation sustainable? If it isn't, then how can it be effective? What is the plan that accompanies this occupation? How is it different from the current plan? What constitutes a reason to end it? We haven't ended any of the other occupations of states where we stripped out the military, so why would we expect this to end? At least in Japan and Germany, and, sorta, in Korea, reasonably representative governments emerged, and now are seen as sovereign. What is the path to a sovereign government in Iraq?

There's no shah to install. No exiled Karsai to appoint. Elections, fairly held, will send the US packing--if they could be held at all.

These questions are not being asked. These issues are not being raised. But it is, nonetheless, the plan--indefinite occupation, Mr, Micawber style, in the hope that something will turn up.

And, please, if you can find any persuasive evidence to the contrary, post it. The only plausible alternative I've heard is that the US withdraws something like 20-25K troops to kurdistan to protect those borders, and leaves substantial air power in Kuwait to deter an Iranian invasion. That is, of course, recipe for a long civil war, and engagement with US troops over Kirkuk. But I don't buy it. I've not heard this from any official source, just speculation by wonks. It would mean conceding that there would nothing positive that comes out of this war and occupation.

It's my view that the democrats should get ahead of this, say it's lost, that it's a disaster, and state a complete withdrawal timetable. No residual force, driven by the current rotation schedules. That is, soldiers rotate out, and replacements do not rotate back in again. Contractors are told to get out within 90 days, and all contracts are terminated at that time. This should, of course, be planned by the pentagon--such plans should be in place in any case (which was Clinton's well-made point).

But until the democrats start talking about withdrawal rather than redeployment to an unspecified location, I am going to read that as indefinite occupation of about 50,000 troops in the "enduring bases."

But that has nothing to do with the fact that someone...

Ackroyd, you are so full of it!

Um, Ackroyd didn't say that. Someone else did.

And yes, what was said lies fully within the range of "Things People Are Allowed To Say Here At TPMCafe."

And it's far from ranting. Maybe you don't like it, but it ain't ranting. 

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

Mooser,

You need to read a good deal more carefully.

The point of that question is that nobody has discussed in public in any clear way the plans for permanent occupation, even though those plans have clearly been in place since 2003, and have been followed through on since then, in the construction of bases to house those troops among other things.

The reason I refer to Cheney is because he, AFAICR, is the first to have mentioned bringing troops levels down to 50,000. In context, I raised the question of what he was thinking because if the US is planning to continue with that original plan, it seems clear that the assumptions Cheney was making were were clearly wrong, because he expected the drawdown to occur in a matter of months. In fact, I believe if in an honest and forthright discussion, those assumptions were assessed, it would be clear that there is no way to justify, under those assumptions, retaining an occupation force of 50,000 soldiers. As with the other questions I asked in that comment, these are questions that would be raised if our public servants were engaged in providing the public with information of what they are planning to do and why.

You're not the only person who has read my post and comments, and misapprehended some part of what I am trying to say. It's true that the way I've expressed it can be confusing, because I'm trying my best to figure out the case that has not been made in public that underlies the Washington Consensus that the US will occupy Iraq for the foreseeable future.

So there are things that are written underneath comments with my name on them, or on the original post, that I do not regard as compelling arguments. But it is certainly the case that some people must regard these arguments as compelling, so compelling that they not only want to act on them, but they also want to keep the fact that they plan to act upon them if not secret, not readily available to the American public. Or if not the arguments I've tried to impute to the DC consensus makers, then perhaps a commenter could come up with another argument, or reason. (A reason, for example, that I haven't mentioned is that Democrats may believe if they just let this disaster continue apace, that the Republican senators will cave. leaving them responsible for each stage of the war, from conception, to concession of defeat. Schumer said something much like that, right after the mid-terms. I've not mentioned these kinds of arguments because they are not part of the consensus that seems to have arisen among FP professionals in DC.)

I believe that the Democrats are complicit in this. A while ago (18 months?) Kerry made a very strong speech in opposition to the war. As I read it, I wondered "where are the permanent bases? Where is the denunciation of the plans for occupation? [which has been clear if you've been paying attention] Kerry HAS to know about those plans, because he voted on Appropriations bills to pay for those bases."

So I am trying to make it clear to the constituents and supporters of presidential candidates that they should consider the possibility the reason the anti-war statements they hear are couched in unclear language like "redeployment" and "force protection" is because, in fact they are not actually committed to "withdrawal." They are, in fact committed to a Washington Consensus of indefinite occupation.

They fear saying this directly. But they also can't use clear terms like "complete withdrawal within 15 months" because they don't plan on doing that, and they would be at grave risk if they made such a commitment and broke it.

Early on, tlees2 got angry at me and said, ultimately, that if we put enough pressure on them, then they'll be forced to withdraw. I agree with him. But, in my view, the first step in putting on this pressure is getting them to admit what they are really doing.

I've been posting comments like this post in various blogs for a while, and, as you can tell, spoke to people about it YKos, and am now convinced that this is correct. This week's chorus of media, Democrats and, of course, republicans of "The Surge is working" (however many caveats they present) seems to be more evidence to me.

But in the end, what this is about is that I am getting very tired of reading tea leaves, of guessing what elected officials really mean when they something about an issue this vital. I really think they need to be called on this. As I say above, the ones we should be pressuring at public sessions on campaign stops, are Republicans up in 08, and democratic presidential candidates.

"Do you support an indefinite occupation of Iraq?

"You say you are for 'redeployment' and for retaining troops in Iraq for various purposes. How many? For how long?"

"Can you please specify the latest possible date you would retain troops in Iraq beyond levels in, say, Egypt or Morocco?"

"Iraq's government is clearly not sovereign; the Congress dictates legislation it must pass, and changes of the Iraqi leadership are routinely discussed in Washington. How do see a sovereign Iraqi state with an government independent of the US coming to be?"

Questions like that.

Sorry to give such a long answer. But this was also intended for anyone else who has misapprehended what I have been saying.

The Democrats are convinced that even aproaching the "we are losing and must go, and do the things attendant on that" is political suicide.

What it comes down to is that the democrats have to recognize that there is no safe middle ground here.

Max understands:

I hate to say it, but this splendid development looks like it will be blown up by a failure to vacate Iraq. The Dem Leadership/Netroots family will become dysfunctional. The weakness and defensiveness of current Democratic criticism of the war is one tip-off. By the power of negative example, Jay Ackroyd provides the case that must be debunked.

In some ways, what I am saying sounds paranoid. I'm saying that I can't trust my own leaders to carry out a clear mandate that their constituents have given them. I'm saying I don't trust my favorite candidate for president when he or she says they will "redeploy."

By framing it this way ("case that must be debunked"), Max rightly gives the leadership the benefit of the doubt. Rather than say, as I do, that I think they're not telling the truth, he says that to preserve the party, the candidates have to speak out clearly, not cautiously or people like me will think they are not telling the truth. If you read through the comments here, you'll see people saying that if they are going to continue the occupation, then they won't vote democratic.

The continued occupation is a make or break issue for the democratic wing of the democratic party. A presidential candidate who is planning an indefinite occupation will not get the nomination. A candidate who wants to leave open the possibility of an indefinite occupation, depending on circumstances, won't get the nomination.

It was clear they understood this on the vote on the supplemental. Much jeering was directed at Clinton and Obama for stalling before the vote, because they feared both the consequence of "not supporting the troops" and the consequence of "supporting Bush's war."

What they are all trying to do is mollify the people opposed to an occupation (which is 60 percent plus of the American people and well over 80 percent of primary voters.) [note--I don't have a poll for that. That is part of the problem. If they were discussing these plans openly, then there would be a polling question: Do you support a ten year occupation of Iraq, as proposed recently by General Petraeus? Then I'd have numbers. But is there any doubt what those numbers would be.] while not tying their hands as president.

As Max says, this could fracture the party. If we can't get a clear commitment from at least one or two presidential candidates to end the occupation, then the party risks a bloodbath. We've already got Howie Klein supporting an independent against a Blue Dog. Matt Stoller is starting to identify Bush Dogs, Dem members of Congress who support Bush on key votes. And this is happening before they've come home from the summer break. They're being target prospectively, because it is becoming clear that the democratic leadership is going to cave on the war one more time.

Activists who would normally be working for presidential candidates could well peel off and start working on insurgent primary campaigns against incumbent democrats. And if those insurgent campaigns can paint the incumbent as pro-occupation, they could very easily lose a primary.

In any case, it would be a vicious internecine battle that would be cast as privileged beltway insiders trying to preserve their perks against candidates who would represent their districts. It would be ugly.

And it can be avoided. All that has to happen is for elected democratic officials to represent their constituents.

This is getting to the crux. This entire discussion is riveting, and I have a lot to say, I'm afraid.

One reason Jay Ackroyd is getting flak is this argument:

"I think if you are going to decide withdrawal is the best option even though it leaves Iraq as a failed state with no sovereign government, no military and mutually hostile neighbors all around, then you have to face up to the situation, and figure out whether, after all, it is better to stay longer rather than let the conflagration happen. (I think it is wishful thinking on the order of Bush/Cheney's candy and flowers to suggest that all will be well if the US will just leave.)"

This is the argument Bush is using to call Democrats pussies and surrender monkeys. So it is a red flag. It also needs to be addressed on the merits. I wonder if the Cheney school isn't fine with civil war in Iraq. 1) every other outcome puts Iran out on top. 2) As the Likud have shown, continually exacerbating threats to national security and then campaigning as strong on national defense works pretty well politically. 3) If Madeleine Albright can express exasperation at not being allowed to use US troops, does anybody think Cheney has the slightest compunction? What does "breaking the Army" mean? They will draw down if possible, maybe make "symbolic" withdrawals ala Warner, but I am not sure reducing to 50,000 and hunkering in the bases is set in stone. Its a best case, in their view.

Since Vietnam analogies are en vogue, it is worth remembering that Nixon didn't just beat McGovern, he also beat Humphrey. In other words, there are political dangers to running strongly antiwar, and also in trying to triangulate.

Someone upthread was criticized for drawing the analogy to Russia in Afghanistan, but I agree. The US is not directly challenged militarily, but the current foreign policy has military, societal, political and economic costs that are seriously weakening the country. Furthermore, I think the rest of the world was shocked by the conflict in Yugoslavia, and the air of American invincibility. There are currently strong incentives for the rest of the world to sit back and watch the US bleed, even in Europe. That would change post-withdrawal, as a new dynamic would evolve.

Afghanistan also seems to be as reasonable a model for post-withdrawal Iraq as any other. Very nasty, but not an apocryphal blood bath or descent to chaos. Although frequently evoked, it seems unlikely that Iraq's neighbors will get directly involved militarily. Probably the only military the Saudi's are willing to deploy is ours. I doubt they have the internal stability to risk invading. And how do they get to the central Sunni areas they presumedly would want to protect? And take on the Shia majority? The Turks might threaten Kurdistan, but would face a bloody battle encounter there. The US, NATO and the EU should also have enough leverage to constrain Turkey. Iran could intervene, but why would they? They would face American air power, probably our ground troops, and even if not, if the US military cannot suppress the Sunni insurgency, do the Iranians think they can? As someone said, they are playing chess, and winning at the moment. They have no reason to take on risk. Isn't it most likely that the international Sunni supporters and Shia supporters will act via proxies? Once we are out of the middle, we could start playing chess in this game too.

One other point that is taboo in the national discussion is that Iraq is not just a civil war, it is also a war of liberation. For that reason our withdrawal could facilitate the Iraqi's finding a new equilibrium.

So I agree with Jay Ackroyd, discussing the US desire to establish a permanent military presence is critical. Outside of Washington, there is likely little support for a permanent presence. Clinton or Obama are unlikely to lead such a discussion. After all, on Cheney's terms, and those terms are implicitly being accepted by the CW, withdrawal is a defeat. So the discussion must be led by the netroots, and in many ways is being led by the netroots, and it must be combined with a drive toward better Democratic/progressive representation in the Congress, in the media, and in the think tanks.

The notion that supporting a continued occupation, or refraining from taking action to end is not a political gamble, while taking action to end the occupation is a gamble seems to me to completely misread the electorate.

The popularity of Congress has plummeted since the midterms precisely because they were elected to end the occupation, and not only does it continue but the force levels have actually been escalated.

The gamble in remaining is that the party can keep a commitment from democrats and independents that is directly tied to withdrawal. Any idiot can see that the objective, whatever it is (although I am telling you that the objective has always been a client state in Iraq that would permit military bases), cannot be achieved. As you say, the proximate objective--the elimination of the Saddam Hussein regime has been attained. The ultimate goal of a free, democratic, US ally in Iraq was never attainable. That chimerical construct fades further into the realms of impossibility every time an American soldier kills another innocent Iraqi, and most of the times that a soldier kills someone resisting the US occupation.

I'm not claiming that that view is widely held. The widely held view is that the US should never have gotten involved in this stupid war, and it needs to be ended as soon as possible. If the democrats ignore that message, they are making a much bigger gamble than they would by heeding it.